Ukrainian Air Force
Discussion
Simpo Two said:
If it been the other way round, would we instantly side with Russia? Methinks not.
If Ukraine had attacked Russia claiming it was because the Wagner Group was run by a bald Neo-Nazi, Putin was a steroid and chemotherapy addict, and a specialised military operation was required to protect the interests of ethnic Ukrainians then yes I think we would have instantly sided with Russia.Such a concept is absurd of course but so is this war.
Siko said:
Lots of good stuff in your post, to pick up on the double digit SAM issue, in a past life I flew trials against SA15 which is currently being used by Russia in Ukraine. It's an absolute ******* to defeat and that was from the latest western technology at the time. I doubt very much the poor ukrainians have anything decent to counter modern systems such as the SA15 in their ancient Mig 29s. Hence why I assume they are flying very limited operations on an opportunity basis and probably when Western intelligence tells them there is no double-digit threat in a certain area. Brave f****ers, I take my hat off to them.
For the first few days of this war, I didn't see any footage of modern SHORAD systems accompanying the Russian Ground Forces but now I'm increasingly seeing Buks, Tors, Tunguskas and even Pantsirs either being abandoned or destroyed whilst inactive. The Pantsirs seem to have been abandoned after suffering tyre failures but I can only conclude the others are running out of fuel / the crews are running out of supplies...otherwise how would platforms such as the TB2 survive?lornemalvo said:
Does anyone know anything about Israel's' Iron Dome anti missile system? I watched a brief piece on it and it seems very effective but also comparatively very cheap. I wondered if Ukraine was likely to get this system?
They've asked for it and the Ukrainian PM is putting a lot of pressure on Israel to either fall in line with the sanctions or provide them Iron Dome. Funny game the Israelis are playing to be fair given their traditional support base in the West is onboard with it all, but they very much seem to be staying out of this one for whatever reason....Siko said:
They've asked for it and the Ukrainian PM is putting a lot of pressure on Israel to either fall in line with the sanctions or provide them Iron Dome. Funny game the Israelis are playing to be fair given their traditional support base in the West is onboard with it all, but they very much seem to be staying out of this one for whatever reason....
A sizeable ethnic-Russian minority will do that...I think once this war went past a week, scaling up the air war became less and less likely.
Ok, the Russian air component has proved surprisingly unable to gain air supremacy, but does it really need it? If contested airspace means neither side are really flying much, then the Russian army seems perfectly capable of bludgeoning Ukraine into submission with artillery. More slowly than desired perhaps, but guns are much easier to replace than jet bombers. At this point, why risk an SU-34 when it cannot add anything to the war that a couple of self propelled artillery pieces could do in a few minutes. Sadly, the south seems guaranteed to fall, and neither air arm can do anything to make that/stop that from happening.
Ok, the Russian air component has proved surprisingly unable to gain air supremacy, but does it really need it? If contested airspace means neither side are really flying much, then the Russian army seems perfectly capable of bludgeoning Ukraine into submission with artillery. More slowly than desired perhaps, but guns are much easier to replace than jet bombers. At this point, why risk an SU-34 when it cannot add anything to the war that a couple of self propelled artillery pieces could do in a few minutes. Sadly, the south seems guaranteed to fall, and neither air arm can do anything to make that/stop that from happening.
Jake899 said:
I think once this war went past a week, scaling up the air war became less and less likely.
Ok, the Russian air component has proved surprisingly unable to gain air supremacy, but does it really need it? If contested airspace means neither side are really flying much, then the Russian army seems perfectly capable of bludgeoning Ukraine into submission with artillery. More slowly than desired perhaps, but guns are much easier to replace than jet bombers. At this point, why risk an SU-34 when it cannot add anything to the war that a couple of self propelled artillery pieces could do in a few minutes. Sadly, the south seems guaranteed to fall, and neither air arm can do anything to make that/stop that from happening.
Supplying artillery in bandit country is much more logistically challenging than getting bombs to airfield in friendly territory though.Ok, the Russian air component has proved surprisingly unable to gain air supremacy, but does it really need it? If contested airspace means neither side are really flying much, then the Russian army seems perfectly capable of bludgeoning Ukraine into submission with artillery. More slowly than desired perhaps, but guns are much easier to replace than jet bombers. At this point, why risk an SU-34 when it cannot add anything to the war that a couple of self propelled artillery pieces could do in a few minutes. Sadly, the south seems guaranteed to fall, and neither air arm can do anything to make that/stop that from happening.
I've not double checked the figures from this Twitter thread but there's a lot of trucking to be done.
https://twitter.com/xphs1/status/15059953501376225...
Depending on which figures you go with, every gun either needs a half or full truck load of ammunition every day to keep firing. Never mind food, fuel if they want to "shoot and scoot", replacement gun barrels etc. There's no end of pictures / video on Twitter of smashed Russian supply trucks which must be impacting operations.
Harpoon said:
Supplying artillery in bandit country is much more logistically challenging than getting bombs to airfield in friendly territory though.
I've not double checked the figures from this Twitter thread but there's a lot of trucking to be done.
https://twitter.com/xphs1/status/15059953501376225...
Depending on which figures you go with, every gun either needs a half or full truck load of ammunition every day to keep firing. Never mind food, fuel if they want to "shoot and scoot", replacement gun barrels etc. There's no end of pictures / video on Twitter of smashed Russian supply trucks which must be impacting operations.
Relying on soft skin wheeled resupply will also limit the available sites for setting up artillery positions. You either need to get the trucks to the guns, or the guns to the trucks. With SP artillery pieces this isn't quite such a nause, but with towed guns it's a right PITA. During the 1991 Gulf War we used American M548 tracked cargo carriers. Carrying capacity was limited to about 5 tonnes, but they're as mobile as the SP artillery they supported. But even these are reliant on wheeled trucks getting as far forward as possible to reduce track mileage for that final bit of to-ing and fro-ing. I've not double checked the figures from this Twitter thread but there's a lot of trucking to be done.
https://twitter.com/xphs1/status/15059953501376225...
Depending on which figures you go with, every gun either needs a half or full truck load of ammunition every day to keep firing. Never mind food, fuel if they want to "shoot and scoot", replacement gun barrels etc. There's no end of pictures / video on Twitter of smashed Russian supply trucks which must be impacting operations.
I suspect that the Russians haven't properly planned the logistical element of this "special military operation" of theirs. Either that or, as I think is common in many military forces world wide, the logistical services are never properly tested under extreme exercise conditions, simply because training areas are comparatively small, and "battles" conducted on them tend to roll backwards and forwards over the same places repeatedly. Which is OK for the "teeth arms" because they can approach contact from different directions, and treat objectives in different ways. But the logistical "snake" behind them is never really pushed to it's extremes, never truly tested, because the mileages between locations in the battle space are relatively small. And effective, efficient resupply over great distances is what wins wars. And then you look at the Ukrainians, and while their logistical arms are under greater pressure from enemy action, the distances they need to cover are not as great because they are the "home team" fighting closer to their peacetime central logistical depots.
Armoured vehicles are also designed/built around the concept of the "battlefield day". Ammunition and fuel capacities especially. It's based on a certain percentage of road miles, off road miles, and stationary engine running, with a smattering of 'in contact' fighting thrown in. But you can only exploit a full "battlefield day" from an individual callsign or formation if the logistics units can fully support it. Limit fuel, ammo, rations or water and you begin to force your opponent to make compromises, either in his range or in his combat capability. No army can fight indefinitely without resupply. No matter how terrifying the snake, if you part it's venomous head from it's body it ceases to intimidate. So it is with armies. Combat troops (head) are of no practical use without the logistics train (body). Or as General Pershing said: “Infantry wins battles, logistics wins wars.”
Keeping this on the air force theme, I am trying to look at this from a historically Russian perspective. My thinking is simply that Russia has never in its history actively gone out to secure air superiority. They fight close, their tactics seem to always be to rely on the industry and sheer numbers of their peoples. They know that they can replace trucks and artillery easily if need be. They know their men will fight where every other army would revolt. They know that they can lose high numbers of troops that no other nation would stomach.
Western military thinking has been since the first world war that before you move on the ground, you must have control of the skies. I don't believe Russia has ever had to learn that lesson. Building quality jets in quantity, and more challengingly, training pilots to fly them in a reactive, intelligent, co-ordinated way has always been something that the Russian armed forces have neglected, either by choice or necessity.
Russian air tactics have been by the most part either ground controlled interception or basically airborne artillery. They have since the second world war preferred airspace denial using ground to air missiles over air supremacy fighters.
I believe their most capable fighters, the MiG-29 family and the Su-27 family are terrific pieces of hardware, but produced relatively recently, and really as a political response to the "teen" series US fighters and then shoe horned into the order of battle somehow. We all know how different military arms squabble, and in Russia it's no exception. The air arm is still very much the little brother, without any historical and cultural pride. Britain loves and feeds its air force because it will forever be the summer of 1940.
We are horrified at the losses, and wonder why Russia doesn't use its aircraft more effectively. We're forgetting that for the Russians, this is how they do war, and it's always worked out how they want it.
And ramming a never ending stream of hungry, mis-informed soldiers against a wall has always worked out pretty well for them as a nation, at least from their perspective.
Air supremacy makes so much sense to us because we are surrounded by water. The same with America. The are both militarily speaking, islands. To attack you must come on the water or over the water. If you control the air you cannot be invaded. Continental powers don't think like that. They know however many bees there are, the Bear always gets the honey.
Western military thinking has been since the first world war that before you move on the ground, you must have control of the skies. I don't believe Russia has ever had to learn that lesson. Building quality jets in quantity, and more challengingly, training pilots to fly them in a reactive, intelligent, co-ordinated way has always been something that the Russian armed forces have neglected, either by choice or necessity.
Russian air tactics have been by the most part either ground controlled interception or basically airborne artillery. They have since the second world war preferred airspace denial using ground to air missiles over air supremacy fighters.
I believe their most capable fighters, the MiG-29 family and the Su-27 family are terrific pieces of hardware, but produced relatively recently, and really as a political response to the "teen" series US fighters and then shoe horned into the order of battle somehow. We all know how different military arms squabble, and in Russia it's no exception. The air arm is still very much the little brother, without any historical and cultural pride. Britain loves and feeds its air force because it will forever be the summer of 1940.
We are horrified at the losses, and wonder why Russia doesn't use its aircraft more effectively. We're forgetting that for the Russians, this is how they do war, and it's always worked out how they want it.
And ramming a never ending stream of hungry, mis-informed soldiers against a wall has always worked out pretty well for them as a nation, at least from their perspective.
Air supremacy makes so much sense to us because we are surrounded by water. The same with America. The are both militarily speaking, islands. To attack you must come on the water or over the water. If you control the air you cannot be invaded. Continental powers don't think like that. They know however many bees there are, the Bear always gets the honey.
Edited by Jake899 on Wednesday 23 March 06:42
Not this time. Bear will get his paw chopped off.
I think it is purely down to how much suffering the Ukrainian government are prepared to witness (and not back down), and the extent to which the western allies are prepared to underwrite the financial costs of the defence. The industrial might, coupled with the commitment of the Ukrainian people.
But I agree about the airspace and history and it makes sense given the lack of coordinated control.
I think it is purely down to how much suffering the Ukrainian government are prepared to witness (and not back down), and the extent to which the western allies are prepared to underwrite the financial costs of the defence. The industrial might, coupled with the commitment of the Ukrainian people.
But I agree about the airspace and history and it makes sense given the lack of coordinated control.
Jake899 said:
And ramming a never ending stream of hungry, mis-informed soldiers against a wall has always worked out pretty well for them as a nation, at least from their perspective.
Pretty much this.Total state control of the media also allows the brain washing of the peasants to keep the facts and reality away from the masses so they don't revolt against the Kremlin.
Siko said:
lornemalvo said:
Does anyone know anything about Israel's' Iron Dome anti missile system? I watched a brief piece on it and it seems very effective but also comparatively very cheap. I wondered if Ukraine was likely to get this system?
They've asked for it and the Ukrainian PM is putting a lot of pressure on Israel to either fall in line with the sanctions or provide them Iron Dome. Funny game the Israelis are playing to be fair given their traditional support base in the West is onboard with it all, but they very much seem to be staying out of this one for whatever reason....havoc said:
A sizeable ethnic-Russian minority will do that...
Iron Dome is a short range system, with a maximum range of 43 miles (but that's against ballistic rockets). Useful for defending a small, densely populated region like Israel. But Israel only have 10 of the things! Any more than a couple couldn't be given to Ukraine without compromising their own security.The Ukrainians have their own S-300s which are a long range system probably more suited to their own needs.
The Israelis have a tacit cooperation with Russia in Syria, where they can target Hezbollah/Iranian assets. Who are fighting on the side of the Assad regime, who are also backed by Russia. if Russia stopped allowing this they'd have to either stop striking such assets, or risk direct confrontation with Russian forces.
It also lines up Israel as a potential mediator between the parties, whereas sanctions would have a relatively limited effect due to the small size of Israel (Russia exports ~$1.6 bn to Israel per year, compared to Germany's $21 bn, and the UK's $15 bn).
ShortBeardy said:
Not this time. Bear will get his paw chopped off.
I think it is purely down to how much suffering the Ukrainian government are prepared to witness (and not back down), and the extent to which the western allies are prepared to underwrite the financial costs of the defence. The industrial might, coupled with the commitment of the Ukrainian people.
But I agree about the airspace and history and it makes sense given the lack of coordinated control.
Indeed, so far the Ukrainians are heading towards winning the war conventionally, the Russian surround and pound strategy isn't going to work if the defends refuse to give up as the numbers of Ukrainian fighters in the major cities will actually outnumber the attackers. Somewhere like Kyiv with a population of 3 million is likely able to field half a million fighters if they can get enough armaments in, which they can at the moment as it is not encircled.I think it is purely down to how much suffering the Ukrainian government are prepared to witness (and not back down), and the extent to which the western allies are prepared to underwrite the financial costs of the defence. The industrial might, coupled with the commitment of the Ukrainian people.
But I agree about the airspace and history and it makes sense given the lack of coordinated control.
Battles like Fallujah in Iraq were against ~4000 insurgents and they took 13,000 Coalition troops to remove over a period of over a month. In Mosul it took 100,000 soldiers to remove 10,000 IS fighters.
Also compare how a new fighter is created on both sides, on the Ukrainian side they essentially have to give somebody a weapon and you have a motivated fighter who is already in the combat zone, knows the local area so needs no orientation, is already logistically supported for a good deal of their needs, I would assume that in most cases they will be working with effectively an apprenticeship model of training. Because they come from all walks of life many of them also bring useful trades. Compare and contrast with a dubiously motivated 19 year old conscript who you have to train, ship thousands of miles and then bring all their logistical support across bandit country. They then have to take the initiative on the attack against people defending their homeland.
The Russians are also not attacking en mass because they are getting attacked by small units along the entire lengths of their incursions and so they need to allocate more weapons to route security. As more and more weapons flow into Ukraine and more civilians turn into increasingly experienced fighters they will simply get nibbled to death.
The longer this goes on the less chance the Russians have.
lornemalvo said:
Does anyone know anything about Israel's' Iron Dome anti missile system? I watched a brief piece on it and it seems very effective but also comparatively very cheap. I wondered if Ukraine was likely to get this system?
I google it and despite a good source, I’m still not entirely convinced this photo is real!
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff