Ukrainian Air Force
Discussion
Talksteer said:
Indeed, so far the Ukrainians are heading towards winning the war conventionally, the Russian surround and pound strategy isn't going to work... As more and more weapons flow into Ukraine and more civilians turn into increasingly experienced fighters they will simply get nibbled to death...
The closer Putin gets to losing the closer he will get to going chemical/biological. Then we have to decide whether our red line is really a red line, or we let him help himself. The problem is that the Bear is a bully, and he doesn't play by our nice rules. What's next on the shopping list - Georgia?
LotusOmega375D said:
Russians claiming to have shot down a Ukrainian Su-25 and 3 Mi-8 helicopters near Kharkiv. No confirmation of course, but shows that UAF is still active as an offensive force.
Well it doesn't, if you consider the Russian track record of telling the truth which is '0/10 must try harder'...!An interesting analysis of the use of drones (particularly TB-2) in Ukraine.
TDLR
Looking at the visual evidence of TB-2 attacks against air defence systems only they have already destroyed a greater value of Russian systems than the purchase cost of the TB-2 drones themselves.
Evidence from this conflict appears to show that TB-2 and other MALE type drones are survivable even against near pear adversaries.
The losses of TB-2 drones appear to be less than Ukrainian losses of manned aircraft despite them attacking air defence assets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1_t2VisYnY
Some other comments from me:
1: Part of the success of the the TB-2 is likely due to supporting assets. MALE type drones are pretty vulnerable to attack by aircraft all the way down to helicopters with flexible guns.
Drone vs Mig 29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k75SDuoAeU
The existence of the Ukrainian ground based air defence systems have limited the ability of the Russian Air Force to attack Ukrainian drones.
2: The second part of the success is also likely to intelligence support. The precise details of NATO intelligence support is not known and may not be publicly released for a very long time. NATO has assets like E3 and EC135 flying near Ukraine it also has space based ELINT as wells as synthetic aperture radar and photo graphic reconnaissance.
As a base minimum it is likely that NATO is helping with targeting but they may also be helping with ELINT so that TB-2 drones can avoid air defence assets and Russian early warning systems. Depending on levels of integration they may even be able to time flights to avoid Russian AWACs. The Ukrainians may also be getting feedback about their own ELINT tightness from NATO on the basis is we can detect you so can the Russians.
With regards to integration today it would be possible to share real time electronic warfare Intel just using video conferencing technology though they may have something more sophisticated!
It is also likely that ELINT will force air defence systems to be quiet as if the data can be handed over fast enough they can be targeted by artillery, hence it may be the case that a lot of these AD assets being destroyed by drones are not actually emitting.
3: Probably the main reason for lower losses for TB-2s than Ukrainian manned aircraft is likely down to the drones using long range precision weapons. This is mostly a factor of the drones being much newer than the manned aircraft. However this makes sense in the context of the video argument that achieving modern capabilities with drones is much cheaper than with manned aircraft which is why the Ukrainians have focused their spending there.
TDLR
Looking at the visual evidence of TB-2 attacks against air defence systems only they have already destroyed a greater value of Russian systems than the purchase cost of the TB-2 drones themselves.
Evidence from this conflict appears to show that TB-2 and other MALE type drones are survivable even against near pear adversaries.
The losses of TB-2 drones appear to be less than Ukrainian losses of manned aircraft despite them attacking air defence assets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1_t2VisYnY
Some other comments from me:
1: Part of the success of the the TB-2 is likely due to supporting assets. MALE type drones are pretty vulnerable to attack by aircraft all the way down to helicopters with flexible guns.
Drone vs Mig 29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k75SDuoAeU
The existence of the Ukrainian ground based air defence systems have limited the ability of the Russian Air Force to attack Ukrainian drones.
2: The second part of the success is also likely to intelligence support. The precise details of NATO intelligence support is not known and may not be publicly released for a very long time. NATO has assets like E3 and EC135 flying near Ukraine it also has space based ELINT as wells as synthetic aperture radar and photo graphic reconnaissance.
As a base minimum it is likely that NATO is helping with targeting but they may also be helping with ELINT so that TB-2 drones can avoid air defence assets and Russian early warning systems. Depending on levels of integration they may even be able to time flights to avoid Russian AWACs. The Ukrainians may also be getting feedback about their own ELINT tightness from NATO on the basis is we can detect you so can the Russians.
With regards to integration today it would be possible to share real time electronic warfare Intel just using video conferencing technology though they may have something more sophisticated!
It is also likely that ELINT will force air defence systems to be quiet as if the data can be handed over fast enough they can be targeted by artillery, hence it may be the case that a lot of these AD assets being destroyed by drones are not actually emitting.
3: Probably the main reason for lower losses for TB-2s than Ukrainian manned aircraft is likely down to the drones using long range precision weapons. This is mostly a factor of the drones being much newer than the manned aircraft. However this makes sense in the context of the video argument that achieving modern capabilities with drones is much cheaper than with manned aircraft which is why the Ukrainians have focused their spending there.
Also worth noting that many of the key Russian targets are being hit by cruise missiles launched hundreds of miles away over the Caspian Sea. But despite crossing huge distances of Ukrainian airspace, many of them are still not getting intercepted by Ukrainian air defences. Are they just too difficult to track, since they fly too low?
LotusOmega375D said:
Also worth noting that many of the key Russian targets are being hit by cruise missiles launched hundreds of miles away over the Caspian Sea. But despite crossing huge distances of Ukrainian airspace, many of them are still not getting intercepted by Ukrainian air defences. Are they just too difficult to track, since they fly too low?
Broadly yes.Once over land, even the non-stealthy ones can be difficult to detect (lot more clutter when trying to acquire low-level target over ground...), so without some sort of AWACS cover and a suitable intercept system that can receive real-time data from AWACS and intercept (or the sort of point-defence systems warships have), they're nearly invulnerable.
If they were launched vs a NATO-type defensive umbrella, then the non-stealthy subsonic ones would be picked up by AWACS and (resources permitting) interceptors would be despatched to shoot them down, or a short-range SAM system used if close enough to the missile's route. Supersonic ones, IF someone can get close enough, might get tagged by an AAM but that's about it. Stealthy ones are likely to be a bugger all-round, whatever the speed.
...which is why the West has been busy developing stealthy sub-sonic long-range stand-off munitions, and Russia has been developing super-/hypersonic long-range missiles.
havoc said:
LotusOmega375D said:
Also worth noting that many of the key Russian targets are being hit by cruise missiles launched hundreds of miles away over the Caspian Sea. But despite crossing huge distances of Ukrainian airspace, many of them are still not getting intercepted by Ukrainian air defences. Are they just too difficult to track, since they fly too low?
Broadly yes.Once over land, even the non-stealthy ones can be difficult to detect (lot more clutter when trying to acquire low-level target over ground...), so without some sort of AWACS cover and a suitable intercept system that can receive real-time data from AWACS and intercept (or the sort of point-defence systems warships have), they're nearly invulnerable.
If they were launched vs a NATO-type defensive umbrella, then the non-stealthy subsonic ones would be picked up by AWACS and (resources permitting) interceptors would be despatched to shoot them down, or a short-range SAM system used if close enough to the missile's route. Supersonic ones, IF someone can get close enough, might get tagged by an AAM but that's about it. Stealthy ones are likely to be a bugger all-round, whatever the speed.
...which is why the West has been busy developing stealthy sub-sonic long-range stand-off munitions, and Russia has been developing super-/hypersonic long-range missiles.
The early cruise missiles flew at around 200-500ft could navigate to a limited number of way points and were mainly intended to succeed by flying around SAM batteries and because they were to be launched in large numbers. Accuracy was fine for a nuclear armed version. In the 80's they added very primitive image recognition so that the missile could hit a single building provided you had a recent recon picture of it.
In the 90's they added GPS and in the 2000's they added the ability to be re-targeted in flight. Bundled in with all these updates is the ability of the weapon the carry around a large terrain database (goggle earth before google earth) which allows it to fly much lower and more dynamically. In many circumstances you can get very close to a target without needing to come over the horizon, it must be remembered that most SAM systems don't sit there emitting permanently at a high state of readiness so it can be possible for a cruise missile to emerge from below the horizon with insufficient time for a SAM system to locate, orientate and fire on it. In the case of larger systems it may also very rapidly get within their minimum ranges which can be several KM. Finally it is likely that the more modern variants pull some very severe terminal avoidance maneuvers which again makes hitting it very difficult given that the intercepting missile generally has to pull 3x the g's that the target is pulling.
I've never seen it discussed but I would also not be surprised if some newer cruise missiles have some degree to EW detection system so they are aware if targeted.
Notably the US fired plenty of Tomahawks at Syria through areas nominally protected by S400 to hit airfields nominally protected with point defence systems.
LotusOmega375D said:
So which RAF warplanes would Liz Truss send to the Ukrainian Air Force? They don’t have the personnel, training, or ground support for any of our types do they, not that we have all that many to hand over anyway!
Precisely. And it's very likely they'd get shot down or go u/s faster than we can replace them.I can't help feeling that the more the West supplies Ukraine, the longer it protracts the war, suffering and the inevitable outcome - which will be Putin getting a chunk for keeps.
As for Ukraine 'winning'; what is victory? To push the Russians back to the start line? To capture chunks of Russia? I can't see either happening.
And what's going on in Moldova? Perhaps there will be no stopping until Putin reaches the NATO border. That will be victory for Putin, and never mind the cost. He's getting on a bit now - this is his lunge for glory and the Motherland.
LotusOmega375D said:
So which RAF warplanes would Liz Truss send to the Ukrainian Air Force? They don’t have the personnel, training, or ground support for any of our types do they, not that we have all that many to hand over anyway!
At the risk of being laughed at (again), we've just seen the Hawk T1 fleet retired (less the Red Arrows). And the BAe Hawk T1 was a mainstay of RAF (and RN) fast jet training for a long time, including as a weapons trainer, and it had the capability of being pressed into service as a local air defense fighter with fits for centreline cannon pods and Sidewinder missiles. Simpler to look after than Typhoon and F-35. Lower operating costs. A training aircraft so an already trained pilot shouldn't take too much conversion-to-type training. And being a 40-year-old design, not much to worry about if the Russians were to capture any, either intact or damaged. Certainly not from an espionage point of view.
But I think the RAF/RN Hawk fleet was hugely reduced in size as retirement of the type approached, so how many serviceable airframes could we muster to transfer over? Obviously we (as a government/nation) wouldn't prioritise spares harvesting to service the needs of the RAFAT over rendering assistance to the Ukrainians in their hour of need, would we?
yellowjack said:
LotusOmega375D said:
So which RAF warplanes would Liz Truss send to the Ukrainian Air Force? They don’t have the personnel, training, or ground support for any of our types do they, not that we have all that many to hand over anyway!
At the risk of being laughed at (again), we've just seen the Hawk T1 fleet retired (less the Red Arrows). And the BAe Hawk T1 was a mainstay of RAF (and RN) fast jet training for a long time, including as a weapons trainer, and it had the capability of being pressed into service as a local air defense fighter with fits for centreline cannon pods and Sidewinder missiles. Simpler to look after than Typhoon and F-35. Lower operating costs. A training aircraft so an already trained pilot shouldn't take too much conversion-to-type training. And being a 40-year-old design, not much to worry about if the Russians were to capture any, either intact or damaged. Certainly not from an espionage point of view.
But I think the RAF/RN Hawk fleet was hugely reduced in size as retirement of the type approached, so how many serviceable airframes could we muster to transfer over? Obviously we (as a government/nation) wouldn't prioritise spares harvesting to service the needs of the RAFAT over rendering assistance to the Ukrainians in their hour of need, would we?
yellowjack said:
At the risk of being laughed at (again), we've just seen the Hawk T1 fleet retired (less the Red Arrows). And the BAe Hawk T1 was a mainstay of RAF (and RN) fast jet training for a long time, including as a weapons trainer, and it had the capability of being pressed into service as a local air defense fighter with fits for centreline cannon pods and Sidewinder missiles.
Simpler to look after than Typhoon and F-35. Lower operating costs. A training aircraft so an already trained pilot shouldn't take too much conversion-to-type training. And being a 40-year-old design, not much to worry about if the Russians were to capture any, either intact or damaged. Certainly not from an espionage point of view.
That makes a lot of sense, and would be all we could give apart from the Tranche 1 Typhoons that are also soon to be taken out of service.Simpler to look after than Typhoon and F-35. Lower operating costs. A training aircraft so an already trained pilot shouldn't take too much conversion-to-type training. And being a 40-year-old design, not much to worry about if the Russians were to capture any, either intact or damaged. Certainly not from an espionage point of view.
However, I've seen elsewhere an ex-Luftwaffe pilot say his conversion course from the MiG-29 to the EF was 6 months full time, and at best that could be reduced to 3 months, I'm not sure giving them EF's will be much use in the short term, but might be the way forward for 12 months time, if they have the pilots spare to be in Germany or UK or Italy training on them?
yellowjack said:
But I think the RAF/RN Hawk fleet was hugely reduced in size as retirement of the type approached, so how many serviceable airframes could we muster to transfer over? Obviously we (as a government/nation) wouldn't prioritise spares harvesting to service the needs of the RAFAT over rendering assistance to the Ukrainians in their hour of need, would we?
I think they had about 75 of them, but how many were flyable is another matter, as I believe spares were getting an issue, and certainley some were life ex'd IIRC, which is why those 75 are being RTP to keep the Reds flying until 2030!! The 20-25 lowest FI and hours of all the T1's have been selected as the Reds fleets and attrition replacements. That's why a few of the black ones are going through the paint booths now and getting a coat of shiny red paint.LotusOmega375D said:
So which RAF warplanes would Liz Truss send to the Ukrainian Air Force? They don’t have the personnel, training, or ground support for any of our types do they, not that we have all that many to hand over anyway!
UAVs, they don't need training as the "pilot" can be anywhere.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff