Ukrainian Air Force
Discussion
aeropilot said:
The 30 x Tranche 1 Typhoons that are supposed to be going to be retired early, after the announcement made in Sept 2021....(even though they would have less than 50% of their life used and BAe have since said could be upgraded to latest Tranche levels) are the only thing we have spare, and realistically, we don't have those spare.
I thought the French were going to give them the recently retired Mirage 2000's that were all retired from French AF use late last year and are in storage.
Probably quicker conversion to those from Mig-29's, being similar era, tech etc.
They need something soon, as said, time is running out as Russia are starting to learn by their mistakes and sort out their own mess....
I still think the effectiveness of S-300/S-400 SAM systems used by Ukraine and RF are limiting use of aviation assets by both sides over the front lines....
Question is, have the Tornadoes been broken down for coke cans yet? If not...I thought the French were going to give them the recently retired Mirage 2000's that were all retired from French AF use late last year and are in storage.
Probably quicker conversion to those from Mig-29's, being similar era, tech etc.
They need something soon, as said, time is running out as Russia are starting to learn by their mistakes and sort out their own mess....
I still think the effectiveness of S-300/S-400 SAM systems used by Ukraine and RF are limiting use of aviation assets by both sides over the front lines....
aeropilot said:
The 30 x Tranche 1 Typhoons that are supposed to be going to be retired early, after the announcement made in Sept 2021....(even though they would have less than 50% of their life used and BAe have since said could be upgraded to latest Tranche levels) are the only thing we have spare, and realistically, we don't have those spare.
Doesn't Tranche 1 have air to ground limitations?Evanivitch said:
aeropilot said:
The 30 x Tranche 1 Typhoons that are supposed to be going to be retired early, after the announcement made in Sept 2021....(even though they would have less than 50% of their life used and BAe have since said could be upgraded to latest Tranche levels) are the only thing we have spare, and realistically, we don't have those spare.
Doesn't Tranche 1 have air to ground limitations?The RAF were the only ones that wanted an air-to-ground capability IIRC, which is why they had to wait so long for that to come along later, as all other customers took priority.
Not sure how 'rough field' capable the Typhoon is either, as I've seen reported that while the Ukrainians and others have been asking for F-16's, there is talk that the F-16 is 'too delicate' from the current level of preparation of the Ukr airfields.
I suspect that could apply to Typhoon as well. Not sure about the ex-FAF Mirage 2000's though?
Best option is all those first gen A/B versions of the Gripen that have been retired from Swedish AF inventory and are sitting in storage at Saab.....but that's quite a big political football to kick around, not to mention financial, as Saab have been trying to flog them off.
aeropilot said:
I still think the effectiveness of S-300/S-400 SAM systems used by Ukraine and RF are limiting use of aviation assets by both sides over the front lines....
I think this is the bottom line - look what Russia are using at the moment. Limited short-range ground attacks by SU-25 and taking losses while they're at it, otherwise it's mostly very long range missiles while they're still in their own airspace.I don't really see what giving more aircraft to the UAF will achieve in the short-term, other than let them be familiar with western types of course.
Krikkit said:
aeropilot said:
I still think the effectiveness of S-300/S-400 SAM systems used by Ukraine and RF are limiting use of aviation assets by both sides over the front lines....
I think this is the bottom line - look what Russia are using at the moment. Limited short-range ground attacks by SU-25 and taking losses while they're at it, otherwise it's mostly very long range missiles while they're still in their own airspace.I don't really see what giving more aircraft to the UAF will achieve in the short-term, other than let them be familiar with western types of course.
How many A-10's are sitting in the desert at AMARC?
aeropilot said:
They could do with more SEAD ability.......the more S-300/S-400 batteries they knock out the better the chances of using aircraft in the air-ground role.
How many A-10's are sitting in the desert at AMARC?
If SEADs is the game then you want a two seater like the Prowler/Growler/Raven.How many A-10's are sitting in the desert at AMARC?
How long would it take to retrain them on Harriers, which would actually be useful in Ukraine taking off without the need for a runway or airfield. There's still a load of ex-RAF GR9s in deep storage over at Davis Monthan. Bit of negotiation to get them back (we'll buy some more F35s). If it can be done in a year then it will still be worthwhile, after all the US Abrams tanks are not expected to be in Ukraine use until the end of this year.
Edited by FourWheelDrift on Thursday 9th February 11:13
FourWheelDrift said:
How long would it take to retrain them on Harriers, which would actually be useful in Ukraine taking off without the need for a runway or airfield. There's still a load of ex-RAF GR9s in deep storage over at Davis Monthan. Bit of negotiation to get them back (we'll buy some more F35s). If it can be done in a year then it will still be worthwhile, after all the US Abrams tanks are not expected to be in Ukraine use until the end of this year.
I think the Harrier is regarded as being towards the more difficult end of the "how hard is it to fly" spectrum, so probably quite a lot of training... Evanivitch said:
aeropilot said:
They could do with more SEAD ability.......the more S-300/S-400 batteries they knock out the better the chances of using aircraft in the air-ground role.
How many A-10's are sitting in the desert at AMARC?
If SEADs is the game then you want a two seater like the Prowler/Growler/Raven.How many A-10's are sitting in the desert at AMARC?
Well, one of them, anyway.
A10 doesn't have the EW suite to be effective at SEAD. It could be a partner airframe carrying additional ordnance to support an F16 or F/A18, but otherwise it's no more effective than their MiG29s...possibly less-so given the lower agility.
Block 50 and later F16s have some SEAD capability, but I believe the F/A18 Growler is probably the most capable current airframe (EA6Bs are now razor blades, pretty sure the EF111A's are too).
The obvious answer is the Growler - it's robust enough (given it was designed for USMC use) to deal with some degree of rough-field, it's just whether the EW suite on it is too sensitive tech to risk falling into Russian (Chinese) hands.
I’m Raf and have worked with a load of the typhoon ground crew. We’re all in agreement there is no way they’re going to get hold of euro fighter. It would take far too long to train pilots and engineers.
If I was the uk government. I would be offering every country that has current ex soviet era aircraft a discount on eurofighter if they donate their existing soviet era aircraft to Ukraine.
This has the added advantage of some of the existing Ukraine spares etc possibly being cross compatible. Limits the training time of both pilots and engineers. Yes there might be some difference between mod states and variant standards for Ukraine migs with other ex soviet block migs. But the difference in those is bound I be far less than trying to train them on eurofighter.
Although having said that. It could lead to lucrative deals with Ukraine to supply eurofighter and support for decades to come.
If I was the uk government. I would be offering every country that has current ex soviet era aircraft a discount on eurofighter if they donate their existing soviet era aircraft to Ukraine.
This has the added advantage of some of the existing Ukraine spares etc possibly being cross compatible. Limits the training time of both pilots and engineers. Yes there might be some difference between mod states and variant standards for Ukraine migs with other ex soviet block migs. But the difference in those is bound I be far less than trying to train them on eurofighter.
Although having said that. It could lead to lucrative deals with Ukraine to supply eurofighter and support for decades to come.
Mave said:
I think the Harrier is regarded as being towards the more difficult end of the "how hard is it to fly" spectrum, so probably quite a lot of training...
Near the top. It was only the very best experienced RAF pilots that got to fly harrier. I know one ex tornado pilot that tried 2 times to convert to the harrier and failed. It was quite few orderes of magnitude more difficult to fly as a conventional aircraft. Before you got in to flying it in the stovl role at night in bad weather.
To much emphasis on potential types of aircraft in most of these postings. Flying these aircraft is probably the simplest part of the whole business.
Where is the maintenance expertise and spares holding? Without that after a couple of missions (hopefully) all of the aircraft would simply be ornaments. All of the type being proposed require huge amounts of maintenance for every 'flying hour'. Realistically you could extend that somewhat, but the faults will multiply tot he point where it is either ineffective or dangerous to operate it.
Teaching technicians to fault find and repair complex systems is a much more complicated job than getting the 'driver' trained in new systems. When pressing the button does not work, finding the fault and repairing it can be horribly complex. So you would need the full spares and support service.
Some people have already posted the possibility of Mig 29s and then discussed the problems of differing modifications and configurations - introducing something like the F-16 would simple result in the situation of so many African states where the air force is neatly parked in the dispersals - and completely inoperative!
The Migs and similar types are probably the best solution, but even that is not simple and certainly not quick.
Where is the maintenance expertise and spares holding? Without that after a couple of missions (hopefully) all of the aircraft would simply be ornaments. All of the type being proposed require huge amounts of maintenance for every 'flying hour'. Realistically you could extend that somewhat, but the faults will multiply tot he point where it is either ineffective or dangerous to operate it.
Teaching technicians to fault find and repair complex systems is a much more complicated job than getting the 'driver' trained in new systems. When pressing the button does not work, finding the fault and repairing it can be horribly complex. So you would need the full spares and support service.
Some people have already posted the possibility of Mig 29s and then discussed the problems of differing modifications and configurations - introducing something like the F-16 would simple result in the situation of so many African states where the air force is neatly parked in the dispersals - and completely inoperative!
The Migs and similar types are probably the best solution, but even that is not simple and certainly not quick.
MB140 said:
If I was the uk government. I would be offering every country that has current ex soviet era aircraft a discount on eurofighter if they donate their existing soviet era aircraft to Ukraine.
Seems a smart move too politically in terms of putting us one step removed from angering the Russians. But I wonder if that's the issue for some of those states with Soviet aircraft who'd prefer it to be direct from the UK.Mave said:
FourWheelDrift said:
How long would it take to retrain them on Harriers, which would actually be useful in Ukraine taking off without the need for a runway or airfield. There's still a load of ex-RAF GR9s in deep storage over at Davis Monthan. Bit of negotiation to get them back (we'll buy some more F35s). If it can be done in a year then it will still be worthwhile, after all the US Abrams tanks are not expected to be in Ukraine use until the end of this year.
I think the Harrier is regarded as being towards the more difficult end of the "how hard is it to fly" spectrum, so probably quite a lot of training... Plus the USMC have spares recovered all the ex-RAF ones already to keep their fleet flying until fully converted to F-35B, that's why they bought them...to be used as christmas trees............and they are pretty much stripped hulks ready for scrapping or close to that, from what I understand.
havoc said:
Evanivitch said:
aeropilot said:
They could do with more SEAD ability.......the more S-300/S-400 batteries they knock out the better the chances of using aircraft in the air-ground role.
How many A-10's are sitting in the desert at AMARC?
If SEADs is the game then you want a two seater like the Prowler/Growler/Raven.How many A-10's are sitting in the desert at AMARC?
Well, one of them, anyway.
A10 doesn't have the EW suite to be effective at SEAD. It could be a partner airframe carrying additional ordnance to support an F16 or F/A18, but otherwise it's no more effective than their MiG29s...possibly less-so given the lower agility.
UKr can't have many Su-25's left, and at some point if the SAM threat is reduced through SEAD means, they are going to need decent CAS platform, and old A-10's would be about the best bet (given the USAF having been trying to get rid of them for years)
surely the answer here is a multi way deal if the Ukrainians cant fly and maintain our aged stock.
The Ukrainians get the old jets they can fly and the countries with them get back-filled from countries like us given they might have existing stocks not due for replacement or at least don't have the imminent need the Ukrainians have.
The Ukrainians get the old jets they can fly and the countries with them get back-filled from countries like us given they might have existing stocks not due for replacement or at least don't have the imminent need the Ukrainians have.
Pete54 said:
To much emphasis on potential types of aircraft in most of these postings. Flying these aircraft is probably the simplest part of the whole business.
Where is the maintenance expertise and spares holding? Without that after a couple of missions (hopefully) all of the aircraft would simply be ornaments. All of the type being proposed require huge amounts of maintenance for every 'flying hour'. Realistically you could extend that somewhat, but the faults will multiply tot he point where it is either ineffective or dangerous to operate it.
Teaching technicians to fault find and repair complex systems is a much more complicated job than getting the 'driver' trained in new systems. When pressing the button does not work, finding the fault and repairing it can be horribly complex. So you would need the full spares and support service.
Some people have already posted the possibility of Mig 29s and then discussed the problems of differing modifications and configurations - introducing something like the F-16 would simple result in the situation of so many African states where the air force is neatly parked in the dispersals - and completely inoperative!
The Migs and similar types are probably the best solution, but even that is not simple and certainly not quick.
Just setup a maintenance contract for them out of the UK and....er.....fly them back here for maintenance after each mission. We could throw in a delivery service too and get our pilots some extra flying hours. :-)Where is the maintenance expertise and spares holding? Without that after a couple of missions (hopefully) all of the aircraft would simply be ornaments. All of the type being proposed require huge amounts of maintenance for every 'flying hour'. Realistically you could extend that somewhat, but the faults will multiply tot he point where it is either ineffective or dangerous to operate it.
Teaching technicians to fault find and repair complex systems is a much more complicated job than getting the 'driver' trained in new systems. When pressing the button does not work, finding the fault and repairing it can be horribly complex. So you would need the full spares and support service.
Some people have already posted the possibility of Mig 29s and then discussed the problems of differing modifications and configurations - introducing something like the F-16 would simple result in the situation of so many African states where the air force is neatly parked in the dispersals - and completely inoperative!
The Migs and similar types are probably the best solution, but even that is not simple and certainly not quick.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff