Ukrainian Air Force
Discussion
paulrockliffe said:
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. :-)
They issue with aircraft is also a political question, who flies it?Ukrainian pilot flying combat aircraft from Poland doesn't look good.
NATO pilot flying combat aircraft into Ukraine also doesn't look good.
aeropilot said:
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.
The Gripen is basically the best fit for Ukraine however you look at it. The Gripen was designed to be maintained with basic tools by enthusiastic amateurs, and flown from rough strips and roadways. By comparison the F16 is a dainty thing, that requires careful handling with dedicated equipment and consumables. Yertis said:
The Gripen is basically the best fit for Ukraine however you look at it. The Gripen was designed to be maintained with basic tools by enthusiastic amateurs, and flown from rough strips and roadways. By comparison the F16 is a dainty thing, that requires careful handling with dedicated equipment and consumables.
Definitely - low CPFH, minimal runway quality, lots of them produced.Krikkit said:
Yertis said:
The Gripen is basically the best fit for Ukraine however you look at it. The Gripen was designed to be maintained with basic tools by enthusiastic amateurs, and flown from rough strips and roadways. By comparison the F16 is a dainty thing, that requires careful handling with dedicated equipment and consumables.
Definitely - low CPFH, minimal runway quality, lots of them produced.I think the UK are going about this the right way.
We cannot supply Ukraine ourselves.
What we can do, as we did with NLAW & Challenger tanks is to move the overton window of ‘acceptable’.
Before we committed 11 tanks or whatever it was no-one was actually giving tanks. Lots of talk, no action.
We commit to fast jet aircraft in any way, even if it’s just training, then the rest of NATO may just agree that legacy F-16’s are the right thing to donate.
As regards comments about the A-10, not wanting to be all r/NCD about it, but the biggest requirement for air power in that theatre is air superiority (or at least denying the enemy available air space) and SEAD.
F-16 is the best solution for this, in the absence of Ukraine receiving AWCS, F-15C, EF-111 & B-1B as a package.*
F-16 can carry HARM & AAM.
It can bomb truck.
It can manouver.
It is available, replaceable, cheap (comparatively) and as simple as it can reasonably be expected to be.
*The reason I chose those 4 aircraft is that is exactly how the US would have to undertake air superiority & counter air in the cold war without the availability of F-117A & B-2.
AWACs monitors & directs the fighters.
F-15C deals with the threat.
EF-111 jams & locates sites.
B-1B takes them out with standoff weapons.
We cannot supply Ukraine ourselves.
What we can do, as we did with NLAW & Challenger tanks is to move the overton window of ‘acceptable’.
Before we committed 11 tanks or whatever it was no-one was actually giving tanks. Lots of talk, no action.
We commit to fast jet aircraft in any way, even if it’s just training, then the rest of NATO may just agree that legacy F-16’s are the right thing to donate.
As regards comments about the A-10, not wanting to be all r/NCD about it, but the biggest requirement for air power in that theatre is air superiority (or at least denying the enemy available air space) and SEAD.
F-16 is the best solution for this, in the absence of Ukraine receiving AWCS, F-15C, EF-111 & B-1B as a package.*
F-16 can carry HARM & AAM.
It can bomb truck.
It can manouver.
It is available, replaceable, cheap (comparatively) and as simple as it can reasonably be expected to be.
*The reason I chose those 4 aircraft is that is exactly how the US would have to undertake air superiority & counter air in the cold war without the availability of F-117A & B-2.
AWACs monitors & directs the fighters.
F-15C deals with the threat.
EF-111 jams & locates sites.
B-1B takes them out with standoff weapons.
paulrockliffe said:
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.
It takes about 100-120 engineers working 12 hour shifts 6 days a week to keep 8 typhoons flying combat missions. That’s before you add in any battle damage repair.
Most people have no idea the amount of skill experience and knowledge it takes to keep these things airborne. Never mind the cost and logistics of doing it.
Over the years I have worked. Tornado, harrier, Nimrod R1, Herc C130K, C130J and then converted to aircrew for 7 years fixing and operating as crew on Sentry E3-D.
MB140 said:
Rough figures for modern fighter jets are 50 hours maintenance per hour flown.
Are they? 6-8 on F35, and I've seen 12 hours for F16 quoted. I appreciate that there's a wide variety of maintenance activities based on airframe hours etc and multi-engine differences.https://www.defensedaily.com/u-s-f-35-maintenance-...
Evanivitch said:
MB140 said:
Rough figures for modern fighter jets are 50 hours maintenance per hour flown.
Are they? 6-8 on F35, and I've seen 12 hours for F16 quoted. I appreciate that there's a wide variety of maintenance activities based on airframe hours etc and multi-engine differences.https://www.defensedaily.com/u-s-f-35-maintenance-...
With all this maintenance included I could see 50 hours being about right.
In terms of just man hours from a Sqn point of view I could see mid teens being about right. I’ve not read the report linked on F35. I did have a quick skim of the first few paragraphs. It seems very wishy washy and light on actual facts.
As an example of simple things taking a long period on aircraft maintenance . C130J require a 50 hour working at height inspection. This involves a visual inspection of all the upper surfaces, antenna, rudder, elervatorr trim tabs etc. a simple job you would think. Problem is H&S.
This now involves the following
a) Arange a tow to a hanger with arrester gear in the roof and move aircraft (5 people for 1 hour min) Total 5 hours
b) check fuel contents, there are limits for towing the herc so maybe arange a refuel/refuel, (3 people 1-2hrs) Total 6 hours
c) sign out and get in to safety gear, harness, helmets, eye protection, check serviceability of arrester gear in roof of hanger (2 people 1 hour)) Total 2 hours
d) carry out visual inspection of top of aircraft (2 people - 1 hour) Total 2 hours
e) pack away all tools and safety equipment (1 people 1 hour) Total 1 hour
f)tow aircraft back out the hanger to Sqn (5 people 1 hour) Total 5 hours
g) return fuel level to correct state (3 people for 1 hour) Total 3 Hours
h) Raise paperwork on physical paper and on Lits (maintenance software package).Complete physical paperwork and close job on lits (1 person - 1 hour) Total 1 hour
So by my reckoning a simple visual inspection that has to be carried out every 50 flight hours
Total man hours for task 25 hours. That’s to carry out a simple visual inspection. Yes that’s worst case time wise. But doesn’t include you actually finding anything wrong.
People will now pipe up and say you could use wing grip. Yes you could. If you could find a serviceable kit, someone qualified and in date to make it work. Weather conditions are good. It also requires periods of doing nothing whilst you sit and wait to see if the wing grip is holding vacuum. In my experience wing grip is s
t and I wouldn’t trust my life to it.
That 25 hours is probably best case as well you can guarantee it’s the tug drivers tea break or the fuel bowser is at a higher priority task.
Now admittedly I know that’s a c130j, not a eurofighter but it’s just an example of how even the simplist of tasks on an aircraft can take an exorbitant amount of time to do legally and correctly iaw the aircraft dataset and all policy and regulations.
Years ago someone would pop the top hatch, and walk around looking over the top surfaces. No harness, no arrester gear. Job took about an hour start to finish. Not these days.
This now involves the following
a) Arange a tow to a hanger with arrester gear in the roof and move aircraft (5 people for 1 hour min) Total 5 hours
b) check fuel contents, there are limits for towing the herc so maybe arange a refuel/refuel, (3 people 1-2hrs) Total 6 hours
c) sign out and get in to safety gear, harness, helmets, eye protection, check serviceability of arrester gear in roof of hanger (2 people 1 hour)) Total 2 hours
d) carry out visual inspection of top of aircraft (2 people - 1 hour) Total 2 hours
e) pack away all tools and safety equipment (1 people 1 hour) Total 1 hour
f)tow aircraft back out the hanger to Sqn (5 people 1 hour) Total 5 hours
g) return fuel level to correct state (3 people for 1 hour) Total 3 Hours
h) Raise paperwork on physical paper and on Lits (maintenance software package).Complete physical paperwork and close job on lits (1 person - 1 hour) Total 1 hour
So by my reckoning a simple visual inspection that has to be carried out every 50 flight hours
Total man hours for task 25 hours. That’s to carry out a simple visual inspection. Yes that’s worst case time wise. But doesn’t include you actually finding anything wrong.
People will now pipe up and say you could use wing grip. Yes you could. If you could find a serviceable kit, someone qualified and in date to make it work. Weather conditions are good. It also requires periods of doing nothing whilst you sit and wait to see if the wing grip is holding vacuum. In my experience wing grip is s
t and I wouldn’t trust my life to it. That 25 hours is probably best case as well you can guarantee it’s the tug drivers tea break or the fuel bowser is at a higher priority task.
Now admittedly I know that’s a c130j, not a eurofighter but it’s just an example of how even the simplist of tasks on an aircraft can take an exorbitant amount of time to do legally and correctly iaw the aircraft dataset and all policy and regulations.
Years ago someone would pop the top hatch, and walk around looking over the top surfaces. No harness, no arrester gear. Job took about an hour start to finish. Not these days.
aeropilot said:
Wasn't suggesting they were for SEAD.
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)
But why have they been trying to get rid of them?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)
Part of it is a lack of survivability against near peers threats.
It isn't going to be flying around attacking things with its gun, firstly given the drone threat very few vehicles will be moving in open ground in such a manner that an aircraft is going to be able to spot them especially if that aircraft is flying at low level trying to avoid being hit. Also getting into cannon range puts you well within ManPad range and well within vehicle mounted tactical systems operating a few km behind the lines.
This leaves the rest of its weapons fit which is pretty similar to a regular attack configured fighter jet. The only issue with these weapons sets are that for the aircraft to self acquire targets and attack them it will need to be in line of sight with enough velocity and altitude to get the weapon to a target.
Given the A10's lower velocity this means it will actually have to fly at a higher altitude to get weapons to a target at a given range while at the same time be slower to duck down below the radar horizon or evade a missile if that isn't possible.
If the target set is going to be off board designated targets where the aircraft will come in low and pop up to lob a GPS or laser guided weapon then again the slow A10 is pretty much the last platform you'd want doing that.
MB140 said:
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.
There is quite a history of people "finding a way" in wartime. 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.
As others have pointed out training the pilots if they are already fast jet pilots is probably going to be one of the quicker jobs. I would also expect that there are considerably more people in Ukraine who have been through fast jet training in the last 15 years than there are aircraft in Ukraine. Also I suspect that we could also reduce training by having RAF personnel actively support the aircraft usage remotely doing stuff like mission planning.
The engineers is a more interesting one, again more broadly one could throw resources at this. Again pull people in from civil aviation and given them rudimentary platform specific training a very large proportion of the tasks are generic anyway, supplement the likely low productivity by just employing more maintenance persons per unit. Again at the detriment to RAF operational efficiency have large numbers of people on 24-7 availability to teleconference in, hell given their proximity to the front you could have a small number of ex RAF "contractors" support them in country.
Also of course RAF could support the aircraft from Poland or other closer nations.
However as much as I suspect that it could be done, I doubt it will as it probably isn't the best platform, it has far fewer weapons options for ground attack than an F16 and there are far less of them.
That said I would assume with its super cruise and DASS system it can probably fly a lot closer to the S400 systems at altitude (while HARM equipped aircraft flying low and closer to the front lines on the same course) and likely dominate some distance behind the front lines. Basically the same mission that the Russians are doing with R37 equipped aircraft. Shame Tranche 1 don't have Meteor because then they could go hunting for those Russian interceptors.
MB140 said:
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.
All this talk of typhoons and F-16s etc, would the optics of that not be a little intolerable? I mean western jets will mean western ground crews and invariably a few western pilots having a go, because that's what happens... Remind me what Putin's justification for this invasion was again? (I realise we're dealing in margins and without denigrating the men and women fighting for their country I'm not sure I appreciated just how much of a force multiplier the role of SIGINTS etc must be. But they skulk in the background doing their machiavellian stuff; fast jets are show pieces strutting about going "who wants a piece of this?".)
MB140 said:
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.
How did the Fleet air arm manage when they had just Harriers and Helicopters? Did they select for a particular kind of aptitude that makes someone suited for both rather 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.
Dr Jekyll said:
MB140 said:
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.
How did the Fleet air arm manage when they had just Harriers and Helicopters? Did they select for a particular kind of aptitude that makes someone suited for both rather 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.
In the early 80's a former work colleague left to join RN to fly helo's, and after graduating from Dartmouth, completed basic fixed wing flying training and onto helo training, but flunked the helo training final solo tests. He was offered fixed wing non-Harrier, but decided if he couldn't fly helo's he didn't want to stay in the Navy, so had to buy himself out of his commission, which after all they had invested in him up to that point, wasn't cheap as I recall!!
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff