Ukrainian Air Force
Discussion
I saw an interesting map the other day that highlighted the extent of the range of Storm Shadow beyond Ukraine's current borders. All of Crimea is covered.
That will present quite the defensive headache to the Naval base at Sevastopol, the airbases on the peninsula and of course the Kerch bridge.
In my opinion, the expected Ukrainian counter offensive will have to take place as far south as possible, north and east would have the Russians being pushed back into their own territory where they could attack from again as needed, or they could re enter the country behind the Ukrainian front through Belarus in a pincer movement. It would reclaim territory but would still have to be defensively prepared and manned.
So Ukraine really needs to clear their land in areas away from the Russia border first to avoid having to fight on two fronts. Any land taken over can be reincorporated into Ukraine without needing to be defended, the fighting front simply moves forward. It makes sense to me to do either of the following;
Hit south from Zaporizhzhia along the left bank of the Dnipro towards Melitopol and eventually the sea of Azov, splitting the Russian land bridge, then focussing on wheeling right and rolling the Russian forces south back onto the Crimea. From a land warfare standpoint this makes the most sense because it does not require any major river crossings. It's negative is this is exactly what the Russians would expect and its where they are dug in defensively in depth.
The second option is a higher risk, higher reward option. The goal would be to reach the narrow Crimea straight around Armiansk with the goal of sealing off Ukraine from counter attack and defending on the narrowest line possible. With the entry to Crimea under control, it's a single front battle all the way along the south coast and up to Russia. However to make this thrust would involve the land troops making a river crossing, with air superiority by either side not guaranteed, and in the range of enemy artillery, this is extremely risky. The best route for this option is to push east from Kherson, or south through Nova Kakhovka. It's the shortest distance to the Crimea.
Getting to Crimea is so vital, I don't see initially the peninsula itself being taken, but the land bridge to Crimea is just 5km wide so if Ukraine can make it there, it's a multitudinally shorter border to defend than it has currently. There's two bridges further east, but these are now well within strike range. Though I expect that the Kerch bridge will be left standing to allow Russia room to retreat.
An alternative route is from further east across the wide section of the Dnieper to Enerhodar where the Nuclear power plant is.
I think now, we will begin to see the value of all these anti-air systems that Ukraine has been gathering, because wherever they attack they have a much higher chance of success if they can limit the amount of intel and observation by the Russians.
if the percentage of Russian rockets/missiles downed can be believed, air superiority can't be far behind, and by superiority I really mean airspace denial to the Russian forces.
That will present quite the defensive headache to the Naval base at Sevastopol, the airbases on the peninsula and of course the Kerch bridge.
In my opinion, the expected Ukrainian counter offensive will have to take place as far south as possible, north and east would have the Russians being pushed back into their own territory where they could attack from again as needed, or they could re enter the country behind the Ukrainian front through Belarus in a pincer movement. It would reclaim territory but would still have to be defensively prepared and manned.
So Ukraine really needs to clear their land in areas away from the Russia border first to avoid having to fight on two fronts. Any land taken over can be reincorporated into Ukraine without needing to be defended, the fighting front simply moves forward. It makes sense to me to do either of the following;
Hit south from Zaporizhzhia along the left bank of the Dnipro towards Melitopol and eventually the sea of Azov, splitting the Russian land bridge, then focussing on wheeling right and rolling the Russian forces south back onto the Crimea. From a land warfare standpoint this makes the most sense because it does not require any major river crossings. It's negative is this is exactly what the Russians would expect and its where they are dug in defensively in depth.
The second option is a higher risk, higher reward option. The goal would be to reach the narrow Crimea straight around Armiansk with the goal of sealing off Ukraine from counter attack and defending on the narrowest line possible. With the entry to Crimea under control, it's a single front battle all the way along the south coast and up to Russia. However to make this thrust would involve the land troops making a river crossing, with air superiority by either side not guaranteed, and in the range of enemy artillery, this is extremely risky. The best route for this option is to push east from Kherson, or south through Nova Kakhovka. It's the shortest distance to the Crimea.
Getting to Crimea is so vital, I don't see initially the peninsula itself being taken, but the land bridge to Crimea is just 5km wide so if Ukraine can make it there, it's a multitudinally shorter border to defend than it has currently. There's two bridges further east, but these are now well within strike range. Though I expect that the Kerch bridge will be left standing to allow Russia room to retreat.
An alternative route is from further east across the wide section of the Dnieper to Enerhodar where the Nuclear power plant is.
I think now, we will begin to see the value of all these anti-air systems that Ukraine has been gathering, because wherever they attack they have a much higher chance of success if they can limit the amount of intel and observation by the Russians.
if the percentage of Russian rockets/missiles downed can be believed, air superiority can't be far behind, and by superiority I really mean airspace denial to the Russian forces.
Jake899 said:
Though I expect that the Kerch bridge will be left standing to allow Russia room to retreat.
I would expect them to try and take out as much of the rail part of the Kerch bridge as possible to deny the ability of the RUF to reinforce or retreat with their heavy kit, and leave the road bridge to allow light stuff and people to retreat back over it.....aeropilot said:
I would expect them to try and take out as much of the rail part of the Kerch bridge as possible to deny the ability of the RUF to reinforce or retreat with their heavy kit, and leave the road bridge to allow light stuff and people to retreat back over it.....
I would imagine getting rid of the bridge must be high on their agenda. Stops Russian forces reinforcing and re supplying Crimea easily. Would mean they then have to bring the supply ships and protecting naval vessels in to range. Although I suppose it then means the Russian forces in Crimea have no choice but to stand and fight. Rather than retreat. Although I can’t see Putin allowing Crimea to fall to the Ukrainians. It would be a massive loss of face.
It’s going to be interesting to see how the next year goes. I fear with Ukraines inability to give Russian forces a real pounding to beat the fight out of them this is just going to be a stalemate.
Everyone says force him to the negotiating table and Ukraine might lose some territory. I think that’s a s
t idea. Russia has to learn that NATO and the west will keep supplying the Ukrainians for as long as this lasts. I think back to the first few days of the war with Russian miles and miles of armour out in the open and what NATO would have done if we had got involved from the start. It would have been like the Iraq retreat from Kuwait. Shooting fish in barrel.
I appreciate there’s a dedicated thread elsewhere on this but I’d drag the Russians all the way into Bakhmut, fill it to the brim with them then encircle/bypass and push to the sea whilst smashing the bridge.
On an actual airforce note we should be giving them more in terms of AirPower such as F16s etc. They’re in huge quantity and being phased out but still very useful to Ukraine. More than a match for what appears to be Russian paper tiger planes we’ve all been so worried about to the point of spending billions on billions on billions to counter.
On an actual airforce note we should be giving them more in terms of AirPower such as F16s etc. They’re in huge quantity and being phased out but still very useful to Ukraine. More than a match for what appears to be Russian paper tiger planes we’ve all been so worried about to the point of spending billions on billions on billions to counter.
Jake899 said:
Seems Holland and the UK are pushing the F16 purchase forward. Let's see what happens and when.
The Dutch sold 12 of their F-16's to civilian Red Air contractor Draken International back in 2021, with the agreement option to sell them a further 28 aircraft as the Dutch progressively retired them between 2022 and 2024.That's about 2/3rds of the remaining Dutch AF F-16 fleet, so maybe 15-20 left after 2024.
The recently retired Norwegian F-16 fleet was sold to Romania.
The Belgians are not intending to sell off their F-16 fleet as they will be pretty much all life ex'd by the time they are all replaced by 2028.
Not sure about the Danes F-16 fleet?
So, that leaves whose F-16's to buy for Ukraine, unless its the Danes ones when they retire them in favour of the F-35A.
The yanks won't be selling any, as they want all of their old A/C version fleet now retired for the QF-16 drone program now they have consumed all the F-4's and moved onto the F-16's a few years ago.
aeropilot said:
Jake899 said:
Though I expect that the Kerch bridge will be left standing to allow Russia room to retreat.
I would expect them to try and take out as much of the rail part of the Kerch bridge as possible to deny the ability of the RUF to reinforce or retreat with their heavy kit, and leave the road bridge to allow light stuff and people to retreat back over it.....I'd be interested to see what Stormshadow can do to the bridge. First question would be can it be stopped?
This will depend on a whole load of things that aren't public domain like its radar cross section. If the Russians have a CAP with AWACs in the air then it's likely that the aircraft could shoot it down as it has an IR signature and no way of detecting a launch and deploying counter measures. (Though stop press, it has got a two way data link so to a degree off board sensing could detect an interceptor going for it and evasive action or retargeting at a target it can get to before the interceptor can might be possible).
If it's signature is large enough that Russian aircraft can detect it then longer ranges radar guided weapons could stop it at a distance.
One of the features which is not public domain is it's capability to terrain mask. This is one of the areas where cruise missiles have dramatically improved since their introduction in the 70's. Originally their capability to plot an evasive route would be limited by their primitive computers ability to store mapping data and flight plans.
Today with the ability to store very detailed maps and to algorithmically plot routes it is likely that it could fly very detailed routes where the missile knows where it is to with 5-10m and it is never in line of sight to any point for long enough for a SAM system to react. Basically the only point in time you would have a clear shot would be the final approach to the bridge, though possibly the only systems that could react fast enough may be guns and they can be counted with terminal manoeuvring and decoys.
The range of Stormshadow would also allow it to attack from the Russian side of the bridge if necessary.
As to it's effects, terminal guidence is by IR image recognition so hitting an individual pillar is perfectly feasible and given the Broach warehead can get through about 4.5m of concrete the pillars are going to be in no condition to support any loads even if they don't topple over.
But attacking that bridge is probably only worth doing once Crimea is under credible threat. More obvious targets would be making Russian fixed wing aircraft within 400 miles of the Ukrainian border uncomfortable.
aeropilot said:
Talksteer said:
More obvious targets would be making Russian fixed wing aircraft within 400 miles of the Ukrainian border uncomfortable.
But Ukraine have made guarantee's to UK that SS won't used for attacking targets beyond the pre-2014 Ukraine border.Agree it’s not going to be whacking targets in Russia etc but it does now allow Ukraine to use weapons that were allocated to targets within Ukraine to be reallocated now storm shadow can hit them.
Ukraine seem to be doing a good job of modifying their own drones to hit Russian air bases. Now they will have more.
aeropilot said:
Teddy Lop said:
what does putin have but isn't using.
Nothing, only the nukes is what hasn't been used (thankfully)That’s a big escalation though. Pictures of dead Ukraine doodlers gassed to death with piss and s
t everywhere and puke everywhere won’t play well with the world media. He’s already hated by most of the world. I can’t see anyone siding with him if he did not hat. Sorry for derailing the thread of the Ukrainian Air Force a bit.
Indeed! Massive news. Although unlikely I’d like to think the actual Pilot and ground crew training has been going on secretly in the background rather than this being an asset that’s 12+ months away.
Based on what we’ve seen of the Russian military with their poor performance and overrated kit these will more than a match for anything they can put up and properly put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Although it will never happen I often wonder what a prepared and swift Nato response would do to the russian forces on air, sea and land. I suspect it would be very one sided and more akin to the first 72 hours in Iraq.
Based on what we’ve seen of the Russian military with their poor performance and overrated kit these will more than a match for anything they can put up and properly put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Although it will never happen I often wonder what a prepared and swift Nato response would do to the russian forces on air, sea and land. I suspect it would be very one sided and more akin to the first 72 hours in Iraq.
Boom78 said:
Although it will never happen I often wonder what a prepared and swift Nato response would do to the russian forces on air, sea and land. I suspect it would be very one sided and more akin to the first 72 hours in Iraq.
Except that Russia has nuclear weapons, and the more they look like losing the more they might be tempted to try one.Simpo Two said:
Boom78 said:
Although it will never happen I often wonder what a prepared and swift Nato response would do to the russian forces on air, sea and land. I suspect it would be very one sided and more akin to the first 72 hours in Iraq.
Except that Russia has nuclear weapons, and the more they look like losing the more they might be tempted to try one.However, back to my point, the west have thousands of 4.5/5th gen fighters, modern weapons, top training, huge modern fleets, cutting edge suppression etc. air supremacy would be swift. Russians are quite literally taking a knife to a gunfight.
Boom78 said:
I don’t buy that, the Russian regime aren’t an ideological being, it’s a bunch a self serving crims all out to serve or save their neck. The retribution would end Russia as we know it.
Hmmm...not as convinced as you.The kleptarchs don't give two hoots about 'Russia' - as far as they're concerned, THEY are Russia - they rule it / own it, and if there's a threat to their existence (let's face it - there is no retirement plan), then why would they roll-over?
havoc said:
Boom78 said:
I don’t buy that, the Russian regime aren’t an ideological being, it’s a bunch a self serving crims all out to serve or save their neck. The retribution would end Russia as we know it.
Hmmm...not as convinced as you.The kleptarchs don't give two hoots about 'Russia' - as far as they're concerned, THEY are Russia - they rule it / own it, and if there's a threat to their existence (let's face it - there is no retirement plan), then why would they roll-over?
Simpo Two said:
And as for defeating (the whole of) Russia, it's been tried twice before. 2-0 to Russia.
In both cases, Russia's adversary was fighting on more than one front, whereas Russia was only fighting on its own front. In the Second World War, Russia had a $11.3 billion ($218 billion in today's money) of materiel support from the USA and the UK. 7,000 lend-lease tanks + 5,000 from the UK, 18,200 aircraft, nearly 1/3 of their trucks were American-built, not to mention 1.75 million tons of food, plus clothing and raw materials.
Both Nikita Khrushchev and Marshal Georgy Zhukov acknowledged that lend-lease enabled them to defeat Germany. This time round it is Russia's adversary receiving the multinational assistance.
GliderRider said:
Simpo Two said:
And as for defeating (the whole of) Russia, it's been tried twice before. 2-0 to Russia.
In both cases, Russia's adversary was fighting on more than one front, whereas Russia was only fighting on its own front. In the Second World War, Russia had a $11.3 billion ($218 billion in today's money) of materiel support from the USA and the UK. 7,000 lend-lease tanks + 5,000 from the UK, 18,200 aircraft, nearly 1/3 of their trucks were American-built, not to mention 1.75 million tons of food, plus clothing and raw materials.
Both Nikita Khrushchev and Marshal Georgy Zhukov acknowledged that lend-lease enabled them to defeat Germany. This time round it is Russia's adversary receiving the multinational assistance.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff