John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Good discussion Sturm, thanks for the link.
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
Even if they did; would it make an overall difference? Highly doubt it given that various pieces of the equation would have to fall into place in order for the Ukrainians to be able to effectively prevent the Russians from operating in the air.
As simple as that? "Greedy"? "Could have had it all"?
The Ukrainians would still have had to pay for it; they had other areas in need of attention and even if their Fulcrums and Flankers had been upgraded and delivered by the Israelis before February 2022; would they have made a decisive difference?
That's with the benefit of hindsight. If they had an Oracle which could have told them with absolute certainty that the invasion would come in 2022; there's a whole list of things they could have done.
Karl Franz
Member
Well it is not only trucks vs planes, it is also an immediate boost in capabilities against future potential (very questionable) capability. The trucks can be supplied in a relatively short time period and can be put in use immediately to boost the logistics of Ukraine and its ability to maneuver troops which is desperately needed. The Russians are winning the war currently - it is slow, it is messy, but they are winning - so any immediate boost to capability is much more needed to stabilize the front.
We should also keep in mind that it is not only the Russians that are running out of time. It is very questionable how long the West is going to keep supplying Ukraine at this level. The United States are in a recession and we see that Europe is barely holding on without the Russian energy in the summer, imagine how hard it would be in the winter. Not to mention all the destruction the Ukraine is suffering right now. It is one thing to talk about the losses at the front but completely another to talk about the loss of industrial capacity (defense industry is gone, so is oil refining while others are also significantly hit), infrastructure is badly damaged and we cannot exactly calculate how much the agricultural production is going to fall but it is going to be very drastic. All of these things are going to get worse as the conflict drags on, so it is in the greatest interest of Ukraine to end the conflict as soon as possible. How realistic this is is another matter entirely, but whatever Ukrainians do, they need to do it quickly, so immediate boost or near immediate boost to capabilities trumps any long-term potential asset acquisition.
Kasatka
Member
Regarding Ukraine receiving western fighters... there was an interesting argument put forward by someone on twitter (can't remember now) that goes like this: If Ukraine doesn't get western long range air defenses before they get the aircraft these aircraft would become primary targets for Russian SRBM/CMs/Air to ground ordinance and there would be nothing to cover them. The amount of time it would take to train Ukrainian personnel to use said modern air defenses would be in the order of months and the same could be said for the aircraft. I'll also mention the training for logistics and maintenance for both is also a huge factor.
As much as I'd like to see F-16Cs or JAS-39Cs in Ukrainian banners, the reality is much more complex and I will remain skeptical, as should everyone else regarding any claims of plans in those regards. Basically, I'll believe it when I see it.
Finally, the soundest idea is to provide Ukraine what they already know how to operate and maintain. A Ukrainian commander recently stated in an interview that they'd be more effective with more Soviet/Russian tanks than with old leopards. He even ventured as to say that they would do more harm than good. I think the same logic applies to the aircraft that Ukraine would receive. Although, no offense, but I do also believe that Ukrainian pilots would be able to master western jets (at least the younger generations), than tankers would be able to master leopards... I think the biggest problem would remain, getting good mechanics and logistics going.
As much as I'd like to see F-16Cs or JAS-39Cs in Ukrainian banners, the reality is much more complex and I will remain skeptical, as should everyone else regarding any claims of plans in those regards. Basically, I'll believe it when I see it.
Finally, the soundest idea is to provide Ukraine what they already know how to operate and maintain. A Ukrainian commander recently stated in an interview that they'd be more effective with more Soviet/Russian tanks than with old leopards. He even ventured as to say that they would do more harm than good. I think the same logic applies to the aircraft that Ukraine would receive. Although, no offense, but I do also believe that Ukrainian pilots would be able to master western jets (at least the younger generations), than tankers would be able to master leopards... I think the biggest problem would remain, getting good mechanics and logistics going.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4,026
The biggest problem is where to get more Soviet tanks, or fighter jets as the case may be. The WarPac stockpiles are depleted. The US has drawn on them many times for things like re-arming Iraq, or Afghanistan. There's some more Soviet gear in Finland, and some can be scrounged all over the third world, but some sort of transition is inevitable. I think there's a serious question western decision makers have to ask themselves - what kind of resources are they willing to commit? It appears some Su-25s and some MiG-29s from Eastern Europe have been handed over to Ukraine, by parties unknown and without much publicity. In some areas, like APCs, western equipment is relatively easy to adopt. In some areas, like machineguns, it practically adopts itself (Ukraine had a machinegun shortage pre-war, those Maxim guns weren't pulled out of storage because they were doing well). In some areas, like artillery and MBTs, it's very difficult and expensive. The US really broke the ice in the artillery department by providing over 100 155mm guns, and appropriate quantities of ammo. It made it easier for other partners to piggy-back off of this. Will the US take a similar role in MBT and fighter jet programs? It will be at a much greater financial cost, especially the fighter jet ones.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
For the short term they only need a skeleton capability and a generation of instructors.
Old F-16D variants might be available for transfer, at least with offset agreements, and less than comprehensive upgrades e.g new encrypted comms, self protection and EW pods, and recce + targeting pods. Litening for example has a 5th gen now, and some customers are already working on replacing their early gens (usually jumping from 2/3 to 5, not small increments).
By skeleton I mean it could be even just half a squadron, doing only strategic sorties.
Definitely permissible, and plausible, with the massive budget the US dedicated to it.
The core part - merely training Ukrainian pilots, would be inexpensive and for that there are even simulators that further drive down costs.
Within that time, Ukraine will need modern air defenses, not just the Soviet gear.
In the A2/AD role, and in overlap with some other missions, air defenses and fighter aircraft are force multipliers for one another. So both are needed in some capacity.
If Tyler Rogoway says it's possible, I trust him.
the concerned
Active Member
Do people remember when the old Iraqi airforce was looking into converting Russian aircraft into unmanned drones. I feel this is Ukraines best option at the moment. Turning these old aircraft into a nuisance for Russia.
vikingatespam
Well-Known Member
Although it would be considered an escalation, one partial solution to the problem is to allow UKR pilots to fly "donated" NATO type aircraft to and from airfields outside of UKR. NATO crew could service and arm the aircraft in Poland and Rumania.
Even if that were to happen would it actually make a difference; would it contribute to stopping or disrupting the Russian advance? Would it prevent the Russians from deploying their aircraft?
As it stands the main problem the Ukrainians face is Russian firepower in the form of arty, MLRS and missiles; not Russian air power. I'm not suggesting that the Ukrainians should not look at ways of improving their capability to perform more effectively in the air and to contribute to the overall campaign; merely that air power may not necessarily be the answer.
Even if the Ukainians acquired aircraft which enables them to perform precision all weather strikes on key Russian targets; they are still vulnerable to Russian air defences. As for Ukrainian pilots operating fighters supplied by NATO countries but based in Poland and Romania what happens if in response the Russians target those airfields?
As it stands the main problem the Ukrainians face is Russian firepower in the form of arty, MLRS and missiles; not Russian air power. I'm not suggesting that the Ukrainians should not look at ways of improving their capability to perform more effectively in the air and to contribute to the overall campaign; merely that air power may not necessarily be the answer.
Even if the Ukainians acquired aircraft which enables them to perform precision all weather strikes on key Russian targets; they are still vulnerable to Russian air defences. As for Ukrainian pilots operating fighters supplied by NATO countries but based in Poland and Romania what happens if in response the Russians target those airfields?
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Active radar guided missiles make the launching aircraft more survivable. With passive radar homing, the aircraft must point its front to the target until the missile hits, and a missile doesn't fly nearly fast enough to make it a truly quick process, especially since for a large portion of flight time, the missile glides at decreasing speeds.
There is a technique called notching, in which aircraft make slight maneuvers, but it still keeps you pointed in the direction of the enemy.
So until you hit, you're flying in the direction of danger, rather than away from it.
As for your other questions, it's up to economists and smarter planners than us to decide whether $40 mil per aircraft is worth it, especially when Russia was deemed far more dangerous than it really is, but had it been done, it would certainly yield high rewards.
Here's an article by Tyler Rogoway from TWZ, about the Mig-21 flown by India. After a little rant about disinformation, he goes on to explain how those ancient fighters, upgraded with 90's and early 2000's avionics, managed to get some advantages vs proper 4th gen aircraft.
Enough With The Indian Mig-21 Bison Versus Pakistani F-16 Viper Bullshit
The amount of garbage commentary and skewed analysis on the whole shoot down has been unbelievable. Here's the reality, like it or not.
www.thedrive.com
Ukrainian Mig-29 equipped with Israeli avionics of 2020 tech would be a terrifying foe for Russian aircraft and air defenses.
What's more important is that this would likely keep the defense trade open.
Indeed but wasn't a of point contention or dispute on my part. I was only questioning some of the claims made as to how foreign upgraded aircraft with active radar guided AAMs would have made a key difference. I also questioned claim about the Ukrainians supposedly being "greedy" and that "they "could have had it all".
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
This is a recent report claiming a HIMARS hit on a Russian ammo depot, which some have mentioned are vulnerable for a variety of reasons. The Russians claim it was a fertilizer storage facility. Even in the unlikely event that was true, it is still an Russian asset now destroyed.
www.thedrive.com
Giant Explosions Rock More Russian Ammunition Depots In Ukraine
It's clear that Ukraine is executing a major campaign targeting Russian ammo depots in order to blunt their terrifying artillery assaults.
www.thedrive.com
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4,034
If it's a fertilizer facility, it would be a Ukrainian asset under Russian occupation. But yes, of course it's a munitions depot. It's part of a continuing pattern.This is a recent report claiming a HIMARS hit on a Russian ammo depot, which some have mentioned are vulnerable for a variety of reasons. The Russians claim it was a fertilizer storage facility. Even in the unlikely event that was true, it is still an Russian asset now destroyed.
Giant Explosions Rock More Russian Ammunition Depots In Ukraine
It's clear that Ukraine is executing a major campaign targeting Russian ammo depots in order to blunt their terrifying artillery assaults.
Im hearing more (still rumors ) of the US sending older M1 Abrams to Poland ahead of the delivery of their ordered 250 Sep3 tanks The shipment would augment POL forces and allow them to send PT91s to UKR. Still unsubstantiated but rumors are picking up quickly. These would further augment the initial batches of T72s already sent from Poland to the UKR.
The PT91 is a locally produced upgraded version of the original T72.
Meet the PT-91 Twardy: Poland's Very Own Tank (That Could Fight Russia)
The PT-91 Twardy tank is the pride of the Polish indigenous defense industry. Poland began producing the PT-91 in the early 1990s.
www.19fortyfive.com
Still unsubstantiated but rumors are picking up quickly
Rumor: Poland will receive about 300 Abrams tanks from the U.S. and will give 232 PT-91 tanks to Ukraine
Poland may receive about 50 old Abrams tanks from the United States. This was reported by Polish analyst Jarosław Wolski.
gagadget.com
vikingatespam
Well-Known Member
I think we agree that adding NATO planes to the UKR airforce is not a solution at this time, but if you had to do it, stationing the air wings in Poland or Rumania at least solves the logistical issues. I think the UKR needs more air defenses.
Having aircraft maintained by a 3rd party is one thing; having aircraft flown by the Ukrainians; which are based at another country; to launch strikes on Russian targets is a completely different thing. It could lead to Russian retaliation.
As for air defences; they have contributed a lot to preventing both the Ukraine and Russia from effectively deploying air power. The Ukrainians are pretty well sorted out with regards to the type of systems needed to counter low to medium level of threats. What they need as I see it is the ability to better intercept IRBMs and cruise missiles.
As for air defences; they have contributed a lot to preventing both the Ukraine and Russia from effectively deploying air power. The Ukrainians are pretty well sorted out with regards to the type of systems needed to counter low to medium level of threats. What they need as I see it is the ability to better intercept IRBMs and cruise missiles.
Based on the T-72M1. Poland was one of the largest exporters of non Russian made
T-72s. The Poles came up with their own FCS and ERA. In recent years they have also been doing quite a bit of R&D and have come up with improved variants. The Poles also exported quite a bit of locally made MTLBs to India.
In the past the Russians refused to supply any parts to customers who had bought tanks from ex Warsaw Pact countries as they maintained that the licensing agreement for local production granted during Soviet times only applied for domestic use and that any exports required Soviet/Russian approval. To the Russians any exports of T-72s and T-80's by Poland, Slovakia, the Ukraine and the former Yugoslavia is a breach of contract.
Last edited:
Yes I would have to agree. I wish @MrConservative was still around because he would be able to explain the the legalities of this, but I would presume that if Ukraine is operating combat aircraft that are launched, recovered, maintained rearmed and refuelled in a third country, then Russia is technically able to strike those airfields being used for that purpose.
Yes, I agree they do require a long range SAM system, but it has to be mobile because any fixed system will be vulnerable and won't last long.
It appears that the Russians are using the S-300P (SA-10 Grumble) SAM missiles against surface targets inside Ukraine now. Apparently the missile has a latent land attack capability. Russia Now Firing S-300 Surface-To-Air Missiles At Land Targets In Ukraine: Official (thedrive.com) It is suggested that as more S-400 (SA-21 Growler) are bought into service, the S-300 is relegated to secondary roles and can be spared for such roles as this. Furthermore, the S-500 Prometheus is due to enter service in 2025 as a series built form.
Pentaprism
Member
It's surprising how little control of the skies the Russian Air Force has. Ukraine is flying in Military supplies in AN-12 Aircraft from Turkey. The AN-12 would surely be very had to miss with any decent radar system and would be a sitting duck for a SU-27/SU30 - unless range from the nearest Russian Airfield is an issue???
This one crashed on landing but if the VVS was doing it's job it would have been shot down long before it reached an Airport.
This one crashed on landing but if the VVS was doing it's job it would have been shot down long before it reached an Airport.
Accident Antonov An-12BK UR-11316,
Motor Sich flight 6536, an Antonov An-12, made a hard landing on runway 10 at Uzhgorod Airport (UKLU) with a vertical g-force of 2.76g. As a result, the tires of the three wheels of the l...
aviation-safety.net
Last edited: