Is Ukraine about to have a war?
The following users liked this post:
Guest
What worries me is that we (UK) don't seem in any hurry to open up armament factories. By supplying Ukraine we are to some extent depleting our own capability.
Guest
If we are prepared to give Typhoons then we need to start placing orders for 100's more (for ourselves if nothing else).
Only half a speed-brake
I heard somebody shout Mirage 2000 would be the suitable plane. Alongside F-16 with some infrastructure and support already available in close-by Poland?
A civilian's question: Does the utility available from 2 engine configuration has its specific use and combat value in UKR? As in EFT, F-15, Raphale, Mig 29... compared to Vipers, Gripens et al. E.g. the Su27 seems a big chunk of metal, what the expected role? I assumed precision deep strikes was the sought game changer.
Also nobody mentioned the A10 for a loong time.
A civilian's question: Does the utility available from 2 engine configuration has its specific use and combat value in UKR? As in EFT, F-15, Raphale, Mig 29... compared to Vipers, Gripens et al. E.g. the Su27 seems a big chunk of metal, what the expected role? I assumed precision deep strikes was the sought game changer.
Also nobody mentioned the A10 for a loong time.
What hapenned to the first idea, that Poland donated their Migs that Ukes are trained on, for replacement F16s from the US. I understood it was shelved due to provocation fears. Now that's being sidelined why not ressurect that? Quick & effective
Tabs please !
Russian tank crews refer to the A-10 as "the cross of death". I understand that the Air National Guard have a few and to paraphrase BoJo, there's little point in them defending Arkansas. Perhaps they are the ideal platform ? I see one issue with whatever is sent in that western aircraft are easily identifiable as such. The chap with a MANPAD will waste no time in deciding whether to shoot.
Can you explain how that works ? Everything I have read says that manpads have made the area around the front-lines too dangerous for low-level aircraft, yet this is where tanks would be deployed, is it not ? AFAIK I haven't seen any videos of tanks destroyed by planes: artillery, ATGM, mines -yes, planes, no.
FB
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Am I right in believing that Ukraine is still not being permitted to us western equipment to strike targets inside Russia? How the hell are they supposed to win without doing that?
They need to be protected by infantry (don't let the bad guys ambush from 50 meters with the RPG), by IFV's (take out the opponents armoured vehicles) and AA (eg Gepards) and preferably top cover too (the gentlemen in their magnificent flying machines) plus arty, recon etc etc.
What Leos do better than anything soviets made is take out opponents MBT's from further away and in worse circumstances and break through defensive lines making way for infantry, IFV's, armoured vehicles, mobile arty, etc etc. It is way better than what the Z-ombies have in that task. Few examples: A basic manouver, going forward to firing position and reversing from it: Leo reverses much faster (30km/h) than T72 which reverses at 4km/h! Four! Why? Soviet doctrine was to move forward in numbers, backing up was not considered useful nor accepted... Leo is much more agile.
Weight: everyone is worried Leo being too heavy in Ukraine. Fact is that Leo has smaller ground pressure (kg/cm2) than T72 or T90. Leo is very good for the task it was built for but it is not invincible.
Combined arms is a basic concept. However the Z-team has been astonishingly poor at it, hence there are videos of T72's in a tight group of twenty sending turrets to a low orbit. And lone riders being ambushed by UKR.
In short: Leo2 is very good, but a lone Leo is just an expensive coffin.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,914
Received 2,836 Likes
on
1,211 Posts
Yes but that requires having a system like in WW2 where people are trained as part of an ongoing process that coincides with armaments production.
What worries me is that we (UK) don't seem in any hurry to open up armament factories. By supplying Ukraine we are to some extent depleting our own capability.
What worries me is that we (UK) don't seem in any hurry to open up armament factories. By supplying Ukraine we are to some extent depleting our own capability.
If the UK Gov announces further cuts in the Military there would be an uproar bearing in mind what it happening in Ukraine, but if you supply those items you were going to cut to Ukraine as aid, then the same people that would have created the uproar will be all for it, and UK Gov gets away with stealth cuts to the Military.
Ohhh the cynic in me.
The following users liked this post:
Herod Afraid so. That's why weapons such as HIMARS have their range deliberately limited and great care is taken not to escalate. The explosions inside Russia which we hear about all too rarely are, of course, the result of careless smokers.
Can Typhoon Tranch1 launch or be converted to launch Stormshadow? If it could, 6 Typhoons with full range (500km)Stormshadows could launch from friendly airspace and still have a considerable impact on the battle space without exposing themselves. Training may be quicker as you neednt train all of the features of the aircraft.
Ukrainian fighter pilot requests Western planes
Input informed by direct and current experience!
Extracts from the Guardian:
Extracts from the Guardian:
A Ukrainian fighter pilot who shot down five Iranian drones in one day has said he could learn how to fly a western jet within a few months – and help his country act as “a safe shield for the world” against Russian aggression.
Maj Vadym Voroshylov, a well-known figure in his homeland, said he believed it would take “up to three months to learn all the combat tasks” given his years of experience of flying in a Soviet-era MiG-29.
Engineers could learn how to repair a jet like an F-16 in a similar time, the Ukrainian pilot added, because “ground crews can be trained simultaneously”, in an interview as part of Ukraine’s latest lobbying campaign for military aid.
On Tuesday, the UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak, said at a press conference he would consider whether the UK could become the first western nation to donate combat jets to Ukraine – but then warned it could take “three years” to learn to pilot an RAF Typhoon.
That prompted Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, standing next to Sunak on a surprise visit to the UK, to say the country had experienced pilots who could learn faster: “Come on, we will be sending you pilots who’ve already trained for two and a half years.”
Ukraine has already identified nearly 50 pilots who would be allowed to leave the country for training and had initially sought to obtain the popular US made F-16 because there are over 3,000 operating worldwide.
But that effort was set back when the US president, Joe Biden, said last week he did not want to supply Ukraine with F-16 fighters for now, prompting Zelenskiy to take his lobbying campaign to the UK, where he is seeking RAF Typhoons.
/.../
Voroshylov said that he would tell a reluctant leader like the US president that Nato standard planes would dramatically improve Ukraine’s military prospects in a war that is expected to drag on throughout this year and possibly beyond.
“Look how many targets we have hit with old Soviet equipment. Imagine what we would do if we had F-16s. Give us these planes and we would be become a safe shield for the entire democratic world,” the pilot said.
/.../
Voroshylov, 29, said pilots like him desperately needed newer western fighters, partly because they came up against Russian jets armed with longer range missiles, meaning they often had to abort their missions to prevent themselves being shot down.
“Right now, Russian pilots in Su-30s and Su-34s are armed with R-77 missiles which have a range of around 75km [46 miles]. We can only shoot back with missiles that have a range of around 40km. So when they shoot at us, we have to fly away and hide the planes amongst the landscape,” the Ukrainian pilot said.
Ukrainian jets fly towards enemy positions on bombing runs as low as “20 metres above ground”, Voroshylov said, to evade detection by radar. After firing at Russian soldiers on the ground from a safe distance, a pilot would turn sharply and fly away at a height of 200 metres until they were back towards the centre of the country.
Maj Vadym Voroshylov, a well-known figure in his homeland, said he believed it would take “up to three months to learn all the combat tasks” given his years of experience of flying in a Soviet-era MiG-29.
Engineers could learn how to repair a jet like an F-16 in a similar time, the Ukrainian pilot added, because “ground crews can be trained simultaneously”, in an interview as part of Ukraine’s latest lobbying campaign for military aid.
On Tuesday, the UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak, said at a press conference he would consider whether the UK could become the first western nation to donate combat jets to Ukraine – but then warned it could take “three years” to learn to pilot an RAF Typhoon.
That prompted Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, standing next to Sunak on a surprise visit to the UK, to say the country had experienced pilots who could learn faster: “Come on, we will be sending you pilots who’ve already trained for two and a half years.”
Ukraine has already identified nearly 50 pilots who would be allowed to leave the country for training and had initially sought to obtain the popular US made F-16 because there are over 3,000 operating worldwide.
But that effort was set back when the US president, Joe Biden, said last week he did not want to supply Ukraine with F-16 fighters for now, prompting Zelenskiy to take his lobbying campaign to the UK, where he is seeking RAF Typhoons.
/.../
Voroshylov said that he would tell a reluctant leader like the US president that Nato standard planes would dramatically improve Ukraine’s military prospects in a war that is expected to drag on throughout this year and possibly beyond.
“Look how many targets we have hit with old Soviet equipment. Imagine what we would do if we had F-16s. Give us these planes and we would be become a safe shield for the entire democratic world,” the pilot said.
/.../
Voroshylov, 29, said pilots like him desperately needed newer western fighters, partly because they came up against Russian jets armed with longer range missiles, meaning they often had to abort their missions to prevent themselves being shot down.
“Right now, Russian pilots in Su-30s and Su-34s are armed with R-77 missiles which have a range of around 75km [46 miles]. We can only shoot back with missiles that have a range of around 40km. So when they shoot at us, we have to fly away and hide the planes amongst the landscape,” the Ukrainian pilot said.
Ukrainian jets fly towards enemy positions on bombing runs as low as “20 metres above ground”, Voroshylov said, to evade detection by radar. After firing at Russian soldiers on the ground from a safe distance, a pilot would turn sharply and fly away at a height of 200 metres until they were back towards the centre of the country.
Only half a speed-brake
Secondly, we need to respect they cannot allow for any gaps in airborne defence capability, be that a week let alone months or a year.
Slovakia did proudly in exchange for ground based tech, which has been successfully deployed.
However SVK border, geolocation, political stance, involvement so fare and stakes are effectively miniscule to Poland's. Not to mention them not razing Moscow ever.
Russian tank crews refer to the A-10 as "the cross of death". I understand that the Air National Guard have a few and to paraphrase BoJo, there's little point in them defending Arkansas. Perhaps they are the ideal platform ? I see one issue with whatever is sent in that western aircraft are easily identifiable as such. The chap with a MANPAD will waste no time in deciding whether to shoot.
Transition training would also be fairly quick and easy for existing pilots.
I've been thinking the same thing. The USAF has wanted to get rid of the A-10 for decades, what better way than let Ukraine have some. A-10 survivability in the Gulf was pretty good - and that was against some fairly sophisticated Russian based air defense systems - and proved themselves perfectly capable of turning Russian built armored vehicles into scrap metal.
Transition training would also be fairly quick and easy for existing pilots.
Transition training would also be fairly quick and easy for existing pilots.
That takes you back to the point made earlier on how critical the combined arms warfare piece is, to include robust SEAD efforts.
Ukraine has been fighting this war for over a year including their flying, and continuing to fly, CAS and SEAD over the FLOT.
As such they probably are mor3 aware of Russian capabilities and how to counter them than any country in NATO - and know what equipment they can use most productively to so.
When they say what they need, give it to them without the current 6 month lag where warriors are dying to hold the line.
What they absolutely don’t need is retired Cold War warriors sitting think tanks and armchairs second guessing them based on old intelligence guesses as to Russian equipment capabilities and tactics proved so comprehensively wrong so far.
As such they probably are mor3 aware of Russian capabilities and how to counter them than any country in NATO - and know what equipment they can use most productively to so.
When they say what they need, give it to them without the current 6 month lag where warriors are dying to hold the line.
What they absolutely don’t need is retired Cold War warriors sitting think tanks and armchairs second guessing them based on old intelligence guesses as to Russian equipment capabilities and tactics proved so comprehensively wrong so far.
Absolutely this.
Ukraine has consistently shown that it's forces are extremely adaptable, technically very competent and tactically way better than Russian forces. They need a capability to strike well behind Russian lines. Cutting off logistic supply to Russia's front lines is key. Sure tanks, artillery, IFVs, MANPADS are great, but they don't solve the big problem.
If anyone doubts this look at the impact of HIMARS. Being able to accurately hit targets 50km behind Russian front lines has been crucial. Give Ukraine the ability to hit 200km and it would be decisive. This is not about slugging it out in trenches. We learned that lesson in WWI, the Russians learned it again in WWII (although they seem to have forgotten it). Flying over Russian-held territory is madness, given their AD. Using aircraft to launch stand-off precision weapons with a range of 200km or more would be decisive. Much safer to emulate what Russia's been doing to great effect. Launch from a stand-off range that makes the risk to the launch platform low.
Far better than ground-launched weapons that are always more vulnerable. A fire-and-forget long range weapon's launch platform will have long-since buggered off by the time the Russian's know the weapon's coming.
The following users liked this post:
There goes a terminator, the Russian pride of a AFV (and basically just a T72 with a new turret).
Fun part is that this is the first confirmed sighting of a terminator in action that I've seen, and it's already destroyed. It's not coming back.
Fun part is that this is the first confirmed sighting of a terminator in action that I've seen, and it's already destroyed. It's not coming back.
Absolutely this.
Ukraine has consistently shown that it's forces are extremely adaptable, technically very competent and tactically way better than Russian forces. They need a capability to strike well behind Russian lines. Cutting off logistic supply to Russia's front lines is key. Sure tanks, artillery, IFVs, MANPADS are great, but they don't solve the big problem.
If anyone doubts this look at the impact of HIMARS. Being able to accurately hit targets 50km behind Russian front lines has been crucial. Give Ukraine the ability to hit 200km and it would be decisive. This is not about slugging it out in trenches. We learned that lesson in WWI, the Russians learned it again in WWII (although they seem to have forgotten it). Flying over Russian-held territory is madness, given their AD. Using aircraft to launch stand-off precision weapons with a range of 200km or more would be decisive. Much safer to emulate what Russia's been doing to great effect. Launch from a stand-off range that makes the risk to the launch platform low.
Far better than ground-launched weapons that are always more vulnerable. A fire-and-forget long range weapon's launch platform will have long-since buggered off by the time the Russian's know the weapon's coming.
Ukraine has consistently shown that it's forces are extremely adaptable, technically very competent and tactically way better than Russian forces. They need a capability to strike well behind Russian lines. Cutting off logistic supply to Russia's front lines is key. Sure tanks, artillery, IFVs, MANPADS are great, but they don't solve the big problem.
If anyone doubts this look at the impact of HIMARS. Being able to accurately hit targets 50km behind Russian front lines has been crucial. Give Ukraine the ability to hit 200km and it would be decisive. This is not about slugging it out in trenches. We learned that lesson in WWI, the Russians learned it again in WWII (although they seem to have forgotten it). Flying over Russian-held territory is madness, given their AD. Using aircraft to launch stand-off precision weapons with a range of 200km or more would be decisive. Much safer to emulate what Russia's been doing to great effect. Launch from a stand-off range that makes the risk to the launch platform low.
Far better than ground-launched weapons that are always more vulnerable. A fire-and-forget long range weapon's launch platform will have long-since buggered off by the time the Russian's know the weapon's coming.