NO FLY ZONE
I have just been listening to Sir Chris Deverell backing a No Fly Zone in Ukraine.

Perhaps he ,or someone, could address the following :

How would a NFZ stop the missile/artillery barrages destroying Ukraine cities ?

How would a NFZ stop Russian bombers blitzing Ukraine cities - the distances are simply too short for effective intercepts ?

To achieve Air Supremacy -required to establish a NFZ - we would have to stop Russian bombers / fighters taking off from nearby airfields in Russia . This would necessitate destroying airfields and radar control sites in mother Russia !

Is this really a good idea ?

Yes, because only Poland, Slovakia & Bulgaria are still actively flying them, the other countries like Romania that did have them, have all long since stopped flying them and parked them up or scrapped them for parts to those that are still flying them.
Poland were due to retire all theirs by end of next year, as were Slovakia, with new build F-16's for Slovakia, and F-35's for Poland to go along with the F-16's they already have.
Bulgaria can't afford to replace their handful of MiG-29, and were set to continue to fly them for another 5 years or more.

Sounds like Poland pulled a fast one with those MiG 29s, have got some nice F16s in exchange.

I know it will "politically" difficult for the US to supply them direct to Ukraine, but could Ukraine simply purchase them (if only for a nominal sum)? After all they've been buying weapons from other sources (e.g. Turkey) with no real blowback. Failing that, could they be snuck in in ones and twos across the border if only to replace attritional losses?

It wouldn't stop it at all and any engagement from "air policing" with ground forces = WW3

Again, PUTIN wouldn't care; any engagement by "air policing" = WW3

Seee above. = WW3


In summary, a NO FLY ZONE is not a good idea. The risks of escalation is almost a certainty.

Best thing is to ensure every person capable on the ground has efective anti-air assets, and open the skies so that if it flies it is a target. No risk of blue on blue. Purely a defensive stance and reason to escalate reduced.

Maybe this is Ukraine's ultimate aim i.e. for NATO to say "Well we can't provide a no-fly zone but here, have some more Stingers and we'll look what else is in the locker"

One advantage of doing this is that there is no fanfare i.e. can be supplied covertly, and their use is fairly deniable assuming dedicated radar systems aren't involved. I doubt even an the most experienced combat pilot will know what system they were engaged by.

Stingers agreed.

Do some ex army officers still have ‘The Charge of The Light Brigade ‘ mentality?

An AN124 carrying Covid test kits has been seized in Toronto. It was carrying the kits ordered by Canada to Canada and when it landed they seized the plane LOL


https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/v...ronto-pearson/

Zelenskiyy seems to think that artillery shells and missiles are the flying objects that need stopping.

Although Davef68 mentions the airport destroyed at Vinnitsia (sp?) it was only mainly the buildings apparently as Russia wants to save as many runways as possible for later use by their waiting VVS Air Force.

I find Mahogany Bob's argument persuasive. Good to know you're alive and kicking, Bob!

I suspect that the lack of runway targeting has more to do with the limited effectiveness of such a strike than a desire to preserve the surface. The attack reportedly used only Kalibir cruise missiles which do not carry penetrating warheads. A 500kg HE warhead is unlikely to keep the runway out of action for more than a few hours if there is a will to repair it. Other airfield infrastructure will be more expensive and time consuming to replace.

I was musing whether Ukraine's geography, specifically its forest cover, could in part explain the progress or otherwise of Russian forces (I haven't heard any talk head mention this yet) and found this map. It shows the south and east of the country to be mainly steppe i.e. flat, open country, nowhere to hide etc, whereas the north and west are wooded to varying degrees, better cover for troops and equipment if you aren't restricted to roads for whatever reason.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....270ff4d492.png
Talking of forest cover, back in 2017 I visited Bialowieza in Poland and went out into the forest one evening on my own in the hope of spotting some of the rarer local wildlife. Have to say, I'm not easily scared out on my lonesome at night having spent many out fishing for sea trout, hiking etc, but for whatever reason I was genuinely unnerved at one point when I spooked something, probably a deer, which promptly came crashing towards me through the undergrowth. I guess the tales of partisans and locals being led away into the forest for reprisals during WWII, recounted by our guide earlier in the day, may have played on my mind. Or maybe there's something in eastern European forest animism.... Either way, its not a ground I'd chose to fight over.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9e8234fb4.jpeg
Getting these ads on here now - hmmm

Russia has been making moves on nuclear power plants by occupying (Chernobyl), shelling (Zaporizhzhia and test reactor at Kharkiv) and advancing toward other NPP's.
There is worrying thought that the Russians are creating a pretext for a nuclear disaster, ultimate area denial by exploding a NPP and blaming the Ukrainians for it. This was unthinkable two weeks ago, now it is in the realm of possibility.
i hope I am wrong.

My thoughts would be to turn the juice off, probably why they are working to connect the EU to Ukraine

https://nypressnews.com/news/world/e...energy-sector/

Given that Russian aircraft are being brought down frequently with manpads and very little damage is reported as a result of bombing, but rather artillery and rockets, I think this must be ignored. I have now moved completely to the view that Selensky is cynically trying his best to drag any NATO country into this war, so that it broadens the conflict and relieves pressure on Ukraine.

This must not happen. His words and pictures of suffering children must be ignored ( in this case ). There is a very real risk of this moving to some kind of nuclear level if NATO becomes involved, and for that Selensky becomes a total **** in my eyes in trying to engineer this. The help he is getting with ATGW and manpads is the most effective at the moment and, by all accounts, very large numbers are getting through;

Hahahaaaa, only could happen in Ireland

Perhaps the Russians propose using the grounds around nuclear reactors to site artillery pieces and munitions stores? Less likely to attract incoming fire with its high risk of unintended "damage".?

Rev

I doubt that he is being cynical in the way that you mean, more rather that he is using it as a tool to pressure the West in other directions. I am sure he knows a No Fly Zone is unrealistic goal, but perhaps constantly stating the need can maybe guilt trip NATO\EU into keeping the pressure on Russia in more sanctions and more aid.And possibly making a paranoid Russia think about what might happen if they use their air power more than the current limited amount ( as you say), so he keeps the debate hot.

AWOL Guardsman bought ticket to Poland.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60675671

Also

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60669763

This made me laugh: