Ukraine Air Force ground losses and solution?
Discussion
Saw today the Ukrainians lost at least two SU-27s this week.
Oryx have yet to update these on their list and are waiting confirmation of losses.
As of today those confirmed losses are:
27 MiG-29 losses
13 Su-27
17 Su-25
19 Su-24
Plus one unidentified jet making a total of 77 frontline fighters lost so far.
The significance of these recent losses is that Russian surveillance drones spotted and guided Iskander missiles in to hit aircraft resting out in the open at Mirgorod airfield, 100 miles from the front. The fact that aircraft are left outside this close to the front is difficult to believe and a very foolish action from the Ukrainians, who can ill afford these losses.
The problem is, that in both sides of this war, secure basing is hard to find. Even when the F-16 and Mirage arrive, if they are left out on aprons, they are going to get hit.
So whats the solution?
Well the US and China invest heavily in canopies at their airfields, making it impossible to see whether aircraft are in them or not, though some sensors will be able to pick up returns if there are heat sources.
But the most sure solution is to copy the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war.
Base your planes in Poland and the Baltics.
If the planes are based there they are still in reach of the frontline, and unless Putin wants a major escalation, they are not going to attack aircraft parked in NATO bases.
While it would take some commitment from partner nations, its a foolsafe way of protecting your aircraft if you are Ukraine.
Oryx have yet to update these on their list and are waiting confirmation of losses.
As of today those confirmed losses are:
27 MiG-29 losses
13 Su-27
17 Su-25
19 Su-24
Plus one unidentified jet making a total of 77 frontline fighters lost so far.
The significance of these recent losses is that Russian surveillance drones spotted and guided Iskander missiles in to hit aircraft resting out in the open at Mirgorod airfield, 100 miles from the front. The fact that aircraft are left outside this close to the front is difficult to believe and a very foolish action from the Ukrainians, who can ill afford these losses.
The problem is, that in both sides of this war, secure basing is hard to find. Even when the F-16 and Mirage arrive, if they are left out on aprons, they are going to get hit.
So whats the solution?
Well the US and China invest heavily in canopies at their airfields, making it impossible to see whether aircraft are in them or not, though some sensors will be able to pick up returns if there are heat sources.
But the most sure solution is to copy the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war.
Base your planes in Poland and the Baltics.
If the planes are based there they are still in reach of the frontline, and unless Putin wants a major escalation, they are not going to attack aircraft parked in NATO bases.
While it would take some commitment from partner nations, its a foolsafe way of protecting your aircraft if you are Ukraine.
Jake899 said:
Saw today the Ukrainians lost at least two SU-27s this week.
Oryx have yet to update these on their list and are waiting confirmation of losses.
As of today those confirmed losses are:
27 MiG-29 losses
13 Su-27
17 Su-25
19 Su-24
Plus one unidentified jet making a total of 77 frontline fighters lost so far.
The significance of these recent losses is that Russian surveillance drones spotted and guided Iskander missiles in to hit aircraft resting out in the open at Mirgorod airfield, 100 miles from the front. The fact that aircraft are left outside this close to the front is difficult to believe and a very foolish action from the Ukrainians, who can ill afford these losses.
The problem is, that in both sides of this war, secure basing is hard to find. Even when the F-16 and Mirage arrive, if they are left out on aprons, they are going to get hit.
So whats the solution?
Not easy solution in the short term, other than trying to adopt what the Swedes and Finns do, operate from roads in forests etc., which Ukraine could do with the Fulcrums, Flanker's & Frogfoot's, not so easy with the Su-24's and not a hope of doing so with the F-16 (which is probably why they are looking closely at the Gripen for further away into the future)Oryx have yet to update these on their list and are waiting confirmation of losses.
As of today those confirmed losses are:
27 MiG-29 losses
13 Su-27
17 Su-25
19 Su-24
Plus one unidentified jet making a total of 77 frontline fighters lost so far.
The significance of these recent losses is that Russian surveillance drones spotted and guided Iskander missiles in to hit aircraft resting out in the open at Mirgorod airfield, 100 miles from the front. The fact that aircraft are left outside this close to the front is difficult to believe and a very foolish action from the Ukrainians, who can ill afford these losses.
The problem is, that in both sides of this war, secure basing is hard to find. Even when the F-16 and Mirage arrive, if they are left out on aprons, they are going to get hit.
So whats the solution?
Better anti-drone detection and weaponary will have to be the longer term aim for everyone now, as this war has proved that drone warfare and the need for cost effective anti-drone warfare is going to be every countries focus looking forward.
aeropilot said:
Not easy solution in the short term, other than trying to adopt what the Swedes and Finns do, operate from roads in forests etc., which Ukraine could do with the Fulcrums, Flanker's & Frogfoot's, not so easy with the Su-24's and not a hope of doing so with the F-16 (which is probably why they are looking closely at the Gripen for further away into the future)
I know they haven't made that many, but I've thought Ukraine needed the Gripen from the start with its out-of-field design and incredibly low operating costs.GliderRider said:
Options:
1. Hardened aircraft shelters (time consuming and costly to build. Aircraft can't be in it all the time.
2. Multiple decoys
3. Better anti aircraft/anti-missile defences (easy to say, much harder to do)
High quality realistic decoys appear to be the easiest option.
Having been in Kuwait (Ali Al Salem) post our invasion to turf the Iraqs out working at Ali Al Salem air base. 1. Hardened aircraft shelters (time consuming and costly to build. Aircraft can't be in it all the time.
2. Multiple decoys
3. Better anti aircraft/anti-missile defences (easy to say, much harder to do)
High quality realistic decoys appear to be the easiest option.
1) Harden shelters are a waste of time. There a fixed location and Russian has the ability to strike them easily.
2) Dispersing and camouflaging your aircraft is cheap and easy but only works if you can operate them. A lot of countries for example have invested in having operating pans on the side of motorways. Simply remove central barrier, sweep up all the road mess and you have a runway (only useful for visual flying really.
3) Decoys, cheap and effective. Some are as simple as a blow up much up. But you have to make everything else look like night around it too.
4) Anti aircraft/anti missile, very expensive and difficult to do.
Dispersal and Decoys seem the most cost effective way of doing things.
Krikkit said:
aeropilot said:
Not easy solution in the short term, other than trying to adopt what the Swedes and Finns do, operate from roads in forests etc., which Ukraine could do with the Fulcrums, Flanker's & Frogfoot's, not so easy with the Su-24's and not a hope of doing so with the F-16 (which is probably why they are looking closely at the Gripen for further away into the future)
I know they haven't made that many, but I've thought Ukraine needed the Gripen from the start with its out-of-field design and incredibly low operating costs.No, I think the Gripen E (maybe with a licence to build from Saab) is the future in a post-war Ukraine more than a 'now' or immediate future.
Simpo Two said:
I'm imagining a decoy war where you attack rubber tanks with rubber missiles.
'Boing'.
There’s the alleged incident during the Second World War where the Germans built a wooden decoy airfield replete with planes, tankers, and buildings, only for the RAF to come along and drop a single wooden bomb on it. 'Boing'.
MB140 said:
2) Dispersing and camouflaging your aircraft is cheap and easy but only works if you can operate them. A lot of countries for example have invested in having operating pans on the side of motorways. Simply remove central barrier, sweep up all the road mess and you have a runway (only useful for visual flying really.
Like thisLots of 1980s coolness there.
Yertis said:
But F16s are not suitable for dispersed operations, they require long smooth runways and have a tendency to "float" on final approach. I can't think of any operator that has ever done this with F16s. Gripens on the other hand do it regularly, they were designed for that doctrine, so if rumours are correct, once the Ukrainian Airforce is set up with their Vipers, the next on the shopping list would be a squadron or three of Saabs finest.I think the west has to stop double thinking the responses of Russia to each move. Of course Russia wouldn't like it if Ukrainian aircraft were based in Poland, but A. They aren't going to do anything about it and B. who cares what they think. They are the aggressors in this conflict and historically they only respond to strength.
Jake899 said:
I think the west has to stop double thinking the responses of Russia to each move. Of course Russia wouldn't like it if Ukrainian aircraft were based in Poland, but A. They aren't going to do anything about it and B. who cares what they think. They are the aggressors in this conflict and historically they only respond to strength.
There aren't enough politicians in the west with the balls to sanction it, or even think that way, especially with this year being the big election year in UK, USA and now France with Macron's gamble that may have backfired on him.Alias218 said:
There’s the alleged incident during the Second World War where the Germans built a wooden decoy airfield replete with planes, tankers, and buildings, only for the RAF to come along and drop a single wooden bomb on it.
If true, not smart as it would tell the Germans they need to make more realistic decoys... Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff