Russian Invasion of Ukraine - Military Aviation News and Discussion Thread

LMP737 · Mon Aug 01, 2022 2:35 am

FW200 wrote:
LMP737 wrote:
I think the idea of giving Ukraine A-10's to be quite ridiculous on many levels. Obviously the prospect of escalation being the main one. Then there's the fact you would be giving them an aircraft the UAF has never operated before. How effectively does anyone think the UAF would be able to employ it? Besides, they have the SU-25 so why would they want the A-10?

Well, the proposal of providing A-10s to the Ukraine, which I posted here first on March 2nd, was taken up on March, 3rd by General (ret.) Philip Breedlove (USAF, former SACEUR), so I am confident that it isn't so »ridiculous on many levels« at all:

»Provide US A-10 ground-attack aircraft – currently scheduled to be mothballed – to Ukraine as Excess Defense Articles. Thanks to prior military exchange programs, Ukraine already has a small number of pilots trained to fly the A-10. If spare parts and maintenance are required, use part of the US $1bn funding to allow Ukraine to hire private contractors, rather than involving US personnel directly.«
https://cepa.org/six-ways-to-help-ukraine-survive-right-now/

So, Ukraine has already a few pilots trained to fly A-10s. Those could be used as flight instructors after refreshing their training.

General Breedlove's proposal yesterday was supported by congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan (PA, D), a former USAF officer:
https://twitter.com/RepHoulahan/status/1499740290650890241

And several tweets take up General Breedlove's information of Ukrainian pilots able to fly the A-10:
https://twitter.com/jwa_ism/status/1499797059720908800
https://twitter.com/als355/status/1500002594198106114

But, as I wrote in my first comment on March 2nd, when I proposed to send A-10s, it should be also considered to send mothballed F/A-18 from Davis-Monthan AFB with AGM-88 HARM to Ukraine as escorts against Russian SAMs for the A-10s when attacking Russian convoys, otherwise the A-10s would be helpless against BUK and other SAMs:

FW200 wrote:
If the negotiations about a seize-fire on acceptable conditions should fail and the war goes on even after a possible fall of Kiev in the western part of Ukraine, couldn't the US provide some dozens of retired F-16s from the USAF and F/A-18C/Ds from the USN and USMC stored at Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona and some AGM-88 HARM to Ukraine? If the Ukraine sends experienced pilots (not beginners), training should be possible within four to six weeks.

If the Ukraine gets HARMS, it would be possible to provide them with the Fairchild A-10As the USAF doesn't want to keep as well and train the ex Su-25 pilots from Ukraine on that bird within six or eight weeks.
I think a dozen A-10s attacking this 65 km convoy stuck in a traffic jam escorted by HARM-equipped F/A-18Cs could be quite effective.

I think we all should remember here the Soviet-Finnish winter war 1939/40: Nobody thought then, the Finnish would be able to resist the Soviets. But they managed to halt the Soviet aggression for months and the Soviets failed to conquer the whole of Finland and had to agree to an armistice in March 1940.

So don't write off the Ukrainians too soon. If the Ukraine manages to stand up against the Russian aggression for a longer time than expected by many, at least in the western parts of Ukraine, we must begin now with organizing to provide them with aircraft and training for pilots and mechanics, so that the delivery of the aircraft can take place in three months time. Beginning in three months with the preparations will mean that the delivery can happen no sooner than in half a year from now and it would be a very hard time for Ukraine to fight without any air support for so long.

The fastest option were of course the Polish MiG-29, but I'm not sure, if the Poles are willing to provide them any more, after EU-vice president Josep Borell so prematurely told the whole world about the plans.
But we must be prepared to provide also fighter jets as a replacement for losses Ukraine has already suffered and will suffer over the next weeks, because they have no possibility to replace their lost MiG-29s and Su-27s and after the Polish MiG-29 there will be no further supply of aircraft to Ukraine any more.
So the US should begin now to train Ukrainian MiG-29- and Su-27-pilots on F/A-18 C/Ds and F-16s and begin to make the mothballed aircraft at Davis Monthan AFB ready, which will take also two months or so, to provide the Ukraine with fighter jets in May or June. Otherwise they will have no MiG-29s and Su-27s left by then.

By the way, when talking about mothballed aircraft: What about the RAF Tornados retired three years ago? Were they scrapped or are they still available in RAF depots? I think the Ukrainian Su-24 pilots could be trained on them as well.

The Ukrainians evidently don't want the A-10. The reasons they give are spot on.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... n-10s.html

ThePointblank · Mon Aug 01, 2022 7:55 pm

LMP737 wrote:
FW200 wrote:
LMP737 wrote:
I think the idea of giving Ukraine A-10's to be quite ridiculous on many levels. Obviously the prospect of escalation being the main one. Then there's the fact you would be giving them an aircraft the UAF has never operated before. How effectively does anyone think the UAF would be able to employ it? Besides, they have the SU-25 so why would they want the A-10?

Well, the proposal of providing A-10s to the Ukraine, which I posted here first on March 2nd, was taken up on March, 3rd by General (ret.) Philip Breedlove (USAF, former SACEUR), so I am confident that it isn't so »ridiculous on many levels« at all:

»Provide US A-10 ground-attack aircraft – currently scheduled to be mothballed – to Ukraine as Excess Defense Articles. Thanks to prior military exchange programs, Ukraine already has a small number of pilots trained to fly the A-10. If spare parts and maintenance are required, use part of the US $1bn funding to allow Ukraine to hire private contractors, rather than involving US personnel directly.«
https://cepa.org/six-ways-to-help-ukraine-survive-right-now/

So, Ukraine has already a few pilots trained to fly A-10s. Those could be used as flight instructors after refreshing their training.

General Breedlove's proposal yesterday was supported by congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan (PA, D), a former USAF officer:
https://twitter.com/RepHoulahan/status/1499740290650890241

And several tweets take up General Breedlove's information of Ukrainian pilots able to fly the A-10:
https://twitter.com/jwa_ism/status/1499797059720908800

Pretty much in order for the Ukrainians to make any use of the A-10's, the air space over the battlefield needs to be cleared of Russian fighters and SAM's. If Ukraine got F-16's, they could do both; help force the Russian Air Force back from the front lines, and conduct SEAD to clear the air space of Russian SAM's.
https://twitter.com/als355/status/1500002594198106114

But, as I wrote in my first comment on March 2nd, when I proposed to send A-10s, it should be also considered to send mothballed F/A-18 from Davis-Monthan AFB with AGM-88 HARM to Ukraine as escorts against Russian SAMs for the A-10s when attacking Russian convoys, otherwise the A-10s would be helpless against BUK and other SAMs:

FW200 wrote:
If the negotiations about a seize-fire on acceptable conditions should fail and the war goes on even after a possible fall of Kiev in the western part of Ukraine, couldn't the US provide some dozens of retired F-16s from the USAF and F/A-18C/Ds from the USN and USMC stored at Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona and some AGM-88 HARM to Ukraine? If the Ukraine sends experienced pilots (not beginners), training should be possible within four to six weeks.

If the Ukraine gets HARMS, it would be possible to provide them with the Fairchild A-10As the USAF doesn't want to keep as well and train the ex Su-25 pilots from Ukraine on that bird within six or eight weeks.
I think a dozen A-10s attacking this 65 km convoy stuck in a traffic jam escorted by HARM-equipped F/A-18Cs could be quite effective.

I think we all should remember here the Soviet-Finnish winter war 1939/40: Nobody thought then, the Finnish would be able to resist the Soviets. But they managed to halt the Soviet aggression for months and the Soviets failed to conquer the whole of Finland and had to agree to an armistice in March 1940.

So don't write off the Ukrainians too soon. If the Ukraine manages to stand up against the Russian aggression for a longer time than expected by many, at least in the western parts of Ukraine, we must begin now with organizing to provide them with aircraft and training for pilots and mechanics, so that the delivery of the aircraft can take place in three months time. Beginning in three months with the preparations will mean that the delivery can happen no sooner than in half a year from now and it would be a very hard time for Ukraine to fight without any air support for so long.

The fastest option were of course the Polish MiG-29, but I'm not sure, if the Poles are willing to provide them any more, after EU-vice president Josep Borell so prematurely told the whole world about the plans.
But we must be prepared to provide also fighter jets as a replacement for losses Ukraine has already suffered and will suffer over the next weeks, because they have no possibility to replace their lost MiG-29s and Su-27s and after the Polish MiG-29 there will be no further supply of aircraft to Ukraine any more.
So the US should begin now to train Ukrainian MiG-29- and Su-27-pilots on F/A-18 C/Ds and F-16s and begin to make the mothballed aircraft at Davis Monthan AFB ready, which will take also two months or so, to provide the Ukraine with fighter jets in May or June. Otherwise they will have no MiG-29s and Su-27s left by then.

By the way, when talking about mothballed aircraft: What about the RAF Tornados retired three years ago? Were they scrapped or are they still available in RAF depots? I think the Ukrainian Su-24 pilots could be trained on them as well.

The Ukrainians evidently don't want the A-10. The reasons they give are spot on.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... n-10s.html

The Ukrainians need the capability to clear the air space above the front lines of Russian combat aircraft, and suppress Russian SAM's. A-10's won't do that; a F-16 can.

And once that happens, the Ukrainians can use the rest of their air force to directly attack Russian positions on the ground more effectively.

LMP737 · Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:01 pm

ThePointblank wrote:

The Ukrainians need the capability to clear the air space above the front lines of Russian combat aircraft, and suppress Russian SAM's. A-10's won't do that; a F-16 can.

And once that happens, the Ukrainians can use the rest of their air force to directly attack Russian positions on the ground more effectively.

In a perfect world transition to something like the F-16 would have been made five to six years ago,

johns624 · Wed Aug 10, 2022 8:54 pm

Six years ago, Ukraine wasn't the country that it now is.

Nicoeddf · Wed Aug 10, 2022 8:57 pm

LMP737 wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:

The Ukrainians need the capability to clear the air space above the front lines of Russian combat aircraft, and suppress Russian SAM's. A-10's won't do that; a F-16 can.

And once that happens, the Ukrainians can use the rest of their air force to directly attack Russian positions on the ground more effectively.

In a perfect world transition to something like the F-16 would have been made five to six years ago,

True, but it wouldn’t have made any difference. Any realistic numbers of any modern type would have been a dozen here and half a dozen there.

bikerthai · Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:14 pm

Nicoeddf wrote:
True, but it wouldn’t have made any difference.

Maybe it would.

I mean if Ukraine had western aircraft right from the start, then they would be able to use HARMs and Harpoon early on.

So even with half a dozen aircraft they could have sunk a few Russian ships early on and influence the whole southern campaign.

bt

Nicoeddf · Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:22 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
True, but it wouldn’t have made any difference.

Maybe it would.

I mean if Ukraine had western aircraft right from the start, then they would be able to use HARMs and Harpoon early on.

So even with half a dozen aircraft they could have sunk a few Russian ships early on and influence the whole southern campaign.

bt

Yeah, maybe. I don’t buy it though.

bikerthai · Wed Aug 10, 2022 9:45 pm

Let see. The Ukrainian was able to take out the Moskova with their indigenous missile. That took out much of Russia air defense in over the Black Sea which allow the Ukrainian to reclaim Snake Island and open up the Danube ports for grain export even before the agreement to open Odessa.

Now imagine if a few HARMs and Hatpoons could have done the job earlier during the conflict.

Probably would not be able to save Kherson, but if they could reduce the flow of Russian forces by sea, they may have a better chance to hold Mariupo.

But just speculation.

bt

ssteve · Thu Aug 11, 2022 2:11 am

11-15 F/A types destroyed at Crimean airbase by mystery, accurate, long range heavy munition...
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/15 ... 9278345216

Reports of an attack on Russian airbase in Belarus today.

par13del · Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:12 am

bikerthai wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
True, but it wouldn’t have made any difference.

Maybe it would.

I mean if Ukraine had western aircraft right from the start, then they would be able to use HARMs and Harpoon early on.

So even with half a dozen aircraft they could have sunk a few Russian ships early on and influence the whole southern campaign.

bt

Only thing to consider is that IF Ukraine had F-16's prior to the start of the conflict we have to assume that the initial attack by Russia would have been different, F-16's are a known component which would have been factored in to the attack plans. Building a response to military hardware is much easier than the psychological brain power going in to determine whether the folks in Ukraine would resist, stand their ground and western nations quickly throw arms and ammunition into the fray.

bikerthai · Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:26 am

par13del wrote:
we have to assume that the initial attack by Russia would have been different, F-16's are a known component which would have been factored in to the attack plans.

You mean they may not have tried the helo assault on the airport?

Would they have been more cautious?

They were not cautious with the Kyiv thrusts knowing that thousands of ATM have already the country.

You may be right, but if what we have seen on how they operate, they would follow doctrine, no matter what the Ukraine may or may not have.

bt

par13del · Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:02 pm

bikerthai wrote:
par13del wrote:
we have to assume that the initial attack by Russia would have been different, F-16's are a known component which would have been factored in to the attack plans.

You mean they may not have tried the helo assault on the airport?

Would they have been more cautious?

They were not cautious with the Kyiv thrusts knowing that thousands of ATM have already the country.

You may be right, but if what we have seen on how they operate, they would follow doctrine, no matter what the Ukraine may or may not have.

bt

In which case we should expect no changes in how they are operating and protecting their SAM radar sites?
We have seen them adapt to the threat posed by drones, so they are not as rigid as we think, best case is for Ukraine to do as much damage before the Borg adapts, unfortunately, their limited resources may not allow such actions.

bikerthai · Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:42 pm

par13del wrote:
In which case we should expect no changes in how they are operating and protecting their SAM radar sites?

They will adapt as far as what their doctrine dictates. Wich probably equates to:

"Don't do anything until The General tells you to do it" :bitelip:

bt

Phosphorus · Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:57 pm

LMP737 wrote:
FW200 wrote:
LMP737 wrote:
I think the idea of giving Ukraine A-10's to be quite ridiculous on many levels. Obviously the prospect of escalation being the main one. Then there's the fact you would be giving them an aircraft the UAF has never operated before. How effectively does anyone think the UAF would be able to employ it? Besides, they have the SU-25 so why would they want the A-10?

Well, the proposal of providing A-10s to the Ukraine, which I posted here first on March 2nd, was taken up on March, 3rd by General (ret.) Philip Breedlove (USAF, former SACEUR), so I am confident that it isn't so »ridiculous on many levels« at all:

»Provide US A-10 ground-attack aircraft – currently scheduled to be mothballed – to Ukraine as Excess Defense Articles. Thanks to prior military exchange programs, Ukraine already has a small number of pilots trained to fly the A-10. If spare parts and maintenance are required, use part of the US $1bn funding to allow Ukraine to hire private contractors, rather than involving US personnel directly.«
https://cepa.org/six-ways-to-help-ukraine-survive-right-now/

So, Ukraine has already a few pilots trained to fly A-10s. Those could be used as flight instructors after refreshing their training.

General Breedlove's proposal yesterday was supported by congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan (PA, D), a former USAF officer:
https://twitter.com/RepHoulahan/status/1499740290650890241

And several tweets take up General Breedlove's information of Ukrainian pilots able to fly the A-10:
https://twitter.com/jwa_ism/status/1499797059720908800
https://twitter.com/als355/status/1500002594198106114

But, as I wrote in my first comment on March 2nd, when I proposed to send A-10s, it should be also considered to send mothballed F/A-18 from Davis-Monthan AFB with AGM-88 HARM to Ukraine as escorts against Russian SAMs for the A-10s when attacking Russian convoys, otherwise the A-10s would be helpless against BUK and other SAMs:

FW200 wrote:
If the negotiations about a seize-fire on acceptable conditions should fail and the war goes on even after a possible fall of Kiev in the western part of Ukraine, couldn't the US provide some dozens of retired F-16s from the USAF and F/A-18C/Ds from the USN and USMC stored at Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona and some AGM-88 HARM to Ukraine? If the Ukraine sends experienced pilots (not beginners), training should be possible within four to six weeks.

If the Ukraine gets HARMS, it would be possible to provide them with the Fairchild A-10As the USAF doesn't want to keep as well and train the ex Su-25 pilots from Ukraine on that bird within six or eight weeks.
I think a dozen A-10s attacking this 65 km convoy stuck in a traffic jam escorted by HARM-equipped F/A-18Cs could be quite effective.

I think we all should remember here the Soviet-Finnish winter war 1939/40: Nobody thought then, the Finnish would be able to resist the Soviets. But they managed to halt the Soviet aggression for months and the Soviets failed to conquer the whole of Finland and had to agree to an armistice in March 1940.

So don't write off the Ukrainians too soon. If the Ukraine manages to stand up against the Russian aggression for a longer time than expected by many, at least in the western parts of Ukraine, we must begin now with organizing to provide them with aircraft and training for pilots and mechanics, so that the delivery of the aircraft can take place in three months time. Beginning in three months with the preparations will mean that the delivery can happen no sooner than in half a year from now and it would be a very hard time for Ukraine to fight without any air support for so long.

The fastest option were of course the Polish MiG-29, but I'm not sure, if the Poles are willing to provide them any more, after EU-vice president Josep Borell so prematurely told the whole world about the plans.
But we must be prepared to provide also fighter jets as a replacement for losses Ukraine has already suffered and will suffer over the next weeks, because they have no possibility to replace their lost MiG-29s and Su-27s and after the Polish MiG-29 there will be no further supply of aircraft to Ukraine any more.
So the US should begin now to train Ukrainian MiG-29- and Su-27-pilots on F/A-18 C/Ds and F-16s and begin to make the mothballed aircraft at Davis Monthan AFB ready, which will take also two months or so, to provide the Ukraine with fighter jets in May or June. Otherwise they will have no MiG-29s and Su-27s left by then.

By the way, when talking about mothballed aircraft: What about the RAF Tornados retired three years ago? Were they scrapped or are they still available in RAF depots? I think the Ukrainian Su-24 pilots could be trained on them as well.

The Ukrainians evidently don't want the A-10. The reasons they give are spot on.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... n-10s.html

Kinda yes. Actually, it would be a useful tool on the battlefield. And plenty of schadenfreude would be involved as well.
However, nothing comes free. Even if they are gifted, they'd divert limited resources. And unless air dominance is established by Ukrainian Air Force, A-10's are in too much risk...

bikerthai · Fri Aug 12, 2022 11:43 am

Seems like some activity in the Kerson front Ukraine today.

In the air over Southern Romania is one P-3, one Rivet Joint and one (I assume) P-8.

bt

JetBuddy · Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:06 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
True, but it wouldn’t have made any difference.

Maybe it would.

I mean if Ukraine had western aircraft right from the start, then they would be able to use HARMs and Harpoon early on.

So even with half a dozen aircraft they could have sunk a few Russian ships early on and influence the whole southern campaign.

bt

I thought there was at least one HARM missile used against Russian SAM?

I keep wondering who launched that. Who's flying SEAD missions inside Ukraine except the Russians? Ukraine doesn't have F-16s or any other Western aircraft. Which means it was a NATO plane. Or a Westernized MiG-29 donated by another nation?

bikerthai · Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:48 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
I keep wondering who launched that. Who's flying SEAD missions inside Ukraine except the Russians? Ukraine doesn't have F-16s or any other Western aircraft. Which means it was a NATO plane. Or a Westernized MiG-29 donated by another nation?

Several web sites, including some Twitter post made some good theories. See the non Av Ukraine war thread.

1) HARMs has a GPS mode that does not require integrated targeting from the launch aircraft. They just need a compatible mount (donated spare parts?).

2) The donated MIG spare parts has systems necessary to integrate the HARMs and allow for the use of the other modes. There is some debate with respect to this on a-net.

bt

JetBuddy · Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:41 pm

bikerthai wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
I keep wondering who launched that. Who's flying SEAD missions inside Ukraine except the Russians? Ukraine doesn't have F-16s or any other Western aircraft. Which means it was a NATO plane. Or a Westernized MiG-29 donated by another nation?

Several web sites, including some Twitter post made some good theories. See the non Av Ukraine war thread.

1) HARMs has a GPS mode that does not require integrated targeting from the launch aircraft. They just need a compatible mount (donated spare parts?).

2) The donated MIG spare parts has systems necessary to integrate the HARMs and allow for the use of the other modes. There is some debate with respect to this on a-net.

bt

Thanks for the answer. I'll keep digging for some more info. I usually stay out of the non-av threads because it gets too toxic.

Nicoeddf · Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:04 pm

bikerthai wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
I keep wondering who launched that. Who's flying SEAD missions inside Ukraine except the Russians? Ukraine doesn't have F-16s or any other Western aircraft. Which means it was a NATO plane. Or a Westernized MiG-29 donated by another nation?

Several web sites, including some Twitter post made some good theories. See the non Av Ukraine war thread.

1) HARMs has a GPS mode that does not require integrated targeting from the launch aircraft. They just need a compatible mount (donated spare parts?).

2) The donated MIG spare parts has systems necessary to integrate the HARMs and allow for the use of the other modes. There is some debate with respect to this on a-net.

bt

Interesting info, thanks.

bikerthai · Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:07 pm

Found that informative Twitter post.

https://twitter.com/noclador/status/155 ... 8BXLg&s=09

Edited to correct link.

bt

bikerthai · Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:19 pm

The above thread mentioned Rivet Joint aircraft as potential spotter for the HARM shot.

There was one over So. Romania today.

Also potential spotter would be the Global Hawk which often flies over the Black see at 50,000 ft (much higher than the Rivet Joint).

A third would be a P-8A with AAS radar. P-8s frequently patrols southern Romania, but who knows if they have the AAS radar attached. They also fly lower but the AAS may be a more advance radar than what the Rivet Joint field.

bt

JetBuddy · Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:16 pm

bikerthai wrote:
The above thread mentioned Rivet Joint aircraft as potential spotter for the HARM shot.

There was one over So. Romania today.

Also potential spotter would be the Global Hawk which often flies over the Black see at 50,000 ft (much higher than the Rivet Joint).

A third would be a P-8A with AAS radar. P-8s frequently patrols southern Romania, but who knows if they have the AAS radar attached. They also fly lower but the AAS may be a more advance radar than what the Rivet Joint field.

bt

Thanks for the info! Appreciate it very much.

I found a bit more on The War Zone. Apparently another AGM-88 has been found inside a civilian house in Ukraine, with marks from shrapnel on it. It didn't detonate, and has likely been intercepted by Russian SAM.

I'll leave a couple of links.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/n ... ine-emerge

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/h ... les-to-use

bikerthai · Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:54 pm

From one of The Drive article above.

We previously speculated that basic HARM functionality could be relatively crudely implemented on any one of Ukraine’s combat aircraft types by leveraging a federated interface, such as an e-tablet. As long as an appropriate pylon could be furnished, from which to hang the missile, this approach could theoretically bypass the aircraft’s existing Soviet-era weapons interface. Then, even possibly via a Bluetooth-like connection, the pilot could operate the missile from the cockpit. But even that may not be necessary in order to use a HARM in at least its most basic of modes.

To me this is a quick doable mod and only require a standard NATO pylon that can interface with an Ukrainian Aircraft. With today's CAD design and high speed machining, they could probably build an adapter in less than a month.

bt

bikerthai · Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:08 pm

Starting to see these F-18s over So. Romania lately.

https://fr24.com/AE12S/2d157563

Are these the air coverage used to back fill the Migs donated to Ukraine?

bt

Phosphorus · Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:24 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Starting to see these F-18s over So. Romania lately.

https://fr24.com/AE12S/2d157563

Are these the air coverage used to back fill the Migs donated to Ukraine?

bt

Is Ukraine planning to take any MiG-21? I wouldn't really expect that to happen, meaning of course weapons and systems might be useful, but MiG-21 in Ukraine Air Force service doesn't sound probable, does it?
Unless there is a program to deploy them pilotless, modified to drones.
Just can't see squandering the pilots, flying a platform that has so few chances surviving truly contested skies...

GDB · Wed Aug 17, 2022 5:46 am

bikerthai wrote:
Starting to see these F-18s over So. Romania lately.

https://fr24.com/AE12S/2d157563

Are these the air coverage used to back fill the Migs donated to Ukraine?

bt

No, they are most the RCAF F-18’s who have very recently taken over air policing from RAF Typhoons out of Romania.

ReverseFlow · Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:10 am

GDB wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
Starting to see these F-18s over So. Romania lately.

https://fr24.com/AE12S/2d157563

Are these the air coverage used to back fill the Migs donated to Ukraine?

bt

No, they are most the RCAF F-18’s who have very recently taken over air policing from RAF Typhoons out of Romania.

Ah that's why there is a RCAF A310 flying tanker tracks there.

Buckeyetech · Wed Aug 17, 2022 12:09 pm

Russia has INCREASED their number of aircraft fighting in Ukraine.

https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2022/08/1 ... n-ukraine/

Spacepope · Wed Aug 17, 2022 1:11 pm

Italy has onr of their Gulfstream V based AEW aircraft doing laps over the Romanian coast as PERSE71 this morning. https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=33fd99

bikerthai · Wed Aug 17, 2022 1:20 pm

Spacepope wrote:
Italy has onr of their Gulfstream V based AEW aircraft doing laps over the Romanian coast as PERSE71 this morning. https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=33fd99

I've seen that plane in the area before.

A P-3 is keeping it company.

Earlier in the war I saw more E-3 an P-8 in the area.

bt

bikerthai · Fri Aug 26, 2022 1:04 pm

What aircraft is AXE22?

bt

flyingturtle · Mon Aug 29, 2022 3:25 pm

What actually prevents Russia from shooting down NATO's Global Hawk drone that is circling over the Black Sea, and sending back valuable intel?

I don't think NATO forces would be eager to retaliate against the Black Sea fleet, or the Russian Air Force...

bikerthai · Mon Aug 29, 2022 3:55 pm

flyingturtle wrote:
actually prevents Russia from shooting down NATO's Global Hawk drone that is circling over the Black Sea, and sending back valuable intel?

The GH is flying in over international borders.

If it were to have had an "accident" then something valuable near Crimea over international waters may have an accident also.

bt

Francoflier · Mon Aug 29, 2022 3:58 pm

The Black Sea does not belong to Russia, at least not where NATO assets operate. Destroying NATO hardware (especially unarmed) outside of their own territory would amount to an unprovoked act of aggression and despite all their bombastic rhetoric, Russia knows better than to poke that particular bear...

mxaxai · Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:08 pm

flyingturtle wrote:
What actually prevents Russia from shooting down NATO's Global Hawk drone that is circling over the Black Sea, and sending back valuable intel?

- It's still property of the US government
- It remains in international airspace

I'm not sure if there's any formal agreement but the general consensus is that your military shall not interfere with (peaceful) foreign military nor civilian aircraft in international airspace. You may intercept them to observe or to provide navigation assistance.

Border disputes can create tricky situations that can endanger the crews of aircraft or ships, but the black sea - other than the obvious conflict Russia-Ukraine - doesn't really have those. As long as you stay away at least 12 miles from Ukrainian/Russian territory, including islands, you should be safe. Excluding 'accidental' shootdowns or such, hence why civilian airliners keep far away.
As these UAVs have a clear pattern that cannot easily be mistaken with an attacking fighter or transport, claiming an accident would be difficult.

Russian activities in international airspace rely on this same freedom. For example, Kaliningrad is only reachable from Russia through a narrow stretch of international airspace (and waters) down the Baltic Sea. If Russia shot down US or EU aircraft over international waters in the Black Sea, a retaliation could be a blockade of Kaliningrad. It could also trigger a much more aggressive response to Russian military flights or ships in international airspace elsewhere, including 'accidental' missiles.
I'm not sure if Putin wants to escalate things like that.

flyingturtle · Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:10 pm

Thanks for your replies. I thought that an aircraft that gathers valuable SIGINT is not, exactly, "peaceful". Russia knows that this thingy is helping the Ukrainians in the turret-tossing business.

bikerthai · Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:33 pm

flyingturtle wrote:
. I thought that an aircraft that gathers valuable SIGINT is not, exactly, "peaceful".

The US, Russia and China does this kind of SIGINT flights all the times.

What they do with the intelligence is their own business. I think as long as the US does not target directly but provide the info and let Ukraine decide on the targeting, then the US is still on this side of the slope. It would be no difference than Ukraine getting targeting information by buying from commercial satellite providers. (Except US military data probably have higher resolution :eyepopping:

)
bt

GDB · Mon Aug 29, 2022 9:03 pm

Both sides SU-25's in action around Kershon;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMlOmRDCC7I

LyleLanley · Mon Aug 29, 2022 9:25 pm

flyingturtle wrote:
Thanks for your replies. I thought that an aircraft that gathers valuable SIGINT is not, exactly, "peaceful". Russia knows that this thingy is helping the Ukrainians in the turret-tossing business.

It's understandable to think that, but there's a lot more "grey" to legal targets than appears on the surface.

For instance: airborne troops parachuting out of a C-17 are legal targets according to the rules of war and can be shot like dogs while they're floating to terra firma. Shoot at them and you're being smart. A pilot/WSO who ejected from a disabled aircraft and floating down are NOT legal targets and are afforded full prisoner's protection under the Geneva Conventions. Shoot at them and you're committing a war crime.

In this case, an RC-135 collecting intelligence while flying in international airspace is not a legitimate target: It is a reconnaissance aircraft operating according to international law with national markings. It is NOT a spy plane, which is an "un-owned" aircraft conducting an illegal act, but rather a nation's sovereign instrument operating in a legal manner. Russia was doing the same thing over Syria and "other areas" for a long time and there was nothing American aircraft could do about it. At least if they wanted to continue their careers outside of Leavenworth, Kansas...

Besides, Russia has their hands full dealing with Ukraine. They don't need to poke at NATO, whom would likely invoke article 5. That would not be a good thing.

tomcat · Tue Aug 30, 2022 11:30 am

Here is a video showing an Ukrainian Mig-29 carrying and launching HARM missiles.

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1564539358451044353

bikerthai · Tue Aug 30, 2022 11:59 am

I was going to comment on all those gauges. Then I remember the US is still flying the F-15C. :scared:

The phone on the dash looks to be for GPS purpose only, so looks like the interface with the HARMs may be hardwired. Jus guessing.

bt

GDB · Tue Aug 30, 2022 3:23 pm

tomcat wrote:
Here is a video showing an Ukrainian Mig-29 carrying and launching HARM missiles.

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1564539358451044353

That makes me think, with also reference to the SU-25’s, given that the rapid conversion of use from trucks for Ukraine, been cleared for maritime use, why not integrate Brimstone on to SU-25? Cannot be any harder than HARM on to MiG-29.
Plenty of use from RAF Tornados and Typhoons, it would certainly allow them to not have to copy the Russian SU-25 pop up and firing unguided rockets out of hope rather than accuracy, as well being extremely lethal.
Maybe such work is being done as I type, hope so.

iamlucky13 · Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:16 pm

flyingturtle wrote:
Thanks for your replies. I thought that an aircraft that gathers valuable SIGINT is not, exactly, "peaceful". Russia knows that this thingy is helping the Ukrainians in the turret-tossing business.

It may not be neutral, but it also is not belligerent, in terms of how the Hague Conventions discussed these matters.

The US cash-and-carry policy and then the Lend-Lease Act during WWII were also very much not neutral. They involved substantial material support to some of the belligerents, but the non-belligerent status of the US was generally respected by the opposing belligerents until the US entry into the war.

Also, the information the US and other nations may assist with are different in nature than the billions of dollars in actual military hardware being sent to Ukraine. Details about the location and operating patterns of a radar have a less direct effect then delivering an AGM-88 that gets used to destroy that radar.

Separate from the treaties governing conduct in a war, it may be simpler to just think about practical matters: shooting down a non-belligerent aircraft in international airspace is definitely going to be treated as a belligerent act. A proportionate counter-response is a likely outcome. In particular considering the US posture, the result would probably be the destruction of one or more Russian air defense sites, and no overall change in US signals intelligence flights, except the presence of (additional?) SEADS and CAP escorts operating with revised rules of engagement. The potential consequences are non-trivial, and there might not be a net benefit to Russia's operational safety.

GDB wrote:
That makes me think, with also reference to the SU-25’s, given that the rapid conversion of use from trucks for Ukraine, been cleared for maritime use, why not integrate Brimstone on to SU-25? Cannot be any harder than HARM on to MiG-29.

I can't comment on difficulty, but the while there might be similar methods (both HARM and Brimstone have a mode for launching to an approximate location and identifying a target in-flight), the specifics probably differ. Either way, the HARM is probably a higher priority for integration than the Brimstone, because reducing air defenses reduces the risk for all aircraft to perform their missions.

In general, neither side seems to be using many short range air-to-ground missiles currently, presumably due to the SAM threat. I've seen a few images of helicopters launching air-to-ground missiles, but the Su-25's on both sides seem to overwhelmingly be using unguided rockets in lofted ballistic trajectories that allow a moderate standoff distance and a rapid descent after launch, rather than maintaining above-minimum altitudes long enough to identify targets for guided missiles.

Perhaps this is in the works though. Brimstone out-ranges the Russian Igla man-portable SAM's, so if Ukraine can use HARM's and other resources to reduce the threat of the longer range air defense systems sufficiently, perhaps air-to-ground missiles can take on a more visible role in close air support.

bikerthai · Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:33 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
Either way, the HARM is probably a higher priority for integration than the Brimstone,

Harpoons would also be higher priority than Brimstone and has the GPS ground attack capability.

We can speculate on whether the Ukrainian have already integrated the Harpoon and have not showed their hands.

bt

johns624 · Wed Aug 31, 2022 12:11 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
The potential consequences are non-trivial, and there might not be a net benefit to Russia's operational safety.

That sir, is the understatement of the century!

iamlucky13 · Wed Aug 31, 2022 2:12 am

johns624 wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
The potential consequences are non-trivial, and there might not be a net benefit to Russia's operational safety.
That sir, is the understatement of the century!

I meant that in terms of a very restrained US response, which I think would be the likely response given the posture so far.

But yes, the full range of potential consequences includes scenarios that would be the defining events of the 21st century.

The bottom line is the best case for Russia is that attempts to use force to stop the US from sharing tactically valuable information with Ukraine backfires in a way that leaves them only a little bit worse off than they are currently. There are not really credible scenarios where Russia shoots down an RC-135, and at the end of the day, says to themselves, "I'm glad we did that. We're more likely to defeat Ukraine now."

Hence, Russia has so far not done anything to disrupt US and European reconnaissance flights near Ukraine.

ReverseFlow · Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:19 am

bikerthai wrote:
What aircraft is AXE22?

bt

Today Axe11 is an F/A-18 Hornet over Romania.
So I guess this would be the similar one you saw?

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=ae55a0

30989 · Fri Sep 02, 2022 12:52 pm

Today, B52s flew in 2000 feet over the capital of Sweden, and one of the B-52s (or likely more) is circling over estojnia, around 150nM west of St. Petersburg. I guess that is a very "defensive" message to someone.

Source: ADSB global and Aftonbladet, in Swedish:

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/76 ... -stockholm

art · Fri Sep 02, 2022 2:05 pm

Slovakia has retired its 12 MiG-29 fighters.

https://theaviationist.com/2022/08/31/s ... r-ukraine/

If they are going to end up in the hands of the Ukrainian air force, can anyone suggest how long that is likely to take? 12 extra aircraft would be very useful to Ukraine, I guess.

bikerthai · Fri Sep 02, 2022 2:10 pm

From what I read, those planes were flying up to the point of retirement. So I would guess they would only need to get re-pained, maybe NATO encrypted radios removed. And the usual paperwork . . . .

Wonder if they will fly them over or send them over as spare parts?

bt

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net