[Goose]

It seems your argument is about purity of the term. Bayraktars may be not functioning in a low altitude role roving the active battlefield. But as you describe, that isn't really how CAS works today for several reasons, even for the US.


As the air arm of a combined arms maneuver, Bayraktar is probably Ukraine's best tool, even if not operating at low altitudes.

TOTALLY agree. The US doesn't do CAS anymore (except for VMFA-xxx). When you are 2 miles above the FEBA that isn't "close" air support. The Army isn't happy about this at all, but that is the way it is. There are some things you can't do from up there (strafing, quickly responding to emerging targets), but there are many things you can. Bayraktars fundamentally operate that way. Their small payload is a limitation, but their relatively small size makes them more survivable.

The US relies on destroying the enemy anti-aircraft missile defenses so that they can operate at 10k+ feet basically risk-free. Ukraine and Russia can't do that. Both Ukraine and Russia lack stand-off weapons that their aircraft need to operate in such a "safe zone" if it existed. As a result, the SU-25 losses on both sides have been prohibitively large. The TB2 is not immune to missiles, but it has a relatively low radar cross section which makes detecting/hitting it more difficult. It also appears Russian missiles are not guiding on it reliably. The TB2 does have stand-off weapons. In fact, that is all it has :-). It is however vulnerable to ECM, and the Russians have had some success that way.

The TB2 also has one other big advantage. You can build more of them (or Turkey can) for relatively little money and relatively rapidly. Building 50 F-16s in a few months just isn't possible. Since you don't lose the "pilots" when a TB2 doesn't come home, the replacement airframes can go right into the fight. Of course, these airframes carry 150kg of weapons, not 7575kg.

[Goose]

It seems your argument is about purity of the term. Bayraktars may be not functioning in a low altitude role roving the active battlefield. But as you describe, that isn't really how CAS works today for several reasons, even for the US.


As the air arm of a combined arms maneuver, Bayraktar is probably Ukraine's best tool, even if not operating at low altitudes.

TOTALLY agree. The US doesn't do CAS anymore (except for VMFA-xxx). When you are 2 miles above the FEBA that isn't "close" air support. The Army isn't happy about this at all, but that is the way it is. There are some things you can't do from up there (strafing, quickly responding to emerging targets), but there are many things you can. Bayraktars fundamentally operate that way. Their small payload is a limitation, but their relatively small size makes them more survivable.

The US relies on destroying the enemy anti-aircraft missile defenses so that they can operate at 10k+ feet basically risk-free. Ukraine and Russia can't do that. Both Ukraine and Russia lack stand-off weapons that their aircraft need to operate in such a "safe zone" if it existed. As a result, the SU-25 losses on both sides have been prohibitively large. The TB2 is not immune to missiles, but it has a relatively low radar cross section which makes detecting/hitting it more difficult. It also appears Russian missiles are not guiding on it reliably. The TB2 does have stand-off weapons. In fact, that is all it has :-). It is however vulnerable to ECM, and the Russians have had some success that way.

The TB2 also has one other big advantage. You can build more of them (or Turkey can) for relatively little money and relatively rapidly. Building 50 F-16s in a few months just isn't possible. Since you don't lose the "pilots" when a TB2 doesn't come home, the replacement airframes can go right into the fight. Of course, these airframes carry 150kg of weapons, not 7575kg.