https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-air-d...35715.html
The above article is very pessimistic. There are some missing key factors. However, its fundamental thesis is IMO clearly correct. Patriots cannot put a shield over Ukraine's sky that is largely invulnerable to air attacks of any and all kinds. It was never designed to do that and not nearly enough such systems exist to do that. Even if Ukraine had every last one of them in existence it wouldn't be enough. That is a simple fact. The article points out that the Patriot systems can be overwhelmed by too many targets. They can easily run out of (very expensive) missiles.
The Patriot should never be shooting at cruise missiles and low speed Iranian knock-off drones. This is where the article goes wrong IMO. Those targets should be taken out by the Ukrainian air force. Gun systems and short range air defense systems can help in this effort but they cannot be quickly moved to concentrate where the large number of threats are intended to overwhelm the air defenses. Aircraft can, and that is why it "works". The Iranian strike on Israel was defended exactly that way. The massive quantity of relatively "easy" targets were handled by the air forces. The ballistic missiles were handled by the Arrow systems. Granted Israel had the benefit of a buffer zone in which to do this, but even lacking that Ukraine should be able to intercept and destroy the vast majority of such threats. The F-16s are needed RTFN. That isn't going to happen because we didn't anticipate the threat and plan ahead. The US needs to train more than 12 pilots a year (more like 70 or so) and provide all our F-16s that are at or going to the boneyard to Ukraine. This force can also hold at risk Russian aircraft launching air to ground weapons of all types. They can do so both inside Ukraine and inside Russia to a limited extent. If this is not accomplished, Ukraine is indeed toast. It will be just a matter of time.
The summer offensive by Ukraine in 2023 was very important because it would have threatened Crimea, possibly leading to driving the Russians out of there. Ukraine desperately needs a way to "hurt" Russia enough that the Russians could eventually be forced to stop the war. Killing a lot of Russian troops won't do it apparently. Blowing up the Russian oil/gas industry might do it, but to date Ukraine simply doesn't have the quantity of weapons to do it. Taking back Crimea would IMO do it, but Ukraine wasn't able to do so in 2023 and is even less able to do so in 2024. The "why" of that inability only matters in so far as rectifying it is concerned.
Right now, Russia is in a situation it can attack Ukraine from the air indefinitely with little risk of damage to themselves that matters enough to even move the pain meter. Practice is making Russia better at it and the more aggressive VKS is only going to make things monotonically worse. The US needs a strategy to allow Ukraine to win this war in a time frame that is short enough that Ukraine can survive long enough to execute it. Without that, success is not an option. The time frame now is even shorter than it was in 2023. I am pretty sure that the Ukrainian troops are becoming aware of this situation (in so far as they were not already) and will simply give up if there is no path to victory. Right now, there isn't. What is the "west" thinking is the "way ahead"? With no strategy there is no victory, full stop.
The above article is very pessimistic. There are some missing key factors. However, its fundamental thesis is IMO clearly correct. Patriots cannot put a shield over Ukraine's sky that is largely invulnerable to air attacks of any and all kinds. It was never designed to do that and not nearly enough such systems exist to do that. Even if Ukraine had every last one of them in existence it wouldn't be enough. That is a simple fact. The article points out that the Patriot systems can be overwhelmed by too many targets. They can easily run out of (very expensive) missiles.
The Patriot should never be shooting at cruise missiles and low speed Iranian knock-off drones. This is where the article goes wrong IMO. Those targets should be taken out by the Ukrainian air force. Gun systems and short range air defense systems can help in this effort but they cannot be quickly moved to concentrate where the large number of threats are intended to overwhelm the air defenses. Aircraft can, and that is why it "works". The Iranian strike on Israel was defended exactly that way. The massive quantity of relatively "easy" targets were handled by the air forces. The ballistic missiles were handled by the Arrow systems. Granted Israel had the benefit of a buffer zone in which to do this, but even lacking that Ukraine should be able to intercept and destroy the vast majority of such threats. The F-16s are needed RTFN. That isn't going to happen because we didn't anticipate the threat and plan ahead. The US needs to train more than 12 pilots a year (more like 70 or so) and provide all our F-16s that are at or going to the boneyard to Ukraine. This force can also hold at risk Russian aircraft launching air to ground weapons of all types. They can do so both inside Ukraine and inside Russia to a limited extent. If this is not accomplished, Ukraine is indeed toast. It will be just a matter of time.
The summer offensive by Ukraine in 2023 was very important because it would have threatened Crimea, possibly leading to driving the Russians out of there. Ukraine desperately needs a way to "hurt" Russia enough that the Russians could eventually be forced to stop the war. Killing a lot of Russian troops won't do it apparently. Blowing up the Russian oil/gas industry might do it, but to date Ukraine simply doesn't have the quantity of weapons to do it. Taking back Crimea would IMO do it, but Ukraine wasn't able to do so in 2023 and is even less able to do so in 2024. The "why" of that inability only matters in so far as rectifying it is concerned.
Right now, Russia is in a situation it can attack Ukraine from the air indefinitely with little risk of damage to themselves that matters enough to even move the pain meter. Practice is making Russia better at it and the more aggressive VKS is only going to make things monotonically worse. The US needs a strategy to allow Ukraine to win this war in a time frame that is short enough that Ukraine can survive long enough to execute it. Without that, success is not an option. The time frame now is even shorter than it was in 2023. I am pretty sure that the Ukrainian troops are becoming aware of this situation (in so far as they were not already) and will simply give up if there is no path to victory. Right now, there isn't. What is the "west" thinking is the "way ahead"? With no strategy there is no victory, full stop.