https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-flyin...39385.html
Lots of "interesting" statements in this article, some of which we can know from other sources are basically true. Some other assertions/conclusions are IMO nonsense. Interestingly we see many statements from various sources saying that the Ukraine's F-16s are not going to be able to operate effectively on or over the FEBA. The assertion is made that Russia's air defenses (basically all SAM based) are ubiquitous, indestructible and totally effective. Then we also see articles like this one that say:
Obviously both sets of statements cannot be equally true. They are largely contradictory. The article also contains the statement
Regarding the ability of Russian air defenses against inbound aircraft. Ever heard of Mathias Rust? He flew through the entire Warsaw Pact and Russian boundary defensive SAM belts back in 1987. The Russian border air defense system did detect him but couldn't target him. They passed the contact to the PVO. The vectored interceptor found him but didn't kill him. Remember, this was at the height of the cold war. Russia was poised to defeat attack from NATO. A Cessna from the FRG landed in Red Square.
Obviously technology has advanced. Russia's radars and SAMs are "better" than they were in 1987. However, they are NOT more numerous. The Russian border defenses were much "thicker" in the late 1980s than they are today. One of the reasons the S-400 has such long range is that it needed to have a larger kill radius to make up for its lower numbers. (There are other reasons as well). The radar horizon and geometry are not different today. Russia also has always had some missile systems defending high value targets inside the country. These are "point defense" batteries. They are often single batteries. These systems are numerous but not numerous enough to defend everything. On top of that is the inevitable "loss of the edge" for SAM troops defending points well inside Russian territory. They don't ever expect to be needed. Most importantly the PVO is completely gone. It used to be a massive organization with a massive number of aircraft and pilots. It could fill the inevitable gaps in the SAM belts. Again, it is GONE.
In the Ukraine war it is important to realize that the defense system the Russian Federation inherited from the Soviet Union was not designed to protect Russia from Ukrainian aircraft. Quite the opposite. The Soviet SAM systems in Crimea were legendarily thick and oriented towards defending the Russian Navy in Sevastopol and all the critical defense manufacturing based in Ukraine. Obviously, when Ukraine didn't join the Russian Federation Russia was left with a situation where the had very little to defend themselves against an attack from Ukraine. Russia didn't immediately start a "crash program" to defend themselves against Ukraine. They had money problems. Russia also realistically didn't expect to be attacked by Ukraine :-).
During the interval from about 2008ish to the present, Russia has indeed significantly improved it's air defense system against Ukraine. However, it isn't nearly dense enough to interdict the entire boundary against low-altitude penetration. That is a simple and obvious fact. If you stay low and avoid overflying known SAM sites you will be pretty safe. If you fly around at 10,000 ft or higher you are at risk from SAMs. Below that, you are largely "safe" unless you are stupid. You are at risk from guns and MANPADS/TORs etc., but if one avoids troop concentrations you are pretty safe. For drones, some losses are acceptable. Thus, it is no surprise at all that Ukrainian drones can show up anywhere in Russia. Drones are also on a one-way trip. They don't have to do it twice.
The "correct" way for Russia to defend against these attacks is to fly a Mainstay inside Russian airspace and survey the Ukrainian airspace. If a drone is detected that would pose a threat to cross into Russia, the A-50 could vector an aircraft (from an already airborne "dronecap") that would fly to where the drone is and shoot it down (with guns to save money). Unfortunately for Russia they don't seem to be able to do that. They certainly have never demonstrated the ability to do it "at scale". In Syria they have very occasionally operated that way with up to four aircraft, but that isn't exactly a "high threat" situation. In short, it would seem Russia has a major "capability gap" that Ukraine is and will continue to exploit until Russia fills that hole. FWIW Ukraine has exactly the same problem. They have improvised a defense against drones and cruise missiles, at least for many of the cities. This defense however "leaks" substantially. The F-16s will greatly improve Ukraine's ability to defend against such attacks. Ukraine appears to understand this and intends to do it.
The "mutual air denial" statement IMO is a total myth. Ukraine never has an air force that was anywhere near big enough or modern enough to operate at altitude against Russia inside Russian air space or even over the FEBA. They had no SEAD ability at all. They were also in a situation where they couldn't afford losses because getting replacement aircraft was at best difficult and uncertain. They needed to retain their air force, such as it was, for primarily defensive operations. Russia OTOH arrogantly attempted to operate at high altitude on the first day of the war. With some very slight "help" from the US, the Ukrainian SAMs were ready and had a field day. After that Russia was more careful but still sustained losses. The simple fact is that the Russia air force is not trained or equipped to operate in a "high threat" environment. They have no read SEAD plan. As a result, they don't even try to actively attack Ukrainian air defenses. The Russian air force basically sat out the first two years of the war. In mid 2023 to the present Russian air activity has increased but in general it occurs behind the FEBA. The (very belated) arrival of practical glide bombs has given the Russian air force the ability to launch attacks from inside "safe" airspace.
Ukraine is very resource limited in its air defense role. Ukraine has occasionally forward deployed a Patriot battery and inflicted major losses on the Russians. This happened largely because the Russian aircraft apparently didn't detect they were at risk and dive for the deck. Ukraine cannot do this regularly and they apparently have had two (German) Patriot launchers damaged in the attempt. Ukraine can't afford losses and can't afford to keep these assets out of "point defense" mode very long. IMO if the Russian air force was motivated and actually established a program to penetrate Ukrainian air defenses and take out most of the Ukrainian SAMS, it could be done. Right now, that isn't happening, but Ukraine knows that assuming it never will is a bad idea.
Ukraine OTOH is inflicting attrition on Russian air defenses. This must be oriented towards eventually F-16 utilization, because for drones S-400 batteries aren't all that much of a threat. Fly around them at low altitude. They can't see you. Ukraine also knows that it can't afford many losses of F-16 if it has only 50 of them. That will be a constraint. However, Ukraine appears to be "shaping the battlefield" to operate F-16s offensively. At a minimum, Ukraine has demonstrated that it can make "holes" in the Russian defensive SAM belt.
Lots of "interesting" statements in this article, some of which we can know from other sources are basically true. Some other assertions/conclusions are IMO nonsense. Interestingly we see many statements from various sources saying that the Ukraine's F-16s are not going to be able to operate effectively on or over the FEBA. The assertion is made that Russia's air defenses (basically all SAM based) are ubiquitous, indestructible and totally effective. Then we also see articles like this one that say:
Quote:"We've seen numerous times where the Ukrainians have penetrated Russian air defenses and then flown aircraft that the Ukrainians really have no right to fly as deep as they have into Russia," he said.
"Russian air defenses should have very easily taken them out."
Obviously both sets of statements cannot be equally true. They are largely contradictory. The article also contains the statement
Quote:That has created a situation of mutual air denial, in which both sides are mostly limited to using their own aircraft in their own territory.IMO that statement is fundamentally and demonstrably false.
Regarding the ability of Russian air defenses against inbound aircraft. Ever heard of Mathias Rust? He flew through the entire Warsaw Pact and Russian boundary defensive SAM belts back in 1987. The Russian border air defense system did detect him but couldn't target him. They passed the contact to the PVO. The vectored interceptor found him but didn't kill him. Remember, this was at the height of the cold war. Russia was poised to defeat attack from NATO. A Cessna from the FRG landed in Red Square.
Obviously technology has advanced. Russia's radars and SAMs are "better" than they were in 1987. However, they are NOT more numerous. The Russian border defenses were much "thicker" in the late 1980s than they are today. One of the reasons the S-400 has such long range is that it needed to have a larger kill radius to make up for its lower numbers. (There are other reasons as well). The radar horizon and geometry are not different today. Russia also has always had some missile systems defending high value targets inside the country. These are "point defense" batteries. They are often single batteries. These systems are numerous but not numerous enough to defend everything. On top of that is the inevitable "loss of the edge" for SAM troops defending points well inside Russian territory. They don't ever expect to be needed. Most importantly the PVO is completely gone. It used to be a massive organization with a massive number of aircraft and pilots. It could fill the inevitable gaps in the SAM belts. Again, it is GONE.
In the Ukraine war it is important to realize that the defense system the Russian Federation inherited from the Soviet Union was not designed to protect Russia from Ukrainian aircraft. Quite the opposite. The Soviet SAM systems in Crimea were legendarily thick and oriented towards defending the Russian Navy in Sevastopol and all the critical defense manufacturing based in Ukraine. Obviously, when Ukraine didn't join the Russian Federation Russia was left with a situation where the had very little to defend themselves against an attack from Ukraine. Russia didn't immediately start a "crash program" to defend themselves against Ukraine. They had money problems. Russia also realistically didn't expect to be attacked by Ukraine :-).
During the interval from about 2008ish to the present, Russia has indeed significantly improved it's air defense system against Ukraine. However, it isn't nearly dense enough to interdict the entire boundary against low-altitude penetration. That is a simple and obvious fact. If you stay low and avoid overflying known SAM sites you will be pretty safe. If you fly around at 10,000 ft or higher you are at risk from SAMs. Below that, you are largely "safe" unless you are stupid. You are at risk from guns and MANPADS/TORs etc., but if one avoids troop concentrations you are pretty safe. For drones, some losses are acceptable. Thus, it is no surprise at all that Ukrainian drones can show up anywhere in Russia. Drones are also on a one-way trip. They don't have to do it twice.
The "correct" way for Russia to defend against these attacks is to fly a Mainstay inside Russian airspace and survey the Ukrainian airspace. If a drone is detected that would pose a threat to cross into Russia, the A-50 could vector an aircraft (from an already airborne "dronecap") that would fly to where the drone is and shoot it down (with guns to save money). Unfortunately for Russia they don't seem to be able to do that. They certainly have never demonstrated the ability to do it "at scale". In Syria they have very occasionally operated that way with up to four aircraft, but that isn't exactly a "high threat" situation. In short, it would seem Russia has a major "capability gap" that Ukraine is and will continue to exploit until Russia fills that hole. FWIW Ukraine has exactly the same problem. They have improvised a defense against drones and cruise missiles, at least for many of the cities. This defense however "leaks" substantially. The F-16s will greatly improve Ukraine's ability to defend against such attacks. Ukraine appears to understand this and intends to do it.
The "mutual air denial" statement IMO is a total myth. Ukraine never has an air force that was anywhere near big enough or modern enough to operate at altitude against Russia inside Russian air space or even over the FEBA. They had no SEAD ability at all. They were also in a situation where they couldn't afford losses because getting replacement aircraft was at best difficult and uncertain. They needed to retain their air force, such as it was, for primarily defensive operations. Russia OTOH arrogantly attempted to operate at high altitude on the first day of the war. With some very slight "help" from the US, the Ukrainian SAMs were ready and had a field day. After that Russia was more careful but still sustained losses. The simple fact is that the Russia air force is not trained or equipped to operate in a "high threat" environment. They have no read SEAD plan. As a result, they don't even try to actively attack Ukrainian air defenses. The Russian air force basically sat out the first two years of the war. In mid 2023 to the present Russian air activity has increased but in general it occurs behind the FEBA. The (very belated) arrival of practical glide bombs has given the Russian air force the ability to launch attacks from inside "safe" airspace.
Ukraine is very resource limited in its air defense role. Ukraine has occasionally forward deployed a Patriot battery and inflicted major losses on the Russians. This happened largely because the Russian aircraft apparently didn't detect they were at risk and dive for the deck. Ukraine cannot do this regularly and they apparently have had two (German) Patriot launchers damaged in the attempt. Ukraine can't afford losses and can't afford to keep these assets out of "point defense" mode very long. IMO if the Russian air force was motivated and actually established a program to penetrate Ukrainian air defenses and take out most of the Ukrainian SAMS, it could be done. Right now, that isn't happening, but Ukraine knows that assuming it never will is a bad idea.
Ukraine OTOH is inflicting attrition on Russian air defenses. This must be oriented towards eventually F-16 utilization, because for drones S-400 batteries aren't all that much of a threat. Fly around them at low altitude. They can't see you. Ukraine also knows that it can't afford many losses of F-16 if it has only 50 of them. That will be a constraint. However, Ukraine appears to be "shaping the battlefield" to operate F-16s offensively. At a minimum, Ukraine has demonstrated that it can make "holes" in the Russian defensive SAM belt.