Public sentiment towards the modernization of Ukraine's Air Force is generally positive, particularly regarding Sweden's commitment to providing Gripen fighter jets. While many commenters express pride and support for Ukraine's defense, there remain concerns about operational readiness, delivery timelines, and the complexities of integrating new technology, leading to cautious optimism overall.

Sweden

Ukraine

International Allies

Russia


Comment guidelines:

Please do:

    * Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles, 
    * Leave a submission statement that justifies the legitimacy or importance of what you are submitting,
    * Be polite and civil, curious not judgmental
    * Link to the article or source you are referring to,
    * Make it clear what your opinion is vs. what the source actually says,
    * Ask questions in the megathread, and not as a self post,
    * Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,
    * Write posts and comments with some decorum.

 Please do not:

    * Use memes, emojis or swearing excessively. This is not NCD,
    * Start fights with other commenters nor make it personal,
    * Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section,
    * Answer or respond directly to the title of an article,
    * Submit news updates, or procurement events/sales of defense equipment. Those belong in the MegaThread

    Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules. 
    
 Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, 
 leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

It seems the author does not remotely appreciate the half a century of development that went into the two former Soviet state's multi-layered air defense network. Even if Russia was slightly more advanced and more numerous, their stagnant technological development did not give them the kind of edge the Israelis (Americans) had over the Iranians, whose systems were janky retrofitted home-made SAMs, coupled with 4 newly bought, three-decade-old 'state of the art' S-300PMU2 batteries.

This in effect meant that Israel had just four 96L6E target-acquisition radars and four 30N6E2 target-engagement radars to knock down before Iran would be left with their indigenous systems. By comparison, Ukraine possessed about one hundred S-300 batteries prior to the Russian invasion.

There is simply no way that the Israelis could have repeated their success in Ukraine, and flown so care free through Ukrainian skies, even if we account for scale.

AccountantOk8438

How would one conduct a SEAD operation against a competent, densely populated air defense system such as Israel's? At the end of the day the technology and how much equipment is deployed to a given area would be the deciding factor in air defense capability, and all the examples shown in the article just demonstrate that.

TaeminJung

Are we going to sit here and compare Israel’s performance in Iran with Russia’s performance in Ukraine whilst ignoring the sheer magnitude of the difference in scale and the fact the Ukrainians spent decades under Soviet rule developing their IADS to specifically prevent even technologically and numerically superior opponents from achieving air superiority?

Israel would need triple the F-35s they currently do to achieve in Ukraine what they managed to achieve in Iran. Are we also ignoring the significant US support Israel receives when it conducts these types of missions? How successful would Israel be if the US refused to support them with any intelligence? I imagine still relatively well against Iran but not so much against a hypothetical Ukraine. Ukraine is massive and Israel only has two modern AEW&amp;C aircraft and two legacy ones that even Chile got rid of for an E-3 Sentry which is itself a legacy system.

Russia and Ukraine’s IADS would be a challenge for the entirety of NATO, let alone Israel.

Rexpelliarmus

Somehow the word "stealth" does not appear once.

flamedeluge3781

Let's see how Israel fares if Iran had the same level of support Ukraine got from the west before making this comparison. Russia would have wiped out Ukraine's airforce and air defense systems without unstopped resupply from Europe just like Israel wiped out Iranian air assets.

No-Estimate-1510

We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&amp;p=4147190).


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The modern Russian air force will be paper aeroplanes made of their worthless currency

WhiskersCleveland

"Complete lack of drones" is my takeaway lol

Feralkyn

Looks like their tanks and trucks are a far bigger problem for them.

JoeDirtsMullet00

 A few kleptocrats has robbed Russia for everything. It is baffling how poor they are performing in this war. And all Russia has to show for is massive losses in human lives, material and money.

ENZVSVG

I think they pumped tons of money into the mig-31, their "super interceptor"  and while some can fire cruise missiles now(wonder how many of those they have left?), it's doesn't seem very flexible in application.

Swendsen

[deleted]

If the US Navy readiness is 80% then Russian readiness is probably more like 50%.  Of the aircraft they had delivered over the last 14 years, some large percentage has been lost in this conflict already.  This article tries to paint a hopeful picture of the Russian AF, but one would have to conclude that the article was wrong.  Very, very wrong.

OnundTreefoot

Forbes is a garbage sight.  Lotsa speculation in their "journalism".  This one isnt too bad though.


Comment guidelines:

Please do:

    * Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles, 
    * Leave a submission statement that justifies the legitimacy or importance of what you are submitting,
    * Be curious not judgmental,
    * Be polite and civil,
    * Use the original title of the work you are linking to,
    * Use capitalization,
    * Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,
    * Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says,
    * Ask questions in the megathread, and not as a self post,
    * Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,
    * Write posts and comments with some decorum.

 Please do not:

    * Use memes, emojis or swearing excessively. This is not NCD,
    * Start fights with other commenters,
    * Make it personal, 
    * Try to out someone,
    * Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section,
    * Answer or respond directly to the title of an article,
    * Submit news updates, or procurement events/sales of defense equipment.

    Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules. 
    
 Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, 
 leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*

&gt;In June 1941, during Operation Barbarossa — the massive German invasion of Russia — more than 3,500 Soviet aircraft were destroyed in the first week. Many of those planes were hit on the ground by relentless Luftwaffe strikes on airbases.

This comes off as an odd comparison, the planes of the 1940s were much easier to mass produce than those built today, more so when they rely so heavily on globalisation.

BocciaChoc

&gt;Crippling a large air force entirely through ground attacks is very difficult, as the Soviet Union and Arab states showed by recovering from initial losses.

Which conflicts are you talking about here? Do they involve modern airframes costing \~$50m each involving multi-year lead times, and components which may be difficult to procure?

&gt;Russia can protect aircraft through hardened shelters, dispersal, air defenses, and GPS jamming, as they have already done with supply depots.

They can, but they don't always choose to. With good intel, Ukraine can strike at times and airbases where this does not happen.

&gt;While Ukraine should continue targeting airbases, it can't fully eliminate Russia's air force in this way given defenses and Russia's large number of aircraft.

Well, no. But the definition of success does not involve "destroy" implying 100% of all aircraft.

&gt;The air war will ultimately be won through air-to-air combat

Available evidence points to this being mostly false. GBAD and on-field attrition rates seem much higher. Even friendly fire is a significant contributor.

&gt;Relying solely on ground attacks could reduce urgency for delivering jet fighters actually needed to make a difference in the air war.

I'm not sure anyone has suggested that ground attacks should form 100% of RUAF suppression. Did they?

AftyOfTheUK

This is a pretty unconvincing argument. It's better to 1 vs 1 them in the skies  instead of safely blowing them up from a long distance away? Just because it may make you need less fighters? 

A kill is a kill, and enemies being able to regenerate planes after losses *also* happens with planes lost to air-to-air combat.

&gt; Yet crippling a large enemy air force on the ground — Russia has more than 1,000 fighters and bombers — is no easy matter. Despite being decimated in 1941, the Soviet Air Force managed to recover and went on to dominate Eastern Front skies by 1945.

... but later:

&gt; This suggests the old-fashioned way of destroying an enemy air force: shooting it down in air-to-air combat. In February 1944, the US sought air superiority in Western Europe by launching massive bomber raids against German aircraft factories. This forced German fighters into the air, where they could be destroyed by American fighters. The Luftwaffe lost a third of its fighters in a week.

So, like, the key to air superiority is shooting them out of the sky *after you bomb them and the factory they came from*?

guy-anderson

There is probably no credible path for Ukraine to  attain superiority through air-to-air because they don’t have anywhere near enough pilots or even airframes. Currently the idea is to try for local air superiority for long enough to get air-to-ground shooters in (strike packages USAF-style are unlikely).

westmarchscout

"air war will ultimately be won through air combat" is the most innane take ever considering that this air war is being fought in an environment where AA/AD is reigning supreme and aircraft are barely venturing within 10-20 km of the LOC for fear of taking a missile from the ground.  

Let's recall that air forces on both sides are pretty much reduced to being most effective at DCA against cruise missiles/drones, and being completely ineffective at OCA, with their offensive roles being reduced to chucking unguided rockets and/or winged bombs from way behind the LOC for fear of taking a SAM to the face.  

WTF is this article on about?

&gt;Russian air dominance

"air dominance" has a specific meaning, and what the VKS has in ukraine is not air dominance. it would be a stretch to even call it air superiority

meowtiger

This article is bad in almost every single way. Just not a convincing argument at all, anyone’s better off reading articles by people that what they’re talking about.

r_r_36

Honestly who writes this stuff? These people have not been on the receiving end of a New Years eve firecracker show, let alone glidebombs. Ukraine does not need to destroy the VKS, they just need to turn them into hangar queens defending Kamtchatka from killer whales. 

Sure the russians will move further out after getting some ATACMS up in the tail section. And they will lose a double digit of airframes, ground crew, support equipment and so on. Reorganising will take time. Adjusting replacement airfields will take time, building replacement planes and pilots will take years. The max number of sorties by SU bombers per day will drop - no question there. Even in the worst case for Ukraine - the result is a slackening of FAB strikes for a month - any sane general would be screaming FIRE ZE MISSILES! Ukraine needs a breather. Every week counts.

shash1

Ukraine being able to hit Russian planes on the ground will make life more difficult for the Russians, which is good, but I don't see that ever stopping the cruise missile strikes. They're always going to be able to disperse their planes and cruise missiles have a very long range. 

To stop the strikes completely Ukraine needs to wreck Russian forces in Ukraine, retake territory and then be able to provide and ongoing strike threat to Russia that incentivises them towards a ceasefire. 

Being able to go after Russia's air defences would be way more valuable long term than going after a few airfields. Once Russian GBAD gets attrited below a certain level, they're fucked on the ground in Ukraine and they're increasingly vulnerable at home. You then won't need fancy missiles, you can hit all of these targets with drones.

hungoverseal

I agree that ATACMS alone won't be able to stop the VKS, they'll just put airplanes 100 km further, and that will be the end of it.

But suggesting that it is preferable to endanger scarce F16 frames and pilots in one of the deadliest environments for fighterjets so they can go and try to 1v1 Su34 instead of taking them out by the dozens with ballistic missiles with Cluster warheads in their airfields is a pretty surreal argument to make. 

With good intelligence and enough medium to long range ballistic missiles Ukraine can cripple the VKS without endangering rare and precious F16 frames.

R3pN1xC

Well, I suppose Russia is looking for volunteers to fly Russian bombers from Russia to eastern Ukraine and back. They have a comprehensive training program, and most of the journey uses auto-pilot. An experienced pilot will take off in the aircraft and immediately parachute out over Russian territory.

Show of hands?

series-hybrid

We should give AFU more Patriots, so that it could ambush VKS warplanes in hot areas.

It ain't perfect, but at least it could give respite.

I don't see a practical way to realky defeat the VKS.

Maybe, dedicated F16s with the best AA missiles can manage that, but I am not sure it will be worth the effort.

Infamous-Salad-2223

I remember reading somewhere that there wasn’t actually a runway in Ukraine that was fit for F-16 use. Does anyone know if they’ve been busily expanding multiple runways? Imho the real risk to these aircraft is that they can only operate from a couple of locations which will be well-covered by Russian satellite surveillance. How do you protect your air assets on the ground when your enemy can reach out and touch most parts of your country?

Roy4Pris

I agree with this. Attacking airbases may raise the cost for Russia significantly in the best-case scenario(as they will have to move their aircraft to bases further from Ukraine, spend time and resources building hardened shelters, and dedicate more air defense to those air bases) but it won't solve the problem completely.

Russia could not destroy Ukraine's much smaller air force on the ground while having more drones and magnitudes more long-range missiles, expecting that Ukraine will do that to Russia is not reasonable.

There is no one silver bullet for countering Russian guided bombs. For every counter-measure(be it attacking the planes on the ground, trying to shoot them down with A2A missiles, jamming, more underground shelters(for Ukraine's ground forces), etc), Russians can come up with a counter-counter-measure but hopefully, the frequency and effectiveness of the bombs can be decreased, and the cost for Russia can be increased.

Fatalist_m

Sure, let’s assume that Ukraine needs to duke it out in the skies to win the air war. Where are they going to get the capable planes for this? What about the training? Sure, Russian planes aren’t the best, but they’re still leagues more capable than the F-16s being sent and they have more of them. What exactly is the author suggesting, that we send F-35s with AIM-260 to win the air war? And to what end does winning the air war access a theory of victory for Ukraine, as opposed to just denying it?

DefinitelyNotABot01

Because anti air capabilities are still in place enough that it's considered an unacceptable risk to get too close. 

What they can do instead is approach, fire an air to ground missile while still outside of AA range, then turn back before they're engaged.

Sea2Chi

Because ADA be plentiful and their air force has already taken a shitton of losses

LiftToRelease

As I recall, Russia doesn’t have a doctrine for SEAD, as they plan and build their military around a conflict with NATO, and they do not consider it to be possible to contest NATO’s air power with their own. They simply fight how they’re trained.

Punushedmane

Because there's only like maybe 2 airframes they have that are capable of SEAD/DEAD... And most of them are smouldering metal carcasses now. 

Pretty much their main (if not their only) SEAD/DEAD aircraft was the Su-25... Most of them are now twisted metal on the side of the ramp. The only other one I can think of is the Su-24MP but those cost... well they cost multitudes more than an Su-25 and I doubt Russia wants to risk losing one, assuming the MP even still exists at this point.

On top of that, unlike the US (and NATO) they don't have many, if any dedicated EW fighters/bombers akin to the Harrier,  EA-18G, EF-111 (retired) or EA-6B (retired). They have a couple EW heavies akin to the EC-130 like the An-12BK-PPS, IL-22PPand An-26REP but those are few and far between and very expensive to fly and maintain. 

Thanks to the proliferation of air defenses, without SEAD/DEAD, performing CAP is pretty much out of the question. This was proven all the way back during Operation Linebacker II, even with an absolute clusterfuck of EW aircraft flying around jamming the signals from anything and everything, they still managed to get missiles onto our aircraft, sooner or later something managed to get through and find a radar return, if they weren't manually guided to the target. 

 At this point they're limited to low level CAS missions flying NOE the whole time in order to avoid the absolute dog pile of AA in the areas, even that's getting dangerous as there's some seriously crack shot ZU-23 gunners out there now. Turns out when you spend all day shooting down drones the size of a football going 60+ mph with a 23mm auto cannon,, you get really good at it. 

And keep in mind, this goes for both sides. Both Russia and Ukraine lost most of the Su-25's in the opening year of the conflict, and while the Ukrainian Mi-8/17/24 pilots are some seriously skilled psychopaths, I highly doubt they're willing to tangle with the supersonic telephone pole launcher known as the S-300/400. Same reason Russia hasn't really been able to field their Tu-22's, Tu-95's or Su-24's, they're fast and can deal a lot of damage but it won't do them any good if they piss off a Patriot battery. I doubt even the advent of the F-16 will do Ukraine much good without proper EW or SEAD/DEAD support as I doubt that we've given them anything more than a stripped down export model without all the fancy avionic suites ours have. 

In summary the air war has devolved into low level strike missions while praying you don't get spotted by an anti aircraft system that will hurl a super sonic telephone pole through your canopy because neither side really possesses any means to deal with long range air defense systems and you cant have fighters loitering around at 25,000+ feet with those active.

IIRC the big thing now is launching glide bombs while out of range of Ukranian AA, that's why they want F-16s so much, glide bombs have a really low radar signature and are next to impossible to shoot down.

But basically there's too much AA, and they fucked it up at the beginning of the war by not establishing air superiority. And they don't have enough of the necessary equipment in large enough numbers to do proper EW/SEAD.

GlompSpark

Russia’s ability to throw ordinance at the Ukrainians from the ground is starting to become limited. Serious losses in artillery and replacement of worn out barrels adding to bottlenecks, no matter how many shells they make themselves and import from NK and Iran. They do however have a shit ton of dumb bombs that can be easily turned into glide bombs by clipping wings on them that can be lobbed while staying out of AA range. The increased use of their air force lobbing bombs while out of Ukrainian AA range is just a replacement for deteriorating land based artillery. Problem is, it is very effective.

kiwijim

Because, unlike in video games, Russia doesn't have the same capability to establish air superiority as any competent Western military. Su-57 looks sleek in movies, Russian fighters go neck and neck with Western counterparts in popular AAA game titles. But the reality is different: 

- They didn't have the proper ISR at the start of the war to knock out the AA; there were a few mentions here and there that the first few days of the full scale invasion they were hitting targets that were relevant only on old Soviet military maps - decommissioned sites, etc. 

- Ukraine also did a good job repositioning AA in the opening weeks of the war;

- Same goes for the planes; I keep going to [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1AKCq34yns), where a Ukrainian pilot takes off as his air field is being bombed;

- This is also a testament to the inaccuracy of Russian weapons; they were hoping to achieve results with older munitions, but that didn't work out (stocks of older cruise missiles, minimal TBM usage);

- Kind of flows out of the ISR thing, but Russia's BDA capabilities were also limited; so, if a missile was sent towards a target, the target was considered destroyed; at least based on some accounts, where a missile would strike, miss the target, and there would be no follow up strikes;

A LOT of the above changed since 2022, but cumulatively, these things led to the fact that most of Ukraine's AA capabilities remained intact early in the war;

- Now, another important factor, is the match up; Ukraine mostly had old Soviet AA, with some later Soviet variants of S-300s being the top of the food chain in the AA forces; None of the Russian planes are advanced enough to overcome even these older systems; Russian RWR is shit; radar cross-sections are shit; pilots don't have that much experience, compared to flight hours of their Western counterparts; 

- Russian air forces are more advanced than Ukrainian ones, but most of it is still upgraded Soviet tech; that's why interdiction missions are pretty much not a thing due to the combination of factors outlined above;

- As you can see every time Ukraine pushed it's modern Western AA towards the frontlines - Russia would suffer incredible losses; I'm referring to those episodes where a sneaky Patriot battery would be placed close to the border or closer to the contact line in the south of the country. 

- All of these factors also trickle down to their anti-anti air capabilities; things like Wild Weasel missions, penetrating attacks using stealth are very hard for Russia due to the technological disadvantage; 

All of this limits Russia's air power to a few things, like lobbing glide bombs several dozen kilometers from within Russia or shooting scores of their long-range AA missiles over the border hoping to hit the intended targets; 

Also, let's not underestimate Ukrainian pilots. They're using outdated tech to the max to be able to maintain at least some air cover. Before 2022, every time a super low Ukrainian jet pass would be posted on Reddit, half of the comments would go "this is reckless". Reality was a bit different. If you're a Western pilot enjoying your air superiority, then yes - this might be reckless, when you're a Ukrainian pilot trying to survive an uneven playing field - this is one of the best ways to survive - super low and super fast. It's not directly related, but I still remember the interview of one of the helicopter pilots who would fly suicide missions to resupply the defenders in Mariupol and one of them mentioned hitting the ground with their forward wheel a few times. That's how low they'd go. 

Now add the presence of systems like Patriots and IRIS-T and it's pretty hard for Russia to use their air advantage. In fact, if Ukraine had the permissions to hit airfields deeper in Russia with Western weapons, there'd be fewer Russian capabilities to speak off. The biggest use for Russian aviation right now is using them as dump trucks for glide bombs, because that's the safest option. Another thing is Russia's IFF ... without going into details, it's just shit, plenty of cases of Russia shooting down their own planes. I don't think they can handle intense air operations because of this too.

SCARfaceRUSH

Nobody knows, but likely a lack of experience in combined-arms-warfare and pilots not having enough training sorties to be survivable in combat. Potentially also a lack of countermeasures available in Russia, but that's purely speculation

Lusty_Boy

putin believed his generals who claimed the military could do a 35 day or whatever operation. 
that was obviously a fail.

their navy was a fail that took a bit longer to fail.

Putin is using crappy stuff in the air - 
( and yeah- I can see why- but it makes no damn sense ) 

if someone came up with a foolproof disable 100% of the Russian nukes- putin and cronies would be on their knees to suck cocks of many flavors.

lothcent

Below I see a lot of comments on the larger AA equipment which are accurate and deadly - but also there is almost a carpet of infantry sized shoulder fired MANPADS. I've seen multiple interviews with Russian helicopter pilots saying if they get within 2-3 miles of the front lines they will often see a number of MANPADS launched at them - one interviewee said approximately 10 a mission - these are cheap infrared (heat) seeking missiles in theory defeated by flares and other counter measures - The in theory part means the countermeasures only need to fail once for the loss of the helicopter (and often the crew). Plus the amount of flares the aircraft carry is very limited - enough to allow a very short exposure but not more. 

A reasonable follow-up question is how can Ukraine afford to fire so many MANPADS if they mostly miss - it's the massive cost difference between the target and the MANPADS - a Russian military helicopter can cost 100s or 1000s of times more than 1 MANPADS. Which is not including the cost of the crew - which will often represents a decade or more of experience and all money invested in salary, fuel, and maintenance to achieve that.

pezboy74

They can't gain air superiority in part due to Western AA equipment supplied to the Ukrainian Army and Air Force completely dominating the air space. Decades old equipment, I might add. 


Imagine if they faced current modern Western equipment. Slaughter.

machinerer

Lack of adequately trained personnel and competent officers necessary for effective employment of combined arms. 

And that just isn’t the way they fight from a doctrinal perspective.

oh_three_dum_dum

Modern AA. Same reason the F16s Ukraine has now won’t venture near Russian lines.

Merr77

Their Air Force is vulnerable in Ukrainian air space, so they have to be careful about where they send their planes. It’s easier to replace some conscripts than a combat jet.  Aircraft are a valuable asset, so they don’t want to take unnecessary air casualties and lose air capability completely.

Curious_Location4522

cocorawks

Russian version of DTS is working as planned.

xXWestinghouseXx

Is the word supposed to be "now" or "not"? It makes sense either way.

gnique

Russian SEAD/DEAD capabilities are almost none existent. That is paired with the relatively low amount of aircraft Russia has.

Nickblove

My observation is that militaries generally outside of NATO are reluctant to substantially commit assets in a way that risks them because their manufacturing base to replace them is either a trickle or would be so costly to purchase replacements it doesn’t justify their use when attrition tactics are relatively cheap and easily replaceable through conscription. Conscripts obviously aren’t super high quality and their ground game isn’t together for neutralizing threats to those assets and makes a feedback loop of unsupported mechanized warfare being preferred.

For much of the world, the Air Force or naval fleet or whatever expensive flagship thing they have is all they’re going to have and they don’t have the production depth to field replacements at an acceptable rate. Lose 30% of your tier 1 platform and you are turning to what’s been mothballed for ages because it’s simply not coming back. They’re more or less for deterrence and defense more so than an offensive capability at that point but that’s just my observation.

AnalogAlien502

Disossabovii

The Russians are invading a nation which has a modern army, good tactics and Ukraine knows how to use advanced western weapons.

It's not like invading Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Palestine.. where mostly.. "primitive" armies/tec got wiped out.

Chris714n_8

FullTimeJesus

dustycow

Pootz is too desperate for a win to slow his roll by too much, but they aren't ENTIRELY stupid and thus don't wave their pilots in the air like clay pigeons for the AA to take pot shots at. Thus, they send the sky goon platoon in places they think won't get them shot at but they can be at least kinda useful.

Aleucard

Aren't they using their air force to drop a shitload of fabs on the frontline?

Borgie32

The British did the same in WW2, so did China

DynoMiteDoodle

tniog

That means..

Send your fighter pilots to help us gain air superiority over our sovereign land so we can evict the invaders that are killing our friends and family. 

I say... Full send.

Stoopitnoob

How many hours of MS Flight Simulator do I have to log before I’m accepted in the program?

On 2nd thought, I’m just going to donate to buy some drones for them.

chowyungfatso

Riptide360

Frosty_Key4233

Ukraine bout to get their own 303 squadron (those who know history will know)

Midnight_270_

Remember those soviet pilots fly for North Korean Air force in Korean war?Perheps we will see foreign pilots fly the F-16 in Ukrainian marking?

Reaper1652

If we consider training level of russian pilots and that they are a bunch of drunken fatasses I could easily outmatch them thanks to my 1000 hours on DCS F16 block 50 and my complete lack of physical preparation to sustain high Gs.

If you can drive a Lada you can fly a Mig.

YearPractical5840

hobo-kun-kun

The title says “pilots”, but if we are talking western aircraft, then recruiting ground crew could have an even larger impact.

XenopusRex

I played jane's F/A-18 back in the days.   Can i join?

No-Arachnid9518

 tom cruise and john travolta can fly right?

Caranthir83

Most western pilots have no experience with soviet planes though. But would certainly ease the use of f16s and the like.

_Madian

I have a vision of 100's of planes just show up on radar in perfect formation flying East, and then duck back down under radar near Bahkmut just to screw with the ruzzians, then come back an hour later and annihilate them.

Madge4500

By and large I assume this will require donations of western jets, replacement parts and volunteers who are familiar enough to maintain the jets?

Thandiol

I love the idea of another AVG/303 unit in theory. I would even say it could be an absolute game changer. The problem I see is usage. Yes we have a lot of pilots in the west that would volunteer with time in the 16. Just about everyone in NATO has had a few 16s in their inventory at one point. So numerous volunteers is not a problem.

NATO trained pilots and the accompanying ingrained doctrine of how to conduct air operations is a problem. The doctrine itself works fine if you have all the pieces and parts to implement it. Ukraine does not. Western pilots do have plenty of low level ingress and egress flight training in both day and night operations. This is the current Ukrainian tactic fast low daylight flights. Low ingress with pop ups quick engagements turn burn and run back to friendly air defense coverage works for Ukraine due to density of enemy systems and numbers of friendly fighters available to use.  Western NATO doctrine is a completely different way of fighting. It can be used in Ukraine right now on a limited basis and it would work very well. The issues are many but the primary concerns would be; letting the volunteer pilot have a modern western style AOC (Air Operations Center) to coordinate all the information necessary to tighten up the data flow to the pilots in the battle as much as possible, allowing the available aircraft and pilots to be used in mass as dedicated assault and suppression packages without reverting to penny packet operation, using western to pilots to use western aircraft to dismantle Russian IADS as they they were designed. 

If you are going to use western toys for this air war then you need to use them correctly. Even a 24 or so 16 can accomplish a hell of a lot of damage if used correctly. They can dogfight obviously but that is not what they would be doing to start. 

Scenario:

Friendly IADS is moved forward far enough that 16s can now perform Wild Weasel missions against the enemy air defense units without major fear of Russian fighters. Suppression of enemy air defenses systems (SEAD) is a 16 specialty. Yes the Ukrainians are doing a little of this right now, but not with the numbers needed to make a lasting impact in a given location in Ukraine. If you have a large SEAD package of a dozen 16 with a large number of dedicated strikers and accompanying MiG 29s with SU 24 and anything else the Ukrainians have in the same package you force the Russians to used radars/fire from S300 and other AA systems. The SEAD birds tangle with and engage the AA systems while the bomb trucks put 2k packages on high priority targets. This is all conducted at high altitude except for the SEAD aircraft which play by different rules. A key aspect is mass. All of this power has to be concentrated and dropped like a sledgehammer onto a given location with precision timing and coordination. You pick a known area of operations for a high value IADS piece and you send the whole package. 30 or more attackers in a 20 mile kill box. Only a couple are going for the S300/400 which may or may not even light up its radars. The other strikers will be hitting key targets within that kill box. No targets outside of the box. No targets of opportunity. No improvisation. SEAD leads with a CAP closely followed by the bomb trucks. You overwhelm a given location for a short period of time. Destroy the local large AA systems and other key targets and stay above manpad engagement levels. Everything should be done in less than two or three minutes total. 

Western doctrine requires mass. Air superiority for a strike package is great but not required if friendly IADS can overlap the target area. Using 16s to fight western style is great, using them as one or two ship in an attritional war is stupid. You also can’t give any warning of the assault.  It doesn’t have to start with the 300 sites, the smaller systems are just fine as a primary suppression target.  Small bites with a scary sized assault package into a very small area. If you get really cocky you send in your Frogfoots and Mi’s simultaneously striking low. Deconfliction becomes critical. This where mission planning in a AOC with a western volunteer control staff would be a necessity until the Ukrainians can master the NATO version of mass. Ukraine has proven adept at anything they need to. Complex air ops will be the same.

Journey2Jess

Spacedude2187

Frozen_Frog021

Super_Chayy

Might be just my inner child talking but if I could fly a jet I'd go in a heartbeat. Imagine being in the Flying Tigers 2023 Edition. Volunteering for a righteous cause, standing up against oppression AND piloting a multi-million dollar supersonic fighter plane? Now that's a person who fucks.

einarfridgeirs

It's a no brainer. A lot of experienced people out there, and training a pilot well costs millions and takes a lot of time.

BruyceWane

Well, let’s say I’m French and a great fighter jet pilot. Would you like to have me in your air force? 

Obviously, i would say yes.

KeeperServant

Any_Top_9268

&lt;&lt; Hey buddy, still alive? &gt;&gt;

MrBrickBreak

So many American and EU pilots were trained to fight migs... They're probably drooling at the chance

FloatingRevolver

You mean like the Soviets did to the Americans in the Korean War?

Simplyspent

OriginalNo5477

With that, the greatest obstacle of training Ukrainians on F16 falls down! Let F16 transfers begin! Slava Ukraini!

Ciburri

Dull_Ad5852


Привіт u/Mil_in_ua ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content.  Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).

**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)

Daily series on UA history &amp; culture: [Day 0-99](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293) | [100-199](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3d85f4ca-5f4e-4ddf-9547-276e8affd87c) | [200-Present](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/daf642e1-07aa-4c40-b852-8f002ddd1530) | [All By Subject](https://new.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts)

**There is a new wave of spam chat requests hitting our community. Do not respond or click links - instead, protect yourself and others by immediately marking these chats as spam.**
***


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

CA_vv

no wonder we heard about volunteer pilots who can fly F16 :)

Suya2662

NUFC_Delaney

I have a thousand hours in the SU-27 (DCS VR) and have actually flown a C162 takeoff to landing (never soloed) so I’m basically an expert.

takatori

Outrageous_Garlic306

Plenty of former Mig and F-16 pilots, who want to do their part. Wouldn't the A-10 be more usefull to the Ukrainians, given the huge number of sacrificial Russian tanks rolling into Ukraine?

Frosty_Confection_53

OkGrab8779

Ukraine is modernizing its Air Force with plans to acquire over 250 modern fighter jets to enhance its defense capabilities amidst ongoing conflict with Russia.

Ukraine's Air Force Modernization

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want