Jump to content

The time has come to supply Ukraine with COIN/LAAR aircraft, what the heck is the West waiting for?


On the way

Recommended Posts

I would say that time was 6 months ago. Ok, I get the West does not want to escalate the whole thing by supplying Typhoons, F-16s, Tornadoes, etc. But surely, a A-29N Super Tucano can't be that threatening to the Russians? The Ukrainians want to go behind Russian lines, eg the Crimea peninsula, and hit targets there. The A-29N would do the job for them. Its got the range to do that, and the Russians don't have a SAM umbrella over the whole Crimea. The specs for the A-29N make it survivable enough. Will they lose A-29s? Sure. But the time and cost to train a Ukrainian pilot to fly one is a lot shorter and cheaper then to train one on a fast jet like the F-16. There must be a lot of Ukrainian helo pilots out there with no helos. They can be trained to fly any LAAR aircraft. Does not have to be the A-29N. The US should make it happen. It will be a lot cheaper then a F-16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Manpads and guided SAM's will down most of them.  COIN does not make sense resource/results wise when there is such level of AA.  

I should remind of A-10 and AH-64 significant losses over Iraq.

 

Today 

- artillery much more precise

- drones

- US Army putting Spike NLOS missiles in AH-64.

 

COIN is too much investment for the results.

 

Edited by lucklucky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, lucklucky said:

Manpads and guided SAM's will down most of them.  COIN does not make sense resource/results wise when there is such level of AA.  

I should remind of A-10 and AH-64 significant losses over Iraq.

 

Today 

- artillery much more precise

- drones

- US Army putting Spike NLOS missiles in AH-64.

 

COIN is too much investment for the results.

 

I don't which fantasy you got this from. The A-10 loss rate was only 0.062% in 8000 missions. AH-64 losses were 16 in all conflicts since its introduction. A good LAAR like the A-29N may not be as survivable as the A-10, but it should hold its own.  And if you know of any artillery, or drone that can strike say Sevastopol from say Kherson, kindly enlighten all of us here. COIN is a small investment when compared to any fast jet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sunday said:

Time has come of stop  wasting resources and cut losses.

Sending your outdated and mothball equipment, plus ammo and weaponry you have not used in decades to the Ukrainians, in order for them to deplete the military strength of Russia is not wasting resources. I would say its a good use of obsolete resources. As for cutting losses, I am not aware of any Western active military personnel killed en masse in the Ukraine. Care to enlighten us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Against air defense system like the Russian one A-29 would be dead meat. Even A-10 usage would be questionable, as it would likely be a similarly dead meat. 

It's not a COIN operation, it's a full scale conventional war. 

Attacking targets in Crimea would be far easier and safer with ATACMS, the Ukrainians already have the launchers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, On the way said:

Sending your outdated and mothball equipment, plus ammo and weaponry you have not used in decades to the Ukrainians, in order for them to deplete the military strength of Russia is not wasting resources. I would say its a good use of obsolete resources. As for cutting losses, I am not aware of any Western active military personnel killed en masse in the Ukraine. Care to enlighten us?

Seems some current state of the art equipment has been sent to.

Also, those supplies could be useful in a not-so-far-in-time confrontation with China.

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, in rather symbolic quantities and at least it'll get tested. 

Potential confrontation with China will be a predominantly naval-air campaign and require mostly different assets than are being used in Ukraine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, On the way said:

I don't which fantasy you got this from. The A-10 loss rate was only 0.062% in 8000 missions. AH-64 losses were 16 in all conflicts since its introduction. A good LAAR like the A-29N may not be as survivable as the A-10, but it should hold its own.  And if you know of any artillery, or drone that can strike say Sevastopol from say Kherson, kindly enlighten all of us here. COIN is a small investment when compared to any fast jet.

Quote

At the beginning of the war, A-10s flew missions against the Iraqi Republican Guard, but due to heavy attrition, from 15 February they were restricted to within 20 nautical miles (37 km) of the southern border.[

More than 10% of the A-10 force was unnoperational after the first days of the war. You can guess what would have happened if they were Tucanos.

In 2003

Quote

On 24 March 2003, 31 Apaches were damaged; one was shot down in an unsuccessful attack on an Iraqi Republican Guard armored brigade near Karbala.[116] Iraqi tank crews had set up a "flak trap" among terrain and effectively employed their guns.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Yeah, in rather symbolic quantities and at least it'll get tested. 

That street goes both ways - Ukraine has also been the place where the Russians have learned all about Western systems and munitions under favorable combat conditions, improved their own equipment and doctrine, all on the cheap (as compared to a war with NATO), and passed on to their allies.  We'll see who got the better end of that deal after it's all done.

Quote

Potential confrontation with China will be a predominantly naval-air campaign and require mostly different assets than are being used in Ukraine.

During the Cold War both sides exported huge quantities of basic war fighting material to proxy armies all over the world.  If anything, China is far better set than the old Soviet Union to do the same thing again.

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, On the way said:

I would say that time was 6 months ago. Ok, I get the West does not want to escalate the whole thing by supplying Typhoons, F-16s, Tornadoes, etc. But surely, a A-29N Super Tucano can't be that threatening to the Russians? The Ukrainians want to go behind Russian lines, eg the Crimea peninsula, and hit targets there. The A-29N would do the job for them. Its got the range to do that, and the Russians don't have a SAM umbrella over the whole Crimea. 

I don't disagree with the idea of sending prop-driven aircraft, but not for attacking Crimea.  Just provide the training and equipment and let the Ukrainians figure out the best way to use them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

That street goes both ways - Ukraine has also been the place where the Russians have learned all about Western systems and munitions under favorable combat conditions, improved their own equipment and doctrine, all on the cheap (as compared to a war with NATO), and passed on to their allies.  We'll see who got the better end of that deal after it's all done.

During the Cold War both sides exported huge quantities of basic war fighting material to proxy armies all over the world.  If anything, China is far better set than the old Soviet Union to do the same thing again.

Ad1 - true, but Russia will still remain a midget compared to NATO

Ad2 - no problem, I'd rather assume that it's going to happen anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, lucklucky said:

More than 10% of the A-10 force was unnoperational after the first days of the war. You can guess what would have happened if they were Tucanos.

In 2003

 

 

14 hours ago, lucklucky said:

 

You said  "I should remind of A-10 and AH-64 significant losses over Iraq. " But they did not suffer significant losses. A-10 unoperational does not mean they were losses. If they were damaged and later put back into flying condition, how is that a loss? 31 damaged AH-64 is once again not losses. You even said that when you mention only one being shot down. Maybe English is not your first language, but I don't think you comprehend the word loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I don't disagree with the idea of sending prop-driven aircraft, but not for attacking Crimea.  Just provide the training and equipment and let the Ukrainians figure out the best way to use them.

They will use it to attack the Russian facilities in Crimea. Where else can they find a target rich environment that does not have a solid SAM umbrella over it? There is no shortage of Ukrainian 5th columnists in Crimea that will happily provide the the Ukrainians with a list of every fuel dump, ammo depot, troop barrack, airbase, airfield, etc in the Crimea. The Russians can't defend all those places with MANPADS, or any comprehensive SAM systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, EchoFiveMike said:

How about getting paid?  The American taxpayers say "fuck you" to this waste of money.  S/F....Ken M

The Americans should look at their own govt's spending on non military items to see the waste in there first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Against air defense system like the Russian one A-29 would be dead meat. Even A-10 usage would be questionable, as it would likely be a similarly dead meat. 

It's not a COIN operation, it's a full scale conventional war. 

Attacking targets in Crimea would be far easier and safer with ATACMS, the Ukrainians already have the launchers.

Can ATACMS cover every square mile of the Crimea peninsula? The answer is no. Can a COIN aircraft like the A-29N do so, the answer is YES. And why do we want to do that? Because in the south of the Crimea peninsula, there are juicy targets like the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

COIN (or even most real attack ones) aircraft cannot operate in heavily contested airspace covered by enemy SAMs and fighters with long-range missiles.

This has been shown true by Ukrainian losses of SU-25s and helicopters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, On the way said:

Can ATACMS cover every square mile of the Crimea peninsula? The answer is no. Can a COIN aircraft like the A-29N do so, the answer is YES. And why do we want to do that? Because in the south of the Crimea peninsula, there are juicy targets like the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol.

The only thing a slow COIN aircraft can do over Crimea is to be torn into shreds. They don't even use their much faster Su-24s and Su-25s that way, for the very same reason. The Ukrainians use their attack aircraft almost exclusively on the 'frontline duty', coming in very low, dropping what they have and returning. The Russians do the same, despite the Ukrainian AD network being on average rather less capable. Additionally the Russians use other aircraft to launch stand-off weapons, but they do it from outside of the Ukrainian AD cover, that's the capability Ukraine doesn't possess. 

Yes, attacking targets in Crimea is somewhat problematic for the Ukrainians, but there are possible solutions to this issue that aren't suicidal. I also doubt if the Black Sea Fleet is the priority target for them at the moment, they have enough on their plate as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, On the way said:

They will use it to attack the Russian facilities in Crimea. Where else can they find a target rich environment that does not have a solid SAM umbrella over it? There is no shortage of Ukrainian 5th columnists in Crimea that will happily provide the the Ukrainians with a list of every fuel dump, ammo depot, troop barrack, airbase, airfield, etc in the Crimea. The Russians can't defend all those places with MANPADS, or any comprehensive SAM systems.

The approach to Crimea is a sea frontier.  Any aircraft attempting to approach will be seen and shot down by SAM's.

What strikes me about your prop-driven proposal is that I think in the Donbas the Ukrainians could operate them very near the front.  Literally, move them around with trucks from road to road, and use them in air strikes that last only minutes from takeoff to landing.

Agree totally with E5M and Sunday that it's time for the West to stop pissing around and cut the cord.  But, if Ukraine actually had to pay a dime for any of this shit, the neocons and globalists in Washington would have to behave realistically, and that would be the end of the sand box wars.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as those wars are only another way to move money from the people into the pockets of the globalists, they won´t stop. We need an US president, who is willing to drain the swamp and expose those who have stolen from the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, On the way said:

Can ATACMS cover every square mile of the Crimea peninsula? The answer is no. Can a COIN aircraft like the A-29N do so, the answer is YES. And why do we want to do that? Because in the south of the Crimea peninsula, there are juicy targets like the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol.

No the answer to your question is yes. The entire Crimiean peninsula can be reached by ATACMS. And a turbo prop is not survivable in that kind of environment. During the Gulf war the most vulnerable combat aircrafts where the AC-130 and the OV-10, followed by the A-10 and the Harrier. Surving in combat in the Gulf war was depentent on (excluding the F-117) speed, speed and speed. The same is true in the Ukraine. Lacking stealth and adequate SEAD-capacity, both sides have realised that the way to survive is to fly low and fast and deploying your weapons from the greatest range possible.

 

But to strike Crimea not even fast jets with JDAM-ER is survivable enough. A turbo prop would be even less likely to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2023 at 5:49 AM, EchoFiveMike said:

How about getting paid?  The American taxpayers say "fuck you" to this waste of money.  S/F....Ken M

Considering that the main US strategic rival for most of the last 75 years is currently being grinded down for change money & surplus equipment, I'd say that it's the most efficient military investment the US has ever made. And if Ukraine wins, the US can now put more strategic focus on the Pacific, as Russia will be weaker or fragmented, while the European NATO countries can put more emphasis on their navies & air forces (with the Russian army being less of a threat), meaning that they could either take over more of the US Navy's role in the Atlantic, or even (especially the UK obviously) aid the US directly in a possible confrontation with China. Furthermore with Russia weakend or fragmented, Indian, Vietnam & so on might lean more on the west for equipment, military tech and so on, making the anti-PRC alliance even stronger & more in line with US policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...