Ukraine Needs Ground-Based Air Defenses Way More Than MiGs. Here Are The Best Options

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44673/ukraine-needs-ground-based-air-defenses-way-more-than-migs-here-are-the-best-options



When it comes to helping Ukraine continue to keep Russia from gaining air superiority over its skies — a miraculous achievement thus far in the conflict that is now in its third week — all the focus has been on providing the embattled country with a couple of dozen decades-old MiG-29 Fulcrums. This has been an unfortunate distraction. What Ukraine really needs more than anything else are ground-based air defense systems — surface-to-air missiles, or SAMs — especially the kind with medium or greater altitude engagement capabilities that are optimized for high mobility. And not just any SAM systems that fulfill the requirements, but Soviet-era systems that the Ukrainian military is fully trained on employing in combat and supporting in the field.

While providing additional fighters for Ukraine's air arm, which remains under great pressure from Russia's war machine, is one potential facet of bolstering its air defenses, it is far from the most important or convenient one. Fighters are the least of the Russian military's counter-air worries at the moment. The presence of medium to higher-tier SAM threats keeps Russia's combat aircraft from operating at medium altitudes or above, in effect pressing them right into the shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile (man-portable air defense systems or MANPADS) engagement envelope, which is roughly defined as anything under 15,000 feet. Thousands of MANPADS of different types have flooded into Ukraine and have been dispersed among troops across the country — and more are on the way. They have been brutally effective so far, but without the threat presented by more capable air defense systems, the opportunities to engage the enemy at lower altitudes will decline. In other words, the presence of one enables the other.

Highly unpredictable ground-mobile SAMs complicate the tactical threat picture even more for Russia. They are far more survivable than their less agile, largely static counterparts. They can appear out of virtually nowhere and then disappear before traditional counterattacks are possible. Leveraging radar guidance, they are also effective in any weather, day or night.

It has become abundantly clear in recent days that these more robust air defense assets remain a major issue for Russia, which you can read all about in this recent feature of ours. Regardless, according to the U.K. Ministry of Defense, a significant reduction in Russian air activity in recent days is likely due to this reason.

*snip*

[uponit7771]

1. K&R, CAPs / NFZs aren't as effective against the daily shelling vs anti artillery weapons would be.

I heard a fairly informed UKR MP interpose the two in a conversation with Reid yesterday thinking airplanes would stop the shelling or using those two in the same sentence.

The airplanes wouldn't stop the shelling and would be susceptible to Russian AA which has been lethal sense Vietnam

[ColinC]

2. Pretty sure MiGs will help, though.

Unless this article is referring to ICBM's. Yeah, they could use some of those. And yes, I also welcome SAMs. I also welcome MiGs.

[uponit7771]

3. They wont, they wont stop the shelling and the Mig 29s role isn't close in air support and is

... horrible at it because its minimum speed to fly is too fast.

It'll also get shot down from RA anti aircraft missiles if it tried to go after protected columns like the one to the north eastern of Kyiv.

I'm 100% sure the Ukrainians are using NATO lingo incorrectly when they talk about No Fly Zones meaning NO ONE flies airplanes in that area (NATO meaning).

The NFZ or CAP wont stop the shelling anti artillery weapons would though

[Chuuku Davis]

6. I posted similar last night, got a silly retort back

The MIGs would not accomplish much
They need SAMs and a LOT of them-russia has a lot of bombers they have been holding back.

My sources say Ukr has captured several Pantsirs which will be useful.

Ukr needs a lot more counter battery artillery also.
Unfortunately we also denied them those.

[relayerbob]

4. MiG-29s are air superiority fighters

Not ground attack aircraft. Given their bases are likely in Western Ukraine, they would be of limited use against Su-34 fighter-bombers. What they really need are more Su-25s, the Russian equivalent of A-10s. But I agree that SAMs are going to be the best choice, at this point. Precision guided MLRS rockets would be useful also

[ColinC]

5. ...or A-10s. It's been somewhat well confirmed that Ukraine has enough pilots who can fly A-10s

I mean. Anything would be nice. Thing is, Russia is relying on air strikes in some places to keep the pressure on places like Kharkiv where their ground air defenses weapons are likely not getting replenished quickly enough. Those seem like cases where some extra MiGs could come in handy.

[relayerbob]

7. They have no spare parts for A-10s and need ground support teams trained to keep them flying

They don't have time to learn how to operate and maintain equpiment, they need more of what they already own. I made a specific point about the Ukrainians not being able to defend targes in the eastern part of the country. Not only are their airfields much farther west, the Russians also have very powerful S-400 systems right across the border, 25 miles away. The ability to defend Kharkiv against airstrikes requires essentially 24/7 CAPs, well beyond thier capability, even with a couple of dozen more planes. And likely, said CAPs would be shot out of the sky by the S-400s.

[ColinC]

8. From CEPA

Provide US A-10 ground-attack aircraft – currently scheduled to be mothballed – to Ukraine as Excess Defense Articles. Thanks to prior military exchange programs, Ukraine already has a small number of pilots trained to fly the A-10. If spare parts and maintenance are required, use part of the US $1bn funding to allow Ukraine to hire private contractors, rather than involving US personnel directly.

And for the rest of your points, I've got.... Nothing.

[uponit7771]

9. it would take years to become an .. EFFECTIVE .. A-10 pilot to get shot down by RA AA ...

... this isn't practical.

Like becoming an effective surgeon after 2 months of training

[ColinC]

12. I think some of them train for years. I remember hearing about the Saudis

In the exchange program at the AFB I trained at. They were there forever -usually bringing their families for the entire stint.

[relayerbob]

11. Yes, I've seen that. To me, it's wishful thinking

And would be far more of a provocation to Russia than the MiG-29s. They aren't going to care whether we've got "contractors" or military personnel on the ground. In any case getting SAMs there will be more useful.

I do agree with the CEPA headline, that a "no-fly zone", ie substantial CAPs, under UN auspices would be preferred and harder to counter. However, Russia and China would veto it and really, no one wants WW3.

[relayerbob]

17. What I'd like to see ...

Humanitarian flights escorted by NATO planes, sorta Berlin airlift style. Be VERY open about what is on the transports (lots of reporters around, all on video), and declare no-fly "bubbles" around them. Maybe groups of 6-8 C-141s (yes, old aircraft) escorted by F-15s in close contact and at medium altitude (no stealth, very visible) and some F-22s way up high, not visible. Make the bubble 30-50 miles radius. Warn the Russians that attacking these humanitarian missions would be their declaration of war against NATO. Put the ball in their damn court. Enough of these "bubbles" and it would make air operations very difficult.

[ColinC]

18. I can dig that. Or even if they just sent aid across the border

With NATO trucks forcing Russian armies from being able to surround any major cities. I really do think we can do more. And I hope we do.

[ColinC]

10. Also any idea how many SAMs Russia has vs Ukraine?

Russia supposedly has full coverage of Ukraines airspace with it's SAMs. But Ukraine was also supposedly given 2700 SAM systems from Germany (unclear what kind they are if true). Also should we expect this new military aid package to include more SAMs for Ukraine?

[relayerbob]

13. Russia greatly outnumbers Ukraine in both quantity and capability of SAM missiles

Quality is a totally different issue. The German SAMs were still basically low/medium altitude missiles.

[ColinC]

15. Thanks

Hopefully the 13 bn package will give them something good. Even if they don't get any planes, some high altitude SAMs would sound amazing.

[relayerbob]

19. Yes, they need those

Russia is losing, I'd be more than happy to "Hans Gruber" them.

[Chuuku Davis]

24. Those were Strelas-low altitude manpads

And none of them work.

[uponit7771]

14. Yes and it'll more effective than the stingers but also more training needed. The night time

... bombing by the one or two bombers RuAF lobs in the air will prolly stop.

US weapon system are TOP OF THE LINE ish

[ColinC]

16. Nvm

Sorry you answered this question already. I'm tired...

[Chuuku Davis]

23. Germany was going to send 2700 Strelas

However they were found to be nonfunctional old junk that had rotted from neglect.

[ColinC]

25. ...

[gab13by13]

20. Send them lots of drones with Hellfire missiles.

[Cha]

21. Rt & 💕 TY!

💙💛

[Cognitive_Resonance]

22. Armchair experts proclaiming Ukraine doesn't need Mig-29's. Ukraine is asking for them, and their

track record at knowing what they need and getting the job done would suggest who knows better.

[ColinC]

26. +1

Highly likely...

[Sgent]

27. All the substitutes they suggest

have to be delivered essentially by train or boat, so should only take a few months compared to an hour flight for the airpower.

They desperately need medium-high level anti-air and anti-missile, and anti-artillery. The planes provide anti-air and some (not great) anti-artilliry.

[AntiFascist]

28. I've heard that Patriot missiles are being sent to the Polish border...

it would be nice if some 'dual citizens' with training could move them across the border.

[MoonlitKnight]

29. If they want them they should get them

They likely have plans to use them in ways we would not. They are willing to take more risk.
Lots of possible uses. And NATO countries that have them would be better off with F16s anyway. So it’s a win win.

If we have systems we feel would be more effective then give them that as well.

If something needs training, then start training. This could go on for years. Even if Ukraine won tomorrow they would need the training and systems for ongoing defense.

[634-5789]

30. GREAT POST! Should be mandatory reading!