History shows why Zelensky’s mission to secure modern jet fighters is so crucial
The recent bout of shuttle diplomacy around the capitals of Europe by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, appears to be yielding results.
Zelensky’s appearances in the UK, France and Brussels had two main aims. The first has been constant since the war begin a year ago: to maintain western focus on his message that Ukraine will not accept Russian occupation of his country’s sovereign territory. His second is currently even more important: to continue his pressure on European nations to continue to provide arms.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
That his message on Ukrainian sovereignty was getting through was evident. The same day that Zelensky addressed a joint sitting of the UK parliament, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak told the Commons that Britain remained committed to ensuring Russia’s defeat in Ukraine. And days later, Sunak told a Munich Security Conference on February 18: “Now is the moment to double down on our military support.”
One specific issue that emerged from Zelensky’s visit was Ukraine’s need for sophisticated fighter jets. There is understandable reluctance among western governments to provide the latest fighter aircraft, which many leaders see as risking escalation into direct conflict between Nato and Russia. But there is also considerable sympathy for Zelensky’s demands, which could transform the conflict on the ground.
So it’s worth looking in a little detail at how air power has transformed warfare over the past century to get an understanding on how they might affect the conflict in Ukraine.
Since Vladimir Putin sent his war machine into Ukraine on February 24 2022, The Conversation has called upon some of the leading experts in international security, geopolitics and military tactics to help their readers understand the big issues.
Air power has been used in a variety of ways since the first air raids were carried out by Italian pilots who threw bombs from the cockpits of their biplanes at Ottoman troops during a campaign in Libya in 1911. In more than a century since, air power has redefined how wars are fought, from its reconnaissance capabilities to transporting troops and equipment and mounting aerial attacks on enemy targets at and behind the front lines.
But to gain and maintain aerial power, modern fighter and multi-role aircraft are vital. Apart from anything else, air superiority denies the same capabilities to the enemy.
The first century
It was arguably the British, in the development of their thinking surrounding the application of air power prior to 1914, who understood how important it would be to dominate the skies above the battlefield and deny the enemy the ability to use aircraft for observation purposes.
This was put to the test on the western front of the first world war, where all sides used air power in a variety of ways to increase the effectiveness of their ground forces.
Aerial observation proved decisive in the opening phase of the conflict. For example, French air reconnaissance spotted a mistake in the German advance on Paris in September 1914 and allowed the allies to counterattack at the River Marne.
This of course was followed by years of trench warfare, where air reconnaissance allowed both sides to spot any changes in defensive structures or troop buildups. Reconnaissance also enhanced the deadly capabilities of both sides’ artillery.
With guns placed far behind the front lines, it was difficult for the battery commanders to judge the location and range of their targets. Aircraft spotters were able to pass this information back to commanders who could adjust their aim.
In the second world war, aircraft became adept at supporting forces on the ground prior to and during attacks. The British developed a system that allowed close air support to be conducted when required, rather than being planned.
This meant that forces on the ground could request support when required, allowing greater flexibility in planning and conducting operations. Attacks could also be conducted behind enemy lines with the intent of sealing off the battlefield and preventing reserves and supplies from entering the battle.
Aircraft were also used to attack targets of strategic importance in the enemy homeland, as we know from the blitz in London and other major UK cities. Britain and the US also conducted major bombing raids against German factories and oil supplies and on centres of population to target German morale as well as industry.
Ukrainian skies
At present it appears unlikely that any aircraft given to the Ukrainian military by its allies will be used to attack targets in Russia, due to the danger of escalation. But they can be effective in a number of other ways.
Ukraine presently has 175 fighter jets. Boosting that number significantly will make it easier for Ukraine’s air force to conduct more reconnaissance missions. This will be vital ahead of fresh offensives in the spring and summer when better weather brings greater mobility back to the battlefield.
Given the multi-role nature of the aircraft that are being requested, attacks in support of ground offensives through close air support and battlefield air interdiction can also be conducted with greater ease and regularity. This would make Ukrainian ground forces more effective in offensive operations and provide greater resistance in the face of Russian attacks.
It is unlikely that these aircraft will be seen in combat missions over Ukraine in the short term as the training required will take many weeks and potentially months or even years. While they will not guarantee victory, they will provide Ukrainian forces with greater capabilities with which to conduct operations on the ground.
Matthew Powell, Teaching Fellow in Strategic and Air Power Studies, University of Portsmouth
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
If Ukraine needs more jets we should give them. Not doing so just makes Russian invaders succeed & costs more Ukrainian lives & assets. Putin initiates & escalates at will whenever he chooses while we hold back Ukraine from simply defending its territory & people.
Fighter jets are a whole different world of complexity. Simply giving them to Ukrainian pilots with minimal training would be suicide. They have to master SEAD, ECM, BFM, BVR and learn to fly the F-16 to its strengths. Almost none of it will come from a Soviet style Mig-29 background (look at how useless the East German fight pilots were) It’s a multi year training regimen in western air forces.
A quicker and higher quality solution would be to hire retired western fighter pilots as mercenaries.
I should add this isn’t unprecedented. Hundreds of American pilots flew for the RAF before the US formally entered WW2.
However, It could motivate China to supply Russia. Which would be a full on proxy WW3.
The current strategy of leaving the Ukrainians to fight their own war whilst supplying kit to even the odds a little is already working. The Ukraine is winning – aircraft will not change the outcome just bring it about sooner. Currently we are training pilots. We will see how quickly it takes to train them whilst we decide what aircraft if any (and in what quantities) we should provide.
If you really think that Ukraine is winning you should broaden your sources of information. Today the Stavka in Kiev seems to have decided to pour yet more troops into the meat grinder that is Bakhmut in a desperate attempt to stop the Russian advance.
This is from the Kiev Independent, read the whole article at the link to gain a bit of reality.
“The older Serhiy says that the enemy likes to send a team of three or four expendable foot soldiers to attack and make the Ukrainians expose themselves by shooting at them. At that point, the more elite forces zero in on the defenders’ position.
Once they begin exchanging fire, the Ukrainians are struck with heavier weapons like Russian mortars and rockets from Grad multiple launch rocket systems or BMP infantry fighting vehicles and BTR armored personnel carriers with machine guns.
“They get the positions where we are, establish the coordinates, then they hit us from seven to nine kilometers out with mortars,” as well as from closer by with grenade launchers, says the older Serhiy. “They wait for the house to fall so we have to jump out. The building catches fire and then they try to finish us off.”
“Their birds come out and they chase us with fire,” adds the younger Serhiy, referring to Russian UAVs, like quadcopters and Orlan-10 fixed wing drones that spot distant heavy weapons. “They hit accurately.”
https://kyivindependent.com/national/ukrainian-soldiers-in-bakhmut-our-troops-are-not-being-protected
Planes would be nice but there’s some serious ground stuff going on right now. Where are all these bloody promised tanks that keep being talked about!? Ukrainian forces are getting surrounded in Bakhmut right now, something needs to be done asap. Things seem to be running late or short in key places. Tanks, late, long range fires, long range drones, are there enough? ASHMs, even landed based, Sea Kings, with torpedos, are these being supplied? Hopefully Ukrainian forces can hang on in Bakhmut and somehow the Russian and Wagner forces can also be surrounded, if they’re out in the open now they can be seen and hopefully countered even partially, from behind and or and above and pushed back, then push on and reclaim the south east, then Mariupol and all the territories West including Crimea. Strength and success to Ukrainian people, forces and president! 🇦🇺 🇬🇧 🇺🇦
I would think that Bakhmut will be left, the Ukr has bled the Orcs dry for what’s left of a city and to lose an entire brigade there is not really what they need to do!pull back and fight another day.
Ukraine will do a fighting retreat from Bakhmut, retreating to the high ground a few k’s west of the town. They have already started doing this by blowing the remaining bridges. The aim is to bleed the Russians. The latest estimates is that for every 1 Ukrainian killed, Russia are loosing 7 or more, this includes the swagger group mercenaries.
I posted this in another thread. It is a view from Kiev’s main newspaper (not know to favour the Russians) and the BBC on Russian deaths. Added to that is probably another 10,000 Wagner and Militia. These are NOT my figures. If correct your estimate of 7:1 means around 8000 Ukrainian dead.
The Kyiv Independent
@KyivIndependent
·
Mar 4
https://abs-0.twimg.com/emoji/v2/svg/26a1.svgMedia: Public data suggests over 16,000 Russian soldiers have been killed during first year of all-out war.
At least 16,071 Russian soldiers have died since Feb. 24, 2022, according to BBC Russia, which carries out a name-by-name count of the dead together with Mediazona.
One can only surmise what the respective casualty rates for both sides are in truth; however, as has been common with your comments since 2022’s disastrous Russian invasion, you cherry pick the most favourable details and apply lip gloss for the Kremlin. If matters are so rosy with Russia’s ‘special operation’ how comes they aren’t in Kyiv yet after 12 months of slogging? Just toying with Ukraine or is it more profound? We await Spring and see where this goes.
When even the left of centre Guardian (London) newspaper has a leading columnist writing an article damning N.A.T.O. for not going full on in Ukraine, one can barely comprehend the changes Putin has wrought across Europe, from North Cape to the Black Sea in under a year. World changing.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/05/nato-putin-fight-russia-ukraine-war-pulling-punches
I must admit I have been following Denys Davydov’s YouTube channel. I think he tries to be as impartial as he can, but understandably biased against the Russians. However, as a Russian speaker, he monitors Russian news feeds and social forums. So does have an insight on how the war is going for Russia.
He made the statement about the losses in the assault/defence of Bakhmut. Which I can well believe, as historically in a numbers game, the attacker always comes off worse when assaulting prepared positions. Unless they have overwhelming numbers. Even then it becomes shooting fish in a barrel, as was found when the Gloucester’s faced 10,000 Chinese in Korea.
Both sides have lost significant numbers of troops. Ukraine has been relatively tight lipped over the losses. So to have Russia, to an extent. But then Russia did the first conscription of 300,000. Which they announced was to replace losses and maintain momentum. Subsequently they announced another conscription. Which tells us, their losses have been significantly greater than expected.
Nobody can be naive enough to say Ukraine hasn’t suffered serious losses. They have mobilized their population and sent huge numbers out of country for training. Which I believe has had a more beneficial effect than Russia training with Belarus, before going into Ukraine.
This war has clearly shown how clinical modern weapons can be. It has also shown that old fashioned massed artillery is still equally as effective as its always been. But it has also shown how incompetent and inhuman Russian commanders are. From what has been shown on some Patreon sites, that don’t have the legal filtering. Are videos of Bakhmut with fields full of Russians, mowed down from unsuccessful massed attack waves. But what is perhaps most telling of all is that they have been left there, reminiscent of scenes from WW1!
So yes, I can well believe that Russia’s manpower losses are 8 times worse than Ukraines.
If you really believe that 16000 is the true number you are indeed truly stupid and living on planet zog🙄 This could be the number of families actually told anything but the videos coming out showing the Mobics themselves and families asking where there loved ones are paints a different picture!
of course you will say that they are all Ukr propaganda but hay ho back to your interplanetary travel!
Agreed. The Russians have made another blunder.
Poland is the major supplier of tanks. Plus the UK CRs and a reported intended total of about 80 Leopard 2s from European Nato countries in 5s and 10s….organised by Schultz.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/poland-send-60-modernised-tanks-ukraine-addition-leopards-2023-01-27/
Polish PT-91 have already been spotted on the front lines.
Is being able to deny the Russian’s the use of their airspace with SSM’s not a good close second to providing them jets and something that can be put in place much quicker?
Is this even more so given that the US is adapting air launched weapons such as the small diameter bomb into weapons that can be launched from the ground?
How are the Russian missile attacks going? Has Ukraine weathered the storm with the AA tools they have been given; has Russian run out of usable missiles and are we being successful ( diplomatically and militarily) in cutting off foreign supplies from Russian allies?
https://www.reuters.com/world/british-navy-says-it-has-seized-smuggled-iranian-weapons-gulf-2023-03-02/
I tend to think the US and NATO is managing things pretty well; the upcoming arms deliveries are ammunition, more howitzers, lots of IFVs, tanks, some armoured vehicle launched bridges and surface launched SDB. I think that’s the right emphasis for a spring offensive rather than control of the airspace where AA missiles seem to rule.
One good reason for Ukraine not using jets in Russia with what’s going on in Russia there I see very little need. One issue I would take is the time to take to train fighter pilots. We are not talking about taking PPLs and turning them into fighter aces. There is no doubt many ex fighter pilots in Ukraine who could be trained in short order not to mention other nationals with the skills to fight for Ukraine. Many of the few were from foreign countries.
There seems to have been relatively little use of manned aircraft in this ” special military operation”. On paper, Russian combat air power looked overwhelming but in reality it hasn’t been, with Russia preferring long range rocket attacks. Did early losses to SAM systems deter greater use of airpower or were the available and serviceable aircraft fewer than initially thought? Either way, it is not obvious that beefing up Ukraine’s manned combat air should be a priority. Surveillance to support ground operations can be done by drones and defence against Russian air attacks by the supply of additional SAM systems.
Certainly the Russians have taken losses and it’s fair to say maintenance and spare parts are probably starting to impact their availability, with a year of operational tempo behind them.
The current sporadic use of aircraft by both sides is a testament to the effectiveness of SAMs, in this case the large number of Russian SAMs used by both sides. The Russians are using both aircraft and ship launched cruise missiles with much smaller numbers of ground launched rockets. Yes to deterrence, unknown to numbers. Agree that aircraft is not a priority, artillery, both barrel and rocket is. Unless SAMs are supplied in very large number, which NATO does not have, their main function will be limited point defence.
You write as though Russia’s air forces and Ukraines were, or remain, equivalent and so merely cancel out. The Russian’s have over whelming numbers in aircraft on paper. They aren’t being used or used very effectively. Why? My own belief is this is because they have dire maintenance issues and Russia’s collapsing economy is making replacing spare parts near impossible. It just sums up the entire ‘special operation’ cock-up. A paper military fails to deliver and its structural, organisational and doctrinal failures cannot be rectified in short order. A war of attrition only works if your side attrits more slowly than your opponent. See Verdun 1916.
Of course they aren’t. My point is that regardless of their overwhelming numbers of aircraft they still can’t operate at will over Ukraine due to even the reduced numbers of S-300, BUKs and OSAs especially when those systems are both mobile and fed with data from untouchable ISR assets, satellite, AWACs etc outside the country. There is no evidence of inadequate maintenance etc and in Syria the RuAF performed really well whilst military production has ramped up. They even seem to be able to get virtually anything they need on the World’s markets as well, including semiconductors. It might cost more to ship from say Taiwan via sales in Vietnam to India to Kazakhstan. Even imports from China have gone through the roof.
A marvellous of the Moscow Centre 40-60 rule; 40 percent agree, 60 percent pushing the party line. Seems so reasonable.
Dropping barrel bombs and nerve gas on Syrians, armed or unarmed, was performing ‘really well’. Speaks volumes of you.
I haven’t the time to deconstruct the other claims in detail; sufficent to say these are absurd. Buying up washing machines for their micro chips is not a good look for a supposed first rate power.
If matters are so rosy why aren’t your murdering friends in Kyiv yet? Why is that ambitious thug Yevgeny Prigszhin complaining about ammunition shortages when he claimed Bukhmut fell a week ago, if not earlier?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64859780
As far as I remember it was the SyAF helicopters dropping ‘barrel’ bombs and your nerve gas claim was never substantiated.
I suspect you are old and wise enough to never take anything said by anyone in authority who is actually fighting in a war at face value. Maybe he is churning out, this is not the first time he has said this, disinformation. Whatever, it looks like his forces, backed by the Russian Army. now control around 50% of Bakhmut itself with extended flanks making in/out movement difficult.
Looking at the strategic view, Russia’s Air Force has failed to live up to its expectations. On paper they should have air superiority by now, so why haven’t they?
The main issue is the plethora of effective Ukrainian surface to air missile defenses. That are now being supplanted by Western systems. Which will only make the job for Russia much harder.
To gain air superiority they must first suppress the SAMs. By suppressing Ukraines air defenses then allows the Russians with Mainstay AEW aircraft to gain air dominance. Which would then allow for better close air support.
Russia’s main anti-radiation missile is the Kh31P. To put it mildly they are crap. The passive radar receiver must be fitted pre-flight. As it has a very narrow bandwidth and is designed to hunt for a specific frequency and waveform. So when flying on missions if a radar is detect that is outside of the receiver’s band, it can’t be used.
Secondly the missile does not have a GPS receiver. Which means when the SAM’s radar is switched off. The missile looses lock and flies ballistic ally towards where it thinks the radar was. Small air disturbances will mess up the track, as it will rely on an inertial navigation system. Which won’t have a reference to correct errors. So will likely miss the target by quite some margin.
Without a capable anti-radiation missile, Russia’s Airforce has one hand tied behind its back.
For Ukraine it’s different. Using predominantly mobile ground based radar for fighter coordination and early warning. Does make them more reactive and more difficult to plan air dominance missions. Plus they also have the Russian air defense network to contend with. Unlike Russia, the only really long range SAM system they have is the S300. Which cannot deny as much air space as the Russian S400 system. After suffering significant losses, Russia has finally learned to layer their system together. Which has denied large parts of Eastern Ukraine to its aircraft.
Ukraine’s two main fighter aircraft are the Mig29 and Su27. Both are several years behind the newer Russian versions of the Mig35 and Su30 variants. To matters worse their air to air missiles are also the earlier generation compared to what Russia uses.
However, with Western aid Ukraine are hunting Russian SAM systems. The Mig29 is the aircraft of choice for these missions. There has been a lot of work in the background in getting the aircraft’s mission computer to talk to the western supplied missile. Being a Russian made aircraft its weapon’s bus is not the MIL-STD-1553 that western aircraft use. Which means the missile does use its full panoply of features.
The missile is the AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missile. The HARM has a very sensitive wide band radar receiver. It can be used on opportunity radar targets, or on pre-planned missions. More importantly it also has a GPS receiver so it can geo-locate a radar’s location. So if the radar is turned off, the missile will fly to where it determines where the radar was operating from.
However, it provides the pilot with enough information for it to find and lock onto Russian radars. Where the pilot then fires the missile, which then does all the hard work.
Sadly, I don’t think there’s enough time or money to modify the aircraft with the 1553 databus, along with a new mission computer etc to allow the HARM to be operated to its full potential.
The other major asset that Ukraine is missing is an AEW aircraft. Even though this would be a priority target for Russia. However, the benefits outweigh the risks. By having AEW, a fighter controller can direct aircraft for intercepts more efficiently. Depending on the radar it will allow a better look down capability, searching for low flying threats. So helicopters but more importantly cruise missiles can be detected earlier. Which allows more time to organize defenses.
Whilst the Mig-35 is, as you say, an updated Mig-29, the Russians have to date only bought 6 Mig-35 for their aerobatic team. They are not known to be in use in Ukraine. The only RuAF aircraft (excluding possible use by Wagner of Mig-29) known to have been used in Ukrainian airspace are the SU-30 and its 34/35 versions, the Su-24 and 25 and maybe the Mig-29 and Su-57.
Doubt Su-57 is being sent to Ukraine given it isn’t armed…
Why do you think that it isn’t armed? It has two internal bays each capable of housing four R-77 missiles, among others.
An interesting read Davey B, thanks for posting
Here we go again. NATO planes are complex thus, Ukrainian pilots will take eons to learn how to fly them, because they fly Mig29s etc. One word: cobblers.
The US has said it will backfill Central European NATO airforce with F16s and the C. Europeans can fly them after gifting their planes to Ukraine.
What planes do the C. Europeans fly now, oh yes, I remember, I saw them at Sliac, Slovakia and they were, damn memory, shakes head, oh yes, Mig29s!
Strange that.
Ukraine needs western fighter jets. Trouble is (as both sides have found) there is now a lot of SAMs about. Any deployment of western jets needs to be part of a sophisticated package to deny Russian anti-aircraft efforts. There is also the massive problem of identification (IFF) to prevent friendly shoot-downs.