According to the UK Ministry of Defence, the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) have “almost completely ceased crewed operations in the south” of Ukraine.

This update follows the event on December 22, 2023, when Ukrainian forces shot down three Russian Su-34 FULLBACK combat jets.

The Ministry’s intelligence update reported that “Russian tactical air power had been playing a key role in the south, especially attacking Ukraine’s bridgehead on the eastern bank of the Dnipro River.”

The downing of these aircraft has coincided with a noticeable reduction in Russian crewed air operations in the region.

The UK Defence Intelligence suggests a possible link between the reduced air operations and the outcomes on the ground, stating a “realistic possibility that the lack of air support contributed to the failure of an attempt by Russian Ground Forces’ 18th Combined Arms Army to clear the bridgehead.”

Furthermore, the briefing indicates an increase in Russian tactical air strikes in recent days, although at “a lower level than before the shootdowns.” This observation points to a change in the pattern and intensity of Russian air operations.

The Defence update provides a concluding remark on the situation: “This once again demonstrates that Russia’s inability to establish air superiority in the early stages of the Russia-Ukraine war continues to undermine their daily operations.”

The UK Ministry of Defence’s intelligence briefings offer an ongoing assessment of the operational changes in the region, reflecting the changing dynamics of the conflict without making qualitative judgments on the effectiveness or implications of these changes.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

71 COMMENTS

  1. KEEP GIVING THESE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHAT THEY NEED. They are fighting not only for themselves but for Western democracy. REPULICAN SENATORS in your nice safe warm offices in Washington and the EURO MEP’s in Brussels. It’s you we are talking about.

    • Totally agree, they should realise every dollar/Euro spent on Ukraine’s defence works totally in the West’s favour, with the (hopefull) result of depleted Russian capability.

    • You realize the front line is entirely static now, and nothing short of a nuclear bomb is going to change that? It’s WW1 part 2. F-16’s are going to get shot down left and right. It’s not a magic bullet.

      The Russians have accomplished their objective of creating a buffer state between the west (Ukraine) and Russia.

      • They already had that before the invasion in 2022.

        They have never stated their objective was the creation of a buffer state. They could have got that at the start with no fighting.

        Are you saying their objective was the complete destruction of their economy to get a land bridge to Crimea when they already spent billions building a sea bridge?

      • How have they created a buffer between Ukraine and Russia huge parts of Ukraine that border Russia are not occupied Russia stated it was going to de nazifie Ukraine make it a neutral country and basically instal a government it’s failed on all of these even it’s new aim which was to annex certain districts has failed

      • That was not the objective, the objective was the beheading and toppling of the Ukrainian government so a Putin friendly leader couple be put in place and Ukraine become a Russian client state. That failed and now Russia is stuck in war it’s unable to win and Putin cannot loss because it would end his own power.

    • It’s not that simple. The US is still the largest supporter of Ukraine by a significant margin. The west hasn’t got the industry to build new kit at the rate ukraine needs it and has therefore needed to give existing kit which each nation will have a different view on the likelihood of themselves needing that kit in the future. The US is planning for a major war again China at which point it will need its reserves and European land powers have land borders to protect with memories of ww1 /ww2.

      Combine that with spare parts or lack there of. We know the UK forces are constantly raiding stored equipment for parts and no point donating kit if there isn’t the logistic chain to support their usage.

  2. The Ukrainians control the maritime domain without a navy.

    The Ukrainians are close to controlling the air domain without much of an airforce…..

    Shows how good NATO shoulder and vehicle launched systems are.

    So I do believe, that used correctly, F16 would tip the balance if used correctly *not* Russian style…..

    • Please remember the correct narrative is that Ukraine is doomed and now Russia has geared up for war it will wear Ukraine down.

      Russia is a super power and can’t possibly run out of planes, ships or tanks despite that fact that it can’t make anything new and is clearly loosing a s**t load every day.

      Apparently the UK now has to scrap all its expeditionary capability to rebuild the BOAR and rebuild the ASW fleet to hold The GIUK gap against Russias two submarines its built in the last 40 years. 😀

      • Here he is, nothing to add so trys to put the same person down… What’s up did you catch him in bed with your wife

      • Would be good to have enough forces to do all of those things. An expeditionary capability allows forces to be moved into any regions whenever it’s required.
        The U.K. still has its roles of helping Norway and now the Scandinavian countries.
        It has its troops in the Baltics that seem to be a permanent role.
        They need to be able to surge and expand when required.
        The falklands, gulf, Cyprus, Brunei and others.
        Whatever is coming from aukus it’s going to require stuff to be deployed around the world.
        Those commitments are important and need funded and equipped regardless of who’s in power.
        Defence really needs to be taken away from the party of the day and have its budget set by its needs. Perhaps the lords could do it or some other process.

        • Interestingly if Russia has taught us anything it’s that concrete formations and landmines still work. NATO has always worked on an assumption that the Baltics would be quickly over run and we need powerful armoured forces to retake them.

          However it’s now entirely feasible that NATO could build its own A2AD bubble in the Baltics with a modern maginot line designed to force the Russians to attack Poland and Central Europe instead picking off loan Baltic republics.

          In terms of expeditionary capability Russia has few people and a massive coast line.

          Strategic raiding is a massive threat to Russia especially when you can easily cut then off from ports and resources they need in the east.

          They are also far less likely to try and nuke you if you use marines to grab Sakhalin than drive tanks towards Moscow.

          I really don’t see a need to cut any of the UK existing assets to deal with a Russia threat if the threat is deemed low enough not to increase the budget.

          It’s the army inventing threats to get more allocation.

          The main threat to the UK and NATO is Donald Trump. The UK should be actively using its carriers in the Red Sea to clearly demonstrate British resolve in policing international water ways and freeing up US assets.

    • It also shows how profoundly autonomous vehicles have and will changed navel warfare, essentially in the littoral and enclosed seas ( which is were it matters most). If you are not ready for navy warfare via large numbers of autonomous vessels and aircraft used as attritional assets your going to be buggered.

      lots of very good rapid fire medium guns ( 40,57,76) each are going to be a must…

      what drones give back is that ability to throw mass/numbers at a problem.

  3. It’s good news but the attritional nature of the war is only ever going to have one winner in the long run. The Ukrainians need more support and while we cant go on giving aircraft and the like forever we should be helping them as much as we can in their novel tactics and procurement. Their use of adapted commercial drones has been nothing short of mind blowing in their effectiveness v cost.

    We need to be learning from their tactics. Imagine we could send something as low cost as one of the River class to a position where it could release 3 or 4 drone ships. Those drone ships could infiltrate an area release FPV drones to attack the enemy while acting as a relay node. Think of the cost effectiveness of that vs putting even a Type 31 into harms way therefor releasing the larger warships for more appropriate duties.

    It’s not just me that sees this is it?

    • It is one of the things the royal navy is worst at, getting new tech into service and adapting ships to make space for it. They appear to be getting better with drone testing, however, one of the ideas they have is to resupply marines from a ship using drones and yet if Shapps has his way they won’t be there to be resupplied at all.
      They need to work out their priorities.

      • What?
        The RN is streets ahead for bringing new capability into its ships. Not everything on the upper deck that goes whoosh and bang denotes a new capability. The stuff you don’t see going in below decks in engine rooms, machinery spaces, electronics compartments and the ops rooms are equally if not more important.

        • I terms of learning from Ukraine in novel types of warfare and manufacturing they have not been seen to make any real progress (I don’t know if they could have made some ‘backstage’)

          ‘The stuff you don’t see going in below decks in engine rooms, machinery spaces, electronics compartments and the ops rooms are equally if not more important.”
          What changes have they made to the below decks kit(I would like to learn)

    • That is my concern as well

      The Ukrainians are smashing the Russian attacks daily. We (the West) have to get our manufacturing and politics together and make sure they are not worn down by attrition tactics.

    • It’s not just about how to use drones it’s also about how to combat them…mass and attrition is back as a valid paradigm. Warships do not just now need to be designed to combat a few high end threats but also a multiple of low end threats that will still be a threat if one exists ( human lead systems tend to not be a threat after a certain amount of loss and damage).

    • I suspect you will find it is a little more complicated than you think when you look at it in detail…. Not saying you are wrong but things are rarely black and white except more stuff would always help.

      off the top of my head, how many drone boats could a river class size vessel carry and deploy (more than the 3 or 4 you want for a single attack)? How long does it take to get where it needs to launch then how long to return and restock? Do you need lots of them or something bigger to sustain the number of attacks you want to be capable of (how many attacks do you need to be able to do)? How close do you need to get to deploy them and are you going to be in range of the cheap but longer range drones of the enemy? Does that require an increased level of self protection capability beyond what is fitted to a river (or do you need escort support)? At what point does the thing you actually need look a lot more like a type 31? If you need 6 river size boats or 2 type 31 to do the same job against a significant adversary which do you choose?

      As i say, no idea what the answer is but…

      • Understand what you’re saying and that’s the reason we have to learn from the Ukrainians. We don’t have to goldplate everything. Its about the type of cost effectiveness you get in a war where it matters, not sat on your arse in Whitehall coming up with what ifs till whatever it is is a thousand times more expensive than it should be for a given job

  4. I’m guessing they don’t need to risk their poorly performing airforce when they can lob a load of Chinese, Iranian and North Korean cruise missiles, short range ballistic missiles and cheap drones at the Ukrainian defenders.
    Once Ukraine has been forced to deplete it’s GBAD systems and munitions then we might see a return of the Russian airforce.

    • For which you need cheapo missiles to take them down….they are slow and can’t manoeuvre many Gs……so even Ceptor is well OTT…..

      I’m sure Ukraine is saving Patriot etc for the harder targets.

    • Neither China, North Korea or Iran has supplied Russia with cruise missiles.

      The reality is also that Ukraine is not using high end missiles to defeat suicide drones or cruise missiles any more.

      It’s using cannons and MANPADS in flak lines much the same we we defeated the V1’s

      • The Chinese won’t want their latest systems there as they will inevitably get shot down.

        The NK cruise missiles won’t be all that anyway.

        The ‘ballistic’ shots are pretty unguided and more like an updated V2 that is vaguely guided.

      • That should read. That we know about Jim. I’m sure as North Korean ballistic missiles have been fired at Ukraine that there is every likelihood that cruise missiles have been supplied.

      • The difference between a cruise missile and an attack drone is rather subtle, the latter being usually controlled by a remote pilot and the former usually pre-programmed to fly autonomously – as I understand it. Cruise missiles are often faster than drones.

        China and Iran have supplied Russia with drones.

  5. This is a brilliant demonstration of the abilities of the Ukrainians.
    Other positive news is the reopening of the manufacture of the 155mm M777 light gun by British Aerospace and probably building them in the UK. Will they replace the 105s in UK service? They are also ramping up shell production, as is the USA. Some people are staring to taking supply side seriously. About time; Support Ukraine!

    • Nope. Official BAE pre release.

      “BAE Systems said it had seen an increase in interest from across Europe, Asia and the Americas in the M777 gun system.
      The structures were previously made in Barrow-in-Furness in Britain, with assembly and testing taking place in Hattiesburg, Mississippi.
      BAE Systems said the new contract created the “optimum conditions” for a restart of M777 production in the UK. A spokesperson said the company could not say where production would take place.”

      • Exactly. Hence why HMG need to get their act together and order kit now, in contracts that cannot be cancelled and bring manufacturing capacity back in house to the UK. In reality they should have been doing that since Feb 2022.
        The lack of any tangible awareness of the increasing international security situation is perplexing. They are asleep at the wheel.

        • You must of missed the part when Trumpski went against his own intelligent’s proclaiming his full trust in Putin ,also asking Russia to hack more of Hilary’s emails oh and congratulating Putins invasion of Ukraine on live radio , the democrats were right to take notice, MAGA supporters are not to bright to understand that.

          ;s advise proclaiming full trust in Putin

    • That is good news, would like to see a formal announcement of contract on that issue. The M777 is a worthy successor to the 105mm light guns

      • I’m not so sure. Yes the M777 is a very good gun system. But even with a lot of it made from titanium alloy, it is still massively heavier than the L118/9. Also the number of crew required to serve the gun is different. Where you can get away with 3 for the L118/9, but still require 5 for the M777.

        Secondly the M777 is more of a traditional static gun, where it takes over 2.5 minutes to unhitch and set up. Whereas a L118/9 can be set up for firing in 30 seconds.

        Personally, I would like the replacement for the L118/9 to follow the same path as the M777. Where a lot of the steel components are replaced with titanium alloy. Thus lowering the weight. But also to extend the L37 calibre barrel to at least L45 to extend the basic range. This will still maintain the ease of operating the gun, but allow it to reach further. The weight saving would then allow it even with a longer barrel to still mount on say a Supacat HMT.

        We have a base bleed shell, but a rocket assisted version would also be great. Similarly, a guided shell would also be a major advantage.

        I do think in a peer war, the static emplaced towed gun has had its day. The Ukraine War has shown how susceptible they are to loitering drones. Where I would also include, if your opponent has a decent counter-battery radar set up. Being able to bang off 3 rounds then bug out is a key necessity these days.

  7. This is good news ,well done to the Ukrainians I just hope the US government keep up sending Ammunition ,Vehicles etc and Europe do the same .Otherwise the board game will change in Putin’s favour .🤔 🇬🇧 🇺🇸 🇪🇺

      • They’ll struggle getting any more funding through the house and past the Republicans.

        This year was always going to be tricky because of the elections.

      • If that’s the case Jim , Europe have to make up for the short fall .But can’t see that happening so like I said game over .🙄

        • Europe. What a joke. They are a bunch of Putin apologising self-interested suits full of F’#*#all.
          I can’t see Europe doing anything above and beyond the bare minimum they are doing now to help Ukraine. Despite the fact the EU monetary and economically is comparable to the USA.

          • Only a mere Euro 77billion from EU Institutions and a combined

            total from EU Countries + EU Institutions of Euro 133billion vs Euro 71billion from the US.

      • Looks like the budget is sorted and just needs rubber stamped according to some news sites.
        I really hope so. The USA needs to push the this money is invested in the US economy not loaded on trucks and dropped off in Kyiv.
        The U.K. needs to up its game. I’m disappointed at the lack of production increases and kit sent. The fact Ukraine are needing to do charity work to get 4x4s is not good. The U.K. has loads of land rovers and is still sending them to MOD surplus sites. All the scimitar 2s should have been sent when retired along with all the surplus CVRTs sitting around.
        The U.K. could order a lot of kit that would benefit the U.K. economy and try to end the conflict asap.
        Do the bare minimum conservatives are disappointing.

        • I agree, the post Truss response to rearming and especially increasing production of anything has been pointless but then we have two unelected ******s in charge who are using the old Tory mantra of fiscal responsibility following the Truss debacle to justify the cuts they always want to make.

          Fact is Truss tanked the pound because she did not coordinate with BOE and decided to increase borrowing the same week the BOE decided to reverse bond purchases.

        • This is spot on.

          All the Scimitars have all been retired and could be sent. Only 23 have been so far last I saw.

          Also land rovers or HMT etc could be used to launch Brimstones or Starstreak etc, which seems to have proved very effectively thus far.

  8. Very clever tactic by the Ukrainians.

    They used a short-range radar to monitor the SU-34 progress
    When the jets were within the trap the Ukr switched on S-300 positioned on the left bank of the Dnipro and nailed them.

  9. “”This update follows the event on December 22, 2023, when Ukrainian forces shot down three Russian Su-34 FULLBACK combat jets.””

    It was actually reported that the Ukrs shot down a 4th Su 34 the very next day along with a Su30

  10. Any idea why the old rapier systems haven’t been sent granted they are of limited use but surely we still have these available they are only now being replaced with CAMM

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here