[condor]

Not about IAF, but posting this here

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) released two pictures of America’s newest nuclear-capable stealth bomber during the 2023 Air and Space Forces Association Warfare Symposium in Colorado on Tuesday. This is one of the two pics:

The B-21 Raider first debuted in early December during a tightly controlled ceremony in California. The next-generation aircraft has been in secret development for years and is the United States’ first new stealth bomber in more than three decades.

[Samurai]

https://www.businessinsider.in/inter...20front%20line.

What is the future of Air Force if air superiority is hard to achieve anymore?

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by Samurai

What is the future of Air Force if air superiority is hard to achieve anymore?

I feel the Ukraine conflict is vastly different from any of the previous air wars where air superiority was achieved by relentless targeting on enemy airfields, Ground based Air Defence Systems, Command Centers, Industries etc. The Russians let go of the pressure on Ukrainian Air Defence too quickly or found it to be unsustainable. More than year into the conflict, the Ukrainian Armed Forces continue to operate as a credible threat to the Russians( just like the NVA did to the Americans in the Vietnam War or the Mujahideen did to the Soviets in the Aghan War).

While part of the reason why Ukraine has been able to hold out for so long is because of western support by means of weapons, logistics, real time intelligence and early warning. That is not to take away the bravery and resilience of Ukraine's military and its people, but fighting for so long would not have been possible had the support and supply lines not been there from the west (something that is one of the prime targets in any war). It is a different matter though that the Russians cannot go bomb Ukranie's NATO neighbours.

Let's not forget during the initial days of the war, the Russian Air Force was fully involved in the first few days of the war an followed textbook tactics of taking out Ukrainian Air Defences. When the invasion commenced in February 2022, the Russian Air Force fleet of Su-24, Su-34, Su-30SM and Su-35 fighters mounted more than 100 sorties per day, conducting Fighter sweeps, Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defences, Air strikes and counter-air missions.

Air strikes were carried out against hundreds of Ukrainian targets such as long-range Radar Stations, Air Defence (AD) systems, and fuel & weapon storage sites mainly along the routes to be followed by the Russian assault forces. These air strikes were supported by electronic jamming and decoys to draw out Ukranian ground defences, which where then attacked by Russian ant-radiation missiles. Ground Based Air Defence systems such as S-300, were rendered ineffective by radar jamming. Ukrainian fighters, mainly the MiG-29s opposed Russian aircraft and inflicted some losses of Russian aircraft. But Ukrainians lost many aircraft to the Russian fighters which were technologically more advanced and proved more than a match for the Ukrainian fighters with their longer-range missiles. The initial reports of the UkrAF taking a heavy toll of Russian fighters, turned out to be highly exaggerated. Russian fighters flew Combat Air Patrols over Kiev and other targets. There were even plans t oair drop paratroopers using Il-76s over Kiev. After the initial success of Russian air operations, there was a pause after the third day which continued for some time. After a week of ground operations,it became clear that the Russian land forces moving towards Kiev got bogged down due to unexpected Ukrainian resistance and logistics issues.

The botched operation to capture and occupy Antonov Hostomel airport clearly exposed the shortcomings in the Russian plan wherein the promised additional Russian forces for occupation of the airport & surrounding areas never came and the Russians had to leave the area in a hurry in face of determined Ukrainian resistance. The primary mission was to establish an airbridge between Kiev & Russia to intensify ground operations. Clearly the Russian supply lines for any such operations were not secure. The focus of the Russian Air Force thereafter shifted to supporting ground troops and securing supply lines, instead of continuing to mount sorties to bury Ukrainian Air Defence for good.

It gave a chance for Ukrainian Air Defences to re-organise and re group. With no offensive air action and no interference by Russian Electronic Warfare aircraft, the Ukrainian ground-based Air Defence systems again started posing a threat to Russian aircraft. This forced intruding Russian aircraft to operate at low levels, which they do to this day...more than a year since the "special operation" began.

The Russian Air Force thus lost control of the Ukrainian airspace which had far reaching consequences. Close Air Support fighters such as the Su-25 faced effective ground based air defence of radar guided AD missiles alongside numerous types of MANPADS. This resulted in the loss of several ground attack fighters and attack helicopters. In short, the Russian Air Force was unable to establish control over the contested airspace, generally considered the primary task of an air force and was thus unable to operate with impunity and attack enemy ground forces. Instead now, it primarily relies on drones and cruise missiles launched from Russian Tu-95s and 22s for strikes deep into Ukraine.

IF we look back at the previous air conflicts, for eg lets say Operation Desert Storm, the Allied Air Forces & warships focused primarily on completely destroying or disabling Iraqi Air Defences(both ground based as well as Iraqi aircraft) and continued doing it till the entire Iraqi Air Defence system collapsed which made it easy for Allied ground attack fighters to easily take out Iraqi Army.

While one can argue that the Ground based Air Defences now are far more effective and difficult to neutralize, the initial Russian successes in the opening days of the war clearly show that had focused operations on neutralizing Ukrainian Air Defence continued, Ukraine may have had a difficult time to regroup and may have lost the war quickly in early 2022 itself.

Air Forces will continue to be the sword arm of militaries around the world and will continue to play a pivotal role in any future conflict. I am sure tactics have evolved and plans/mission profiles are in place to neutralize modern day long range AD systems like S-400 etc.

Finally, it is also the training and the men operating these systems that matter. Case in point, MiG-21s were considered to be junk in combat as the Arab-Israeli Wars showed, but the same MiG-21s in IAF hands proved more than a match against equivalent PAF F-104s & Mirage IIIs in the 1971 war.

[fhdowntheline]

With the luxury of being a layman in military strategy( but with keen interest) I would say that initially Russia should have decimated all major Ukrainian infrastucture with aerial bombardment which would have caused shock and horror , but would have caused Ukrainian resistamce to completely wilt. It appears they went in with ground forces too soon, perhaps also mindful of how to calibrate actions based on world responses. They went in for precision strikes instead of sheer TNT. So , much of Ukraine continued to function as near normal for some time. Yes there would be the risk of civilian casualties etc but once you have started a military conflict, you have to account for that too. In my mind , there is no doubt about the role of air force offensive assets. Its how you use them that matters more. Back in 71, IAF even leveraged the AN 12 transport planes as bomb trucks. They achieved air superiority over Pakistan in pretty short order.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Samurai

https://www.businessinsider.in/inter...20front%20line.

What is the future of Air Force if air superiority is hard to achieve anymore?

Samurai, thank you for sharing. Thought provoking in times of rapid change but rather lop sided if I may say so. Allow me to share my limited amateur perspective. My post is complimentary to the excellent response earlier provided by @skanchan95 in post #1698. Phrases and terms used below are generic, each major Air Force might use slightly modified terms.

All,
Air superiority in full or in parts is but one role of an Air Force and within that fighter on fighter combat is but one means of achieving and retaining air superiority. The roles of an Air Force are several – all equally important – though at different points in time and geography, in a confrontation, different roles may acquire more significance. These are, in no order – (1) Strike -Battlefield support, military targets & striking at strategic targets (2) Mobility – moving the Army around to be available at short notice in strength when timing matters most (3) Intelligence gathering & electronic warfare (4) Command & control & direction of the conflicted air space (5) defense & use of space & higher reaches of the atmosphere (6) and of course air superiority in whole or in parts which in peace time or grey times includes border air patrol

Now within air superiority there are several routes to achieve it all of which need to be used in conjunction – counter-air, the destruction of enemy air defences i.e. radars, control centres, SAM sites; striking at enemy airfields {with aircraft & stand-off missiles} attempting to destroy their fleet on the ground; and of course air to air combat where needed. Electronic warfare plays a major role in all this to create the setting for other actions to be more effective.

The air war over Ukraine is at a stalemate for several reasons other than vulnerability of manned fighters – Russian AF has really not applied its full strength for reasons that are political, the Russians also do not seem well organized or trained, and morale is clearly an issue. The same situation with the Israelis or Indians {two other battle hardened Air Forces} would have been handled with very different & more effective tactics with I suspect different results. It is the role of an Air Force to go into harm's way. It is expected some aircraft and, sadly, crew will be lost.

The Americans and by corollary journalists have grown up seeing two utterly one sided wars in a generation– Iraq-II and Afghanistan where the Americans and their NATO aggressors established {not surprisingly} air dominance in the face of sparse {Iraq-II} and zero {Afghanistan} air opposition so in the minds of these journalists it comes as a surprise that oops manned aircraft can get shot down! – someone forgot to tell them that. They then in their rather immature click bait seeking way announce the defacto death of manned fighters! Thank God journalists don't run our Air Force.:-) Manned fighters have been about to go out of existence since Minister Duncan Sandys infamous white paper of 1957 that killed the British aerospace industry.

While on the subject. Unmanned devices have been a part of our inventory since the 1950s and 1960s. A missile is a single purpose single sortie unmanned device. A drone is a {usually} single purpose, multi-sortie unmanned device. An aircraft is a multi-purpose, multi-sortie, re-programmable on the fly, manned device. All three have a role to play. All are complimentary to each other.

[aim120]

The only thing keeping RuAF from flying high is the S300 and Buk m1, so they fly low to evade them, but are then limited to dropping dumb bombs. The sheer size of Ukraine means they don't have enough stand off missiles which again are only good for static targets.

The UkrAF has scored air to air jet kills against SU24 bombers and SU25 attack jets but they have yet to shoot down any Flanker variants.
RuAF has scored several air to air kills against other air superiority fighters like SU27 and Mig29. Ukraine pilots keep saying that the RuAF Mig31 and SU35 keep launching hypersonic R37 missiles from deep within Russian mainland territory which forces ukraine pilots to turn back and fly at tree top level. So only usefull aircrafts in this war are SU25 which are again targeted by manpads but many limp back land after being hit.

Those HARM anti radiation missiles supplied by US is unable to hit even a single Russian Anti Air vehicle.

There was one video taken by Russia Pantsir AA crew a while back, where a Himars missile barrage is being tracked. The Pantsir crew panic since the screen shows the missiles coming towards the center of the radar screen, meaning the target is them. They shoot down four but two Himars rocket is not intercepted either due to no missiles left to intercept or some failed to intercept. Pantsir has 6 missile in launch tubes. But even then the Russian crew quickly drive away seconds before point of impact, escaping narrowly.

The point is Ukraine and Russia have one of the worlds largest number of mobile AA which can shoot and move away quickly. All those Anti Radiation missiles will be of no use. Since the mobile AA operator will turn Off the radar.

The only other option to find those Mobile AA is to use a SAR scan from a AESA/PESA radar of a fighter jet. Unfortunately even a F35 SAR scan cannot show a target in urban area or dense tree cover areas.

So the US snd Nato even if directly involved will find it extremely difficult to shoot down the hiding AA. This is no Iraq.


Drones and loitering munition are the ones taking out most of the artillery, supply trucks and even Anti Air vehicles.
Russian have used the Lancent drones to take out UK stormer air defense vehicles. Uk provided 6 Stormer vehicles which are designed specifically to take out drones but already two have been taken out in just this month.


Why has Russia still not taken out rail line and bridges and even highways roads coming from Poland, Romania into Ukraine is puzzling. Its more slower to drive supplies with crater filled mud roads, then crusing at over 100km/hr in 4/6 lane highway or via rail line.

Either Russians have eyes on the ground to spot Military supplies going to Ukraine or they don't want to destroy transport infrastructure which is the only route for civilians to escape in there regular vehicles.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by aim120

The only thing keeping RuAF from flying high is the S300 and Buk m1, so they fly low to evade them, but are then limited to dropping dumb bombs. <--->Either Russians have eyes on the ground to spot Military supplies going to Ukraine or they don't want to destroy transport infrastructure which is the only route for civilians to escape in there regular vehicles.

Thank you for your post and observations. Could you, for the benefit of our readers, summarize net net what is it that you are trying to say i.e. what are your conclusions. Thanks.

All,
I'm not sure at all that alleged facts emerging from the fog of war are remotely accurate. Even in the two Gulf wars where the NATO forces enjoyed such overwhelming air superiority they were later found to be making errors in counting both their losses and damage inflicted. Some of those errors later were found to be pure fudges by the Americans! -Member Foxbat could write reams on that. In this war both sides are indulging wholesale in doctored videos, fake claims et al. Just my two paisa worth.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the Russian AF failed to conduct a whole sale SEAD operation on day 1 when it could have done so successfully. Why? we don't know. At best even now they are flying at half mast.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The only conclusion I can draw is that the Russian AF failed to conduct a whole sale SEAD operation on day 1 when it could have done so successfully. Why? we don't know. At best even now they are flying at half mast.

US SEAD operations were successful against Iraq because most of the radars were land-based (fixed). Target identification and elimination was relatively easy. However, Ukraine follows the USSR doctrine of having mobile SAMs (mounted on tank/APC/truck platform). Ukraine has:

- Strela
- Tunguska
- Osa
- Buk
- S-300

Russians simply don't know where the Ukrainian SAM systems are placed. As soon as hostilities emerged, Ukrainians would have dispersed these surface to air missile units all over the country. That's why Russia does not have air superiority over Ukraine.

India/China too follows the USSR doctrine of having multiple layers of mobile surface to air missile systems. In India's case, we have -

QRSAM (ultra short range)
Akash/Spyder (short range)
Barak/MRSAM (medium range)
S-400 (long range)

Note that Western countries (USA/NATO) do not have such layered air defence systems. That's because their war doctrine is different - they believe that it is best to use fighter aircraft to protect ground forces.

[PetrolRider]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Why? we don't know. At best even now they are flying at half mast.

Sir, though not as knowledgeable as yourself on defense matter, what I hypothetically thinks, Russia knows later at some point, they may have to be in direct conflict with some of NATO members. With all these sanctions on place they have limited resource. They have to judiciously save some of their most advanced stuff for their defense also.
Moreover, a longer slow conflict is equally if not more damaging to Ukrainian economy as them. Most of Russia' major operations are in significant economic and industrial corridors. a 16 Bil (and of course much more coming) loan is not going anywhere. Ukraine may will win the battle, but they have already lost the war on day 1.
I may be wrong, and loved to be countered by most knowledgeable members indeed.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

US SEAD operations were successful against Iraq because most of the radars were land-based (fixed). Target identification and elimination was relatively easy.

Aptly said!!!

Hunting Mobile Radar guided SAM & AAA systems is a completely different ball game. In Fixed/Immobile SAM systems like the SA-2, the guidance/Tracking Radar and Missiles were fixed at a place, were still vulnerable even after the Radars were switched off because even the 1970s tech Anti-radiation missiles like the AGM-45 Shrike apparently had the capability to counter radar shutdown and "remember" the location of the radar after launch from the aircraft.

This scene from the brilliant movie "Flight of the Intruder" aptly demonstrates what is being discussed here. The movie was based on a Novel by the same name written by Stephen Coonts, himself an A-6 pilot in the Vietnam War.


Willem Dafoe played the memorable character of Lt Cdr Virgil Cole - an experienced A-6 Bombardier/Navigator(BN) in the Vietnam War, who in this scene teaches his pilot how to effectively fly Iron Hand missions(effectively SEAD missions to destroy radar guided SAM & AAA sites). The movie had some memorable characters, dialogues and scenes. The aptly delivered dialogues below are from this scene.

Onboard Devil 520 - Lt Cdr Cole (BN) to Lt Jake "Cool Hand" Grafton (Pilot):
It's simple. We're the decoys. We get them to turn their radar on and shoot at us. But then again, we get to shoot back and kill them with our missiles. That way, the bombers can have a pleasant SAM-free evening dropping their bombs.

When the SAM's radar goes on, that's your target. You shoot. They either have to shut off and lose the missile or eat the Shrike. Even if they do shut off, sometimes the shrike remembers where they're at. Mean ####### , eh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NlXZzqGURg

Now in the same scenario, imagine if the radar is highly mobile(like modern day SAM systems are) and the Tracking/Guidance Radar is turned off after firing a SAM or after getting to know that it is being hunted. While on the move, there is no way for the anti-radiation missile to know where the mobile radar system is going as an anti-radiation missile is primarily designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from surface-to-air radar systems. Even if the missile remembers the last location of the radar, it will no longer be there.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

This scene from the brilliant movie "Flight of the Intruder" aptly demonstrates what is being discussed here.

Hey, looks like Ross Geller served in Vietnam!

While on the move, there is no way for the anti-radiation missile to know where the mobile radar system is going as an anti-radiation missile is primarily designed to home in on electronic transmissions coming from surface-to-air radar systems. Even if the missile remembers the last location of the radar, it will no longer be there.

Bharat Electronics has now developed a decoy system to spoof a SAM system like S-400. This cheap decoy will draw the anti-radiation missile towards itself, and protect expensive mobile SAM systems

India Develops Indigenous Anti-Radiation Missile Decoy System
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/...missile-decoy/

[aim120]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Thank you for your post and observations. Could you, for the benefit of our readers, summarize net net what is it that you are trying to say i.e. what are your conclusions. Thanks.

All,
I'm not sure at all that alleged facts emerging from the fog of war are remotely accurate. Even in the two Gulf wars where the NATO forces enjoyed such overwhelming air superiority they were later found to be making errors in counting both their losses and damage inflicted. Some of those errors later were found to be pure fudges by the Americans! -Member Foxbat could write reams on that. In this war both sides are indulging wholesale in doctored videos, fake claims et al. Just my two paisa worth.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the Russian AF failed to conduct a whole sale SEAD operation on day 1 when it could have done so successfully. Why? we don't know. At best even now they are flying at half mast.

I was mainly saying that the terrain of Ukraine with trees and tall buildings make it harder to spot a hiding mobile AA. Like I cited the example of the Pantsir S1 crew who simply changed location before the Himars rocket could hit them.

A western SEAD operation is going to face the same problem the Russians face in a networked air defense system. Most modern Russian/Soviet AA systems also have thermal imaging, to passively search for targets.

The Houthi rebels in Yemen where able to shoot at some of the most modern F15, Tornado jets of Saudi and other middle eastern country air force. The Houthis don't even have a radar. They rely soley on human spotters and then use high powered FLIR manufactured turret with 150x optical zoom and with some modification are able to use R-27T (thermal version) to shoot down the most modern jets with Missile approach warning sensors.

By November last year, Russia claim to have taken out half of S300 known to exist with Ukraine. Russia doesn't know how many of the remaining S300 systems are in operational state, which Ukraine has been refurbishing.

Add to that they have decoys made of wood/balloon and even out of order S300 launch tubes to confuse drones and sattelite. So Russian don't know for sure how many of those they destroyed where real and not decoys.

I personally saw atleast 2 videos of decoys, with no secondary explosion.

[Foxbat]

A very insightful discussion about the air war in Ukraine. I agree with what many of the members are saying: Russia is not in complete control of the skies because of the numerous mobile SAMs launchers. It's nearly impossible to take out everyone and more and more are being supplied by NATO.

Saw this article in the mainstream US Media today:



Russian jets of newer generation increase 'dominance' in combat zone, Ukrainian official says

Ukrainian officials said Russia has replaced ageing jets with updated Su-35s.

Link:https://abcnews.go.com/International...ry?id=98133444



Newer generation fighter jets are giving Russia "increasing dominance" in the skies over the conflict zone in eastern Ukraine, according to a senior Ukrainian official.

It is a potentially worrying shift for the United States and its allies because Russia’s inability to achieve total air superiority throughout the course of the war has been key to Ukrainian successes on the battlefield.

In a briefing last week with journalists, a Western official downplayed the concern, stating that Russia’s ability to control the skies has been limited by air defense and surface-to-air missiles.

"We’re not seeing a huge change in that situation," the official said.

The senior official in Kyiv, who spoke exclusively to ABC News, said Russia had replaced older models of aircraft with its more modern Su-35.

The Su-35 is equipped "with very effective radar and long-distance rockets," the official said, and Russia is using these aircraft to attack Ukrainian jets in the air as well as for ground support operations.

Ukraine "does not have capabilities" to counter this threat, the official added.

"[Russian] air superiority is a real risk," the official said, adding that more air defense systems from the United States and its allies is currently "priority No. 1" for Ukraine.

[PGA]

There’s is a famous line: “no battle plan ever survives the first encounter with the enemy,” - Moltke

Since we are deliberating at the various inadequacies which have or are preventing Russian Air Force from attaining expected air superiority, I feel hinging opinion based on Russian or Ukrainian war fighting ideology or plans or strategy is a bit futile, coz in a war all these are akin to gamma's of the stock market, ever varying with changing underlying, as brought out above by the Prussian Field Marshal and a line memorised by any General worth his salt. (Trying to impress Smartcat with that stock market analogy.)

Now adding my cents, I feel considerable Ukrainian prowess and tactics are based on NATO intelligence and staff work being done in London or Brussels. Continuous Global Hawk, Reaper patrols over Black Sea and Poland are indicative.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by PGA

There’s is a famous line: “no battle plan ever survives the first encounter with the enemy,” - Moltke

Now adding my cents, I feel considerable Ukrainian prowess and tactics are based on NATO intelligence and staff work being done in London or Brussels. Continuous Global Hawk, Reaper patrols over Black Sea and Poland are indicative.

A most sensible and wise statement. NATO are doing the heavy lifting of constant recce, target identification, maybe even target designation, signals intelligence 24 x 7. NATO is fighting in all but name. Ironical they expanded NATO to defend themselves and created the foundation for this hot war! I'm no crystal ball gazer but this war isn't going anywhere for another few years.