3 3
SkyDekker

Ukraine

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

That is simply not true, several Patriot batteries based in Poland could establish a no fly zone nearly 100 miles deep into Ukraine, protecting humanitarian as well as military resupply operations.  An example would be the Egyptian SA-2 batteries in the Yom Kippur war.

Thank you for establishing what I suspected but do not have the experience to state with authority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

That is simply not true, several Patriot batteries based in Poland could establish a no fly zone nearly 100 miles deep into Ukraine, protecting humanitarian as well as military resupply operations.  An example would be the Egyptian SA-2 batteries in the Yom Kippur war.

How does a 100 mile no-fly zone help protect a route into Kyiv? It is 467 miles from the Polish border to Kyiv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, brenthutch said:

That is simply not true, several Patriot batteries based in Poland could establish a no fly zone nearly 100 miles deep into Ukraine, protecting humanitarian as well as military resupply operations.  An example would be the Egyptian SA-2 batteries in the Yom Kippur war.

Is the idea to slow roll a ground based air umbrella forward?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

How does a 100 mile no-fly zone help protect a route into Kyiv? It is 467 miles from the Polish border to Kyiv.

 

53 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Is the idea to slow roll a ground based air umbrella forward?

It is to create an enclave from which to conduct humanitarian and insurgency activities. To SkyDekker’s point, there is no need to establish a single corridor to Kiev (you see how well that worked out for the Russian’s).  The hundred mile umbrella would allow for weapons, ammunition and personal to disperse and be more difficult to engage in a decisive manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 

It is to create an enclave from which to conduct humanitarian and insurgency activities. To SkyDekker’s point, there is no need to establish a single corridor to Kiev (you see how well that worked out for the Russian’s).  The hundred mile umbrella would allow for weapons, ammunition and personal to disperse and be more difficult to engage in a decisive manner.

Do the Ukrainians have any military type airports within this umbrella area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, brenthutch said:

...several Patriot batteries based in Poland could establish a no fly zone nearly 100 miles deep into Ukraine, protecting humanitarian as well as military resupply operations.  An example would be the Egyptian SA-2 batteries in the Yom Kippur war.

I don't think the Russians would make a distinction between Polish AA weapons & personnel inside Ukraine, or missiles fired from Poland at Russian aircraft over Ukrainian airspace. If such an engagement occurs, Poland would be in a de-facto state of war with Russia, probably not something they want.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Do the Ukrainians have any military type airports within this umbrella area?

US Air Force Discusses Tactics with Ukrainian Air Force as Russian Advance Stalls

'Ukraine still has a “significant majority” of its military aircraft available nine days after Russian forces started their invasion of the country, a United States defence official told the Reuters news service on Friday."

One of Putin's aces that didn't fare so well(a field outside the town of Volnovakha in the Donetsk region):

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, metalslug said:

I don't think the Russians would make a distinction between Polish AA weapons & personnel inside Ukraine, or missiles fired from Poland at Russian aircraft over Ukrainian airspace. If such an engagement occurs, Poland would be in a de-facto state of war with Russia, probably not something they want.

Not just Poland, an attack on Poland would trigger article five and engage all of NATO.  That said, I never said it was a good idea, I just said it could be done without putting troops into Ukraine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Ken is correct, it would be a declaration of war. SkyDekker is correct that it would require a massive number of ground troops. MetalSlug is also correct - you cannot have air support without a host country and how many are willing to do that right now. A hundred mile no-fly zone would not work from the outcrops of another country and is an effort in futility. The British learned in the American Revolution that you can't fight from the seaports. We learned that in Vietnam and again in Afghanistan. 

Setting up a no-fly zone over the Ukraine would take hundreds of aircraft. With that comes a symphony of support for maintenance, fuel (think air fueling), a/c weapons, personnel, AWACS, etc. Joe, you know the support a/c requires, now multiply that by hundreds of a/c. Now, add in the number of Air Defense to protect those hundreds of aircraft plus defense against the Russian SAMs (artillery) and the personnel to operate it, then add in the number of support personnel for the air defense.  A secondary defense for a no-fly zone people are grunts. By then, we're in it.

Bottom line: We're either in it or not. If we're not going to be actively in it, then we might as well just donate money to AirBnB and watch what happens on CNN. 

Edited by BIGUN
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
11 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

....Bottom line: We're either in it or not. If we're not going to be actively in it, then we might as well just donate money to AirBnB and watch what happens on CNN. 

Its getting too depressing to watch news coverage much more.

In other news" A proposed deal to allow Ukrainian pilots to fly fighter jets donated by European Union countries has fallen apart.

Over the course of a confusing 48 hours, the EU announced it had brokered an arrangement for member states to allow Ukrainian pilots to start flying their used Russian fighter planes, only to have those countries deny there was any such deal even as Kyiv trumpeted the impending arrival of the jets...including 28 MiG-29s from Poland, 12 from Slovakia and 16 from Bulgaria, along with 14 Su-25s from Bulgaria.."

Perhaps a Gofundme for this:1960 DOUGLAS A-4C SKYHAWK $995,000 USD, "completely restored" and its "Painted in Argentinian Navy markings" to really confuse the Russians

spacer.png

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Ken is correct, it would be a declaration of war. SkyDekker is correct that it would require a massive number of ground troops. MetalSlug is also correct - you cannot have air support without a host country and how many are willing to do that right now. A hundred mile no-fly zone would not work from the outcrops of another country and is an effort in futility. The British learned in the American Revolution that you can't fight from the seaports. We learned that in Vietnam and again in Afghanistan. 

Setting up a no-fly zone over the Ukraine would take hundreds of aircraft. With that comes a symphony of support for maintenance, fuel (think air fueling), a/c weapons, personnel, AWACS, etc. Joe, you know the support a/c requires, now multiply that by hundreds of a/c. Now, add in the number of Air Defense to protect those hundreds of aircraft plus defense against the Russian SAMs (artillery) and the personnel to operate it, then add in the number of support personnel for the air defense.  A secondary defense for a no-fly zone people are grunts. By then, we're in it.

Wrong on many levels. First it is Ukraine not “the Ukraine”  second, third and forth, it doesn’t require massive numbers of ground troops, doesn’t require hundreds of aircraft nor does it require a large logistical tail.  Here is an example of a no-fly zone being enforced by a single soldier.  
https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2022/mar/05/ukraine-claims-footage-shows-them-shooting-down-russian-military-helicopter-video

Simply scale up.

The Mujahideen and Taliban effectively had a no-fly enclave in Pakistan and look how well it worked fir them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Wrong on many levels. First it is Ukraine not “the Ukraine”  second, third and forth, it doesn’t require massive numbers of ground troops, doesn’t require hundreds of aircraft nor does it require a large logistical tail.  Here is an example of a no-fly zone being enforced by a single soldier.  
https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2022/mar/05/ukraine-claims-footage-shows-them-shooting-down-russian-military-helicopter-video

Simply scale up.

The Mujahideen and Taliban effectively had a no-fly enclave in Pakistan and look how well it worked fir them.

That's what I'm confused about, the all or nothing thinking. So maybe we can't risk Polish Soldiers manning Patriot systems in Poland. Is it possible to round up a bunch of Russian stuff? S-400 or whatever? We're clearly ready to send US anti-tank weapons to be used inside Ukraine. The French seem to believe that Ukrainians serving in the French Foreign Legion aren't French soldiers once they cross back into Ukraine. There has to be a way to make it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Wrong on many levels. First it is Ukraine not “the Ukraine”  second, third and forth, it doesn’t require massive numbers of ground troops, doesn’t require hundreds of aircraft nor does it require a large logistical tail.  Here is an example of a no-fly zone being enforced by a single soldier.  
https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2022/mar/05/ukraine-claims-footage-shows-them-shooting-down-russian-military-helicopter-video

Simply scale up.

The Mujahideen and Taliban effectively had a no-fly enclave in Pakistan and look how well it worked fir them.

Not unlike global warming - you "simply" don't know what you're talking about. Shooting down an aircraft is not the same as supporting a no-fly zone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
36 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

That's what I'm confused about, the all or nothing thinking. So maybe we can't risk Polish Soldiers manning Patriot systems in Poland. Is it possible to round up a bunch of Russian stuff? S-400 or whatever? We're clearly ready to send US anti-tank weapons to be used inside Ukraine. The French seem to believe that Ukrainians serving in the French Foreign Legion aren't French soldiers once they cross back into Ukraine. There has to be a way to make it happen.

There was a older, female, 10 term, US, senator on CNBC? this morning. She was previously on Armed services committee and Intelligence committees. She had a couple good ideas.

She suggested that previously SAM systems, or radar controlled AA?, had been mounted on flatbed trucks and supplied to allied supported combatants. No idea what systems those were or what war(Balkans?). Also suggested a worldwide cyber effort designed to educate the Russian population as to what is truly happening.

Perhaps?

spacer.png

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

OK. Thank you. I read it just now. First, I concede I don't know what I'm talking about and am probably using terms incorrectly. That a real no-fly zone isn't possible, I accept. Brents idea of a wide area defended by missiles along the border for humanitarian reasons and to distribute material seemed sensible to me. Can you conceive of a way to do that much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Think about that. 

I did. Why not make it easier to bring in and disperse supplies? Every box won't have a Javelin inside and, given Russian atrocities thus far, I'd say that they were humanitarian. too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
4 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Its getting too depressing to watch news coverage much more.

In other news" A proposed deal to allow Ukrainian pilots to fly fighter jets donated by European Union countries has fallen apart.

Over the course of a confusing 48 hours, the EU announced it had brokered an arrangement for member states to allow Ukrainian pilots to start flying their used Russian fighter planes, only to have those countries deny there was any such deal even as Kyiv trumpeted the impending arrival of the jets...including 28 MiG-29s from Poland, 12 from Slovakia and 16 from Bulgaria, along with 14 Su-25s from Bulgaria.."

Oh that sucks. I'm wondering why we can't be supplying as many drones and anti-armor / anti air defence weapons as possible. The Ukrainians apparenty can't risk deploying their small number against larger concentrations of Russian forces where they'd be most useful. I'm guessing they'd be much quicker to train Ukrainian operators to use than different manned aircraft, and we don't immediately need them in the same way that Slovakia and Poland have an intense interest in maintaining their own air defence right now.

Edited by jakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2022 at 7:50 AM, ryoder said:

If you want to be picky: no!

Tanks typically have a crew of only 4 or 5 and a main gun in the 100 to 120 mm caliber. Tanks' primary mission is destroying enemy targets by direct fire (visual range). Tanks' frontal armor is typically 100 to 150 mm thick, enough to defeat their own main gun.

OTOH armored personnel carriers primary mission is moving foot soldiers across battlefields. APCs range in size from 8 to 24 seats. Armament rarely exceeds 12.5 or 20 mm heavy machine guns. Armor is much thinner, barely enough to protect occupants against rifle fire (8 mm).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3