Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF)

[Timmymagic]

The other one is Algeria - a pity France cannot flex some of their old colonial influence....lease them some Rafale

Algeria is a lost cause, too much of their kit is Russian based for them to be messing around with their main supplier.

Keeping SU-24 and 25 in the air is also a job that needs to be worked on....Georgia could be useful in that regard, particularly for SU-25, but its allegiance at present is a little confusing to say the least...

[Jensy]

Problems with quoting in replies...

In Response to Spitfire...

The Russian's have minimal capability against airfields. They have neither the doctrine, equipment or weapons. They made some half-assed attacks against some Ukrainian airfields in Feb 2022 and have since given up. The Ukrainian's operate from airbases...no real indications that they have ever gone to dispersed ops. And you can't sustain distributed ops for any real length of time....don't fall for the Saab marketing...they're just as tied to bases as anything else. The entire Swedish BAS90 system is tied to main bases....with very close by alternate strips, in very small quantities...same with F-35B. Without a main base to get support from, or infrastructure out of range from the enemy they are tied to main bases/facilities.

Typhoon might be exceptionally capable at high altitude, but its also very good at low level. Basically unless its going low and very slow it will outperform anything else...not sure where the idea it can't operate well at low level has come from, its a new myth that has only appeared recently....

Gripen C has a potential part to play, but only at the low end of any fighter mix. It's a nice jet, don't get me wrong, but its not a high performer by any means. You simply can't get past the fact it is small and not particularly powerful. Hang any stores on it (and it has no internal or conformal carriage) and its performance including range, speed and manoeverability drop like a stone...there's a reason why the only people who buy it are either the makers, countries needing a cheap air policing aircraft, or have no real threat like Brazil. Whenever it has been entered into a competition for an air force who reasonably might be required to actually use it...it loses, every single time. For good reason.

In response to SD67

Poland have already discretely transferred some MiG-29 to Ukraine as 'parts', and a large number of ex-Soviet missiles. Slovakia is the most likely transferee. But there are also a significant number in the US and Moldova that could go, some flying the others as parts. If we can convince Bulgaria to part with theirs its likely that there are enough MiG-29 to keep Ukraine going for the duration at the current rate of attrition and use. There may be some in Romania and Hungary that can be parted out as well, but politics there might get in the way, plus availability.

[Phil Sayers]

Poland's upgraded MiG-29s (and those of a few other countries) are an obvious short-term solution and indeed remain the topic of a very long running saga dating back pretty much a year. F-16s or Gripens would be the obvious long term solution but politics and practicality heavily count against anything being ready any time soon (or maybe ever).

I reiterate that there is an interim step that we could take which is to start making urgent enquiries about buying back armed Hawk variants, the very aircraft we will presumably be training pilots and ground crew on. I wouldn't think it overly difficult to buy circa 40 surplus Hawks from around the world (to varying degrees already having a secondary combat role) and have a rapid upgrade programme that allows the use of Brimstone and Asraam. Hawks equipped with a pair of AAM on wingtips and either 2 x triple racks for Brimstone or 2 x Paveway under the wings would be no joke at all but may initially be underestimated by Russia. Even better would be if we could persuade any of Indonesia, Malaysia or Oman to part with their Hawk 200s as they are proper light combat aircraft with an F-16 radar, SDB1 and Amraam.

Politics would be far less of a problem as, while we would obviously need to keep allies on board, it would largely be a bilateral programme with Ukraine and Hawks would not be seen in the same provocative light as e.g Typhoons. Timescale would be a major plus; not inconceivable that pulling out all the stops and paying over the odds could have Western aircraft over Ukraine within six months. I cannot see any other way to achieve that.

The only real drawback I can see is likely high attrition rates but I fear that even advanced fast jets would suffer in that AD environment.

[SW1]

When people are suggesting planes for Ukraine from turboprop trainers or small jets this is maybe a helpful graphic as no aar is available

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country ... ed-kingdom

[Phil Sayers]

When people are suggesting planes for Ukraine from turboprop trainers or small jets this is maybe a helpful graphic as no aar is available

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country ... ed-kingdom

An important point no doubt but not sure it is a determinative one. If this graphic is correct Ukraine has three major airbases that are relatively close to the front line but not so close as to be under regular fire. Even if we went with a very conservative (IMO but I may be wrong) estimate of the possible combat radius of a Hawk armed as I suggested and called it 150 miles, Hawks operating from those airbases could easily manage a low level pass over the battlefield and be on more than just fumes when landing back home. That is only looking at major airbases - Hawks might be a more viable prospect operating out of smaller airbases or civilian airports than advanced types.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jf ... -bases.jpg|||

[mrclark303]

When people are suggesting planes for Ukraine from turboprop trainers or small jets this is maybe a helpful graphic as no aar is available

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country ... ed-kingdom

An important point no doubt but not sure it is a determinative one. If this graphic is correct Ukraine has three major airbases that are relatively close to the front line but not so close as to be under regular fire. Even if we went with a very conservative (IMO but I may be wrong) estimate of the possible combat radius of a Hawk armed as I suggested and called it 150 miles, Hawks operating from those airbases could easily manage a low level pass over the battlefield and be on more than just fumes when landing back home. That is only looking at major airbases - Hawks might be a more viable prospect operating out of smaller airbases or civilian airports than advanced types.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jf ... -bases.jpg|||

It's certainly an interesting idea....

I stand by my hypothetical PMC operated F16 force.

It would require a leap of faith, but such an independent business, with international pilots would be a solution
that Putin could rail against all he likes, but it would be a PMC contracted by Ukraine and one that could be mustered relatively quickly.

Even if it was strictly used for air defence, a force of 36 F16's would certainly dampen the spirits of the Russian Air force!

[SW1]

When people are suggesting planes for Ukraine from turboprop trainers or small jets this is maybe a helpful graphic as no aar is available

https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country ... ed-kingdom

An important point no doubt but not sure it is a determinative one. If this graphic is correct Ukraine has three major airbases that are relatively close to the front line but not so close as to be under regular fire. Even if we went with a very conservative (IMO but I may be wrong) estimate of the possible combat radius of a Hawk armed as I suggested and called it 150 miles, Hawks operating from those airbases could easily manage a low level pass over the battlefield and be on more than just fumes when landing back home. That is only looking at major airbases - Hawks might be a more viable prospect operating out of smaller airbases or civilian airports than advanced types.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jf ... -bases.jpg|||

Well if you want an idea of comparison one of the typhoon design points was for it to hold a cap for a couple of hours at 100 nm range.

I suspect in combat you could change the hawk radius of action you quote to it range without much loiter time.

[Phil Sayers]

Well if you want an idea of comparison one of the typhoon design points was for it to hold a cap for a couple of hours at 100 nm range.

I suspect in combat you could change the hawk radius of action you quote to it range without much loiter time.

Agreed but I don't think it negates the point I made which was to estimate that one low level pass over the battlefield would be possible at least 150 miles away from the airbase the Hawk is operating from while leaving enough fuel to comfortably make it home again. I don't think hanging around any longer would be wise anyway in that AD environment but 2 x Hawks could fire 12 x Brimstone in that one pass.

[Spitfire9]

Well if you want an idea of comparison one of the typhoon design points was for it to hold a cap for a couple of hours at 100 nm range.

I suspect in combat you could change the hawk radius of action you quote to it range without much loiter time.

Agreed but I don't think it negates the point I made which was to estimate that one low level pass over the battlefield would be possible at least 150 miles away from the airbase the Hawk is operating from while leaving enough fuel to comfortably make it home again. I don't think hanging around any longer would be wise anyway in that AD environment but 2 x Hawks could fire 12 x Brimstone in that one pass.

That 150 mile combat radius would be at what level - high (equalling very vulnerable to AD) or low?

[Phil Sayers]

That 150 mile combat radius would be at what level - high (equalling very vulnerable to AD) or low?

Sorry but I don't know enough about a Hawk's performance, fuel efficiency at different altitudes or aerodynamics in general to be properly able to answer the question. What I will say is that I would be surprised if a Hawk carrying a useful war-load of 2 x Asraam and 6 x Brimstone could not fly 120 miles at circa 5,000 feet (is it worth the extra fuel burn of climbing any higher over such short distances?), fly a further 30 miles at 500 feet, hit multiple pre-assigned targets in a single pass, fly a further 30 miles at 500 feet on the way back out and then climb back to 5,000 feet for the remaining 120 miles back home. I may well be completely wrong (and the actual detail is probably classified) but that does not seem an unreasonable expectation to me. If it is wrong that is probably because it is too conservative an estimate as to possible combat radius.

[Timmymagic]

Instead of Hawk the far easier (and cheaper) solution is L39....

L39 is the aircraft that the Ukrainian's have all flown in training. It's known to them and easily supportable.

Stick a flare dispenser on it and use it to fire rockets ballistically like the SU-25 do...cheap and easy.

[zavve]

The entire Swedish BAS90 system is tied to main bases....with very close by alternate strips, in very small quantities

There are actually quite a lot of alternate airstrips for the Bas 90. Just go on a drive through Sweden and it's common to see some parts of the highways widened in order to land fighter jets. Go to Bas 90 on the wiki and there is a map of all the bases.

[topman]

I wonder how many can function as designed as opposed to on paper. The ones I've seen are near airbases, a short distance away rather than in the middle of nowhere.

[Timmymagic]

There are actually quite a lot of alternate airstrips for the Bas 90. Just go on a drive through Sweden and it's common to see some parts of the highways widened in order to land fighter jets. Go to Bas 90 on the wiki and there is a map of all the bases.

There's a grand total of 16...the majority never got built. Those highways were all close to main bases and were well known to the Soviets.

What people forget is that the UK had far greater deployment potential for the simple fact the entire island was/is covered with runways. We left WW2 with 1,000 airfields, and a significant number survived through the Cold War. Sweden didn't have that luxury. Most RAF bases had a nearby base that could be utilised as a satellite (Lindholme for Finningley for example)....hell we had colossal places like Elvington just lying around...