(….continued from Part 4…) Our experience is showing that you, dear reader, particularly appreciate our discussions of the ‘equipment’ - and explanations how ‘things making bang work’. Indeed: ‘how is the warfare working’. Thus, we’ve decided to expand our coverage of such topics. For this round of his weekly round-up, Don was so kind to prepare a ‘bigger than usual’ section covering Equipment. This is going to be the first part: the second is to follow in the Part 6.
Don- how effective would be Electric warfare aircraft in this environment? I haven’t seen talk of planes being used as such… planes like the EA-6B prowler were used extensively in strike packages in US previous wars but in this conflict I haven’t seen a conversion of air assets to become dedicated EW assets that would help in air strikes.
EW already has a huge impact on this war and every action has a counter-action and a counter- to the counter- in an endless conflict limited only by physics and our ability to harness it.
Ukraine just received two Swedish aircraft that can be used for threat detection in a defensive role. Ukraine's biggest challenge is the long reach of Russia's air-to-air missile. That can only be countered with a theoretical weapon with a longer reach or by limiting Russia's ability to both detect and engage electronically. The F-35 has weapons with a longer range than their opponent's ability to detect and engage them. Ukraine will not receive them. None of the NATO air forces 4th generation fighters are willing or able to engage in Russia's air defense envelope. That envelope first had to be degraded and suppressed to provide a localized environment in which to conduct air operations, and that localized superiority may only last 45 minutes before Russian air defenses are re-established.
It is something Ukraine could possibly due at some future point, but they have to develop the individual and operational skills once they receive those 4th generation tools.
Because 'even' the Israelis have figured out that ground-launched AGM-45 Shirke anti-radar missiles, while 'sounding great', are no solution (BTW, they've developed such weapons in the late 1970s, and deployed them in combat against Syrians in Lebanon of 1982... AGM-88 HARM entered service only in the 1980s, and was first used by US Navy against Libya, in March-April 1986).
....and because US-made Lance tactical ballistic missiles were available in numbers, and proved more effective than all the other air- and/or ground-launched missiles (bar M109 self-propelled howitzers, which were used a lot to knock out Syrian SAMs in 1982).
In theory, a good solution to EW is laser guidance. Shouldn't be too expensive to equip spotter drones with laser designators, right? Less effective in bad weather, but that's not as much of an issue in summer.
Once upon a time smart 155mm shells were all going to be laser guided. A lot easier as a scout to lase a spot on the ground and wait for shells to land than correct fire until you bracket the target. Less warning for the bad guys, too.
You wrote about Switzerland: . After long philosophical questions of morality and the greater good, and after seeing their military exports fall 27%… personally I think the last was the clincher.
Don- how effective would be Electric warfare aircraft in this environment? I haven’t seen talk of planes being used as such… planes like the EA-6B prowler were used extensively in strike packages in US previous wars but in this conflict I haven’t seen a conversion of air assets to become dedicated EW assets that would help in air strikes.
Probabl very useful but they would need full panalopy of protection (ie AWACs and high end interceptor ala F-15, Eurofighter or F-22).
This is why western strikes might involve 12-16 aircraft plus spares.
Best choice would be F-35 but US would really want Ukraine to win before they gave them F-35s.
EW already has a huge impact on this war and every action has a counter-action and a counter- to the counter- in an endless conflict limited only by physics and our ability to harness it.
Ukraine just received two Swedish aircraft that can be used for threat detection in a defensive role. Ukraine's biggest challenge is the long reach of Russia's air-to-air missile. That can only be countered with a theoretical weapon with a longer reach or by limiting Russia's ability to both detect and engage electronically. The F-35 has weapons with a longer range than their opponent's ability to detect and engage them. Ukraine will not receive them. None of the NATO air forces 4th generation fighters are willing or able to engage in Russia's air defense envelope. That envelope first had to be degraded and suppressed to provide a localized environment in which to conduct air operations, and that localized superiority may only last 45 minutes before Russian air defenses are re-established.
It is something Ukraine could possibly due at some future point, but they have to develop the individual and operational skills once they receive those 4th generation tools.
Very interesting. Thanks Dom 👍
Btw 1st shipment of shells secured by CZ initiative is at UA as confirmed our PM Petr Fiala👍
Hope more and more will follow soon as "participating" countries will change promisses into real money
I love this section! thank you Don!
This is really interesting. Thank you so much.
Wondering why Ukraine does not develop ground-launched HARM systems, like Israel did in 73?
If the air launched missiles have a 150km range then the ground-launched would have say 100km. Which must be useful?
Because 'even' the Israelis have figured out that ground-launched AGM-45 Shirke anti-radar missiles, while 'sounding great', are no solution (BTW, they've developed such weapons in the late 1970s, and deployed them in combat against Syrians in Lebanon of 1982... AGM-88 HARM entered service only in the 1980s, and was first used by US Navy against Libya, in March-April 1986).
....and because US-made Lance tactical ballistic missiles were available in numbers, and proved more effective than all the other air- and/or ground-launched missiles (bar M109 self-propelled howitzers, which were used a lot to knock out Syrian SAMs in 1982).
I learn something new everyday, thanks
In theory, a good solution to EW is laser guidance. Shouldn't be too expensive to equip spotter drones with laser designators, right? Less effective in bad weather, but that's not as much of an issue in summer.
Once upon a time smart 155mm shells were all going to be laser guided. A lot easier as a scout to lase a spot on the ground and wait for shells to land than correct fire until you bracket the target. Less warning for the bad guys, too.
The drone with the laser is itself very vulnerable to EW.
True, but there’s no shortage of video feeds from drones helping call down FPV strikes, so operators keep finding windows.
Thanks Don, I'm liking these reports
You wrote about Switzerland: . After long philosophical questions of morality and the greater good, and after seeing their military exports fall 27%… personally I think the last was the clincher.