"The only asset the US has that can operate in an enemy air defense environment is the F-35....
....Suppression of enemy air defenses within a certain locality could create a pocket of air superiority that would allow fourth generation aircraft to protect and support ground forces, but theatre-wide air superiority against an entity such as Russia is not a reality."
1. F-35 is increasingly the primary NATO asset with hundreds in service. As of 2024 over 1,000 F-35s have been built.This does not include many other long range strike assets ala Tomahawks, B-2, JASSMs. Storm Shadow as well as F-22 for air superiority.
2. Even the Ukrainians whose military is still relatively primitive relative to US has been able to punch holes through Russian air defences and more importantly cause heavy attrition to Russian IADS. Indeed the Ukrainians have destroyed or damaged at least 15% of all S400 (56 battalion sets,(about 56 delivered) and the rate of destruction of Russian IADS is accelerating.
3. Then there's American ISTAR which is far more developed than Russia's and which is fully integrated into its military system unlike Ukraine's. It would also be operating at its full capacity. This makes life even more miserable for Russians IADS cause the Americans can find them and neutralise them far more quickly than Ukrainians.
Then there's other enablers eg spec ops delivered via stealthy choppers, submarines and other means.
So I think NATO would be able to establish theatre level air superiority.
what might be "stealthy" for terrorists is not the same for a near-peer adversary. Even a composite blade will light up like a Christmas tree on a Doppler radar (I assume, I don't have any first hand experience)
Very true. But we've already had instances of very unstealthy Ukrainian Mi-24s conducting strikes and missions in Belgorod despite the Russian IADS umbrella. 1 has been confirmed as shot down but note the attacks have been occurring since near start of war.
Ukrainians also flew numerous supply missions into surrounded Mauripol with Mi-8/-17s. Again 2 confirmed shot down but they flew numerous successful missions.
Not saying it's without risk, but the Americans have far more capabilities than Ukraine when it comes to special ops using helicopters.
And I think the Russians IADS is clearly not as capable as western analysts have made it out to be.
Not so sure about China though as they've incorporated elements of western technology into their designs and their actual capabilities are largely unknown.
It's nice to see Russia is so concerned about unarmed planes being hit. I presume this is the reason they have handed over their nationals who were involved in the destruction of MH17, right? All of them?
A cornerstone material for the history of this war.
I am seeing there two interesting strategic perspectives/consequences which start to form.
First it is shocking to hear of the poor pre war state of readiness and integration of NATO military. And certainly it is a big strategic blunder on the ru side to give NATO time to adapt.
On the other hand I am hearing "US have to react on way ru adapts to the ways UA fights this war". Which is a mind-blowing US strategic blunder. To let things to prolong and evolve, instead of applying maximum effort to shorten the course of war. Which all sounds to me as a recipe for an even bigger war, unfortunately.
Thanks Don. In the scenario of a full scale war: Wouldn't there be the 4th generation jets roam over friendly territory armed with HARMs lurking for any radar that gets switched on?
Pantsyr. Kind of a joke. Even Russians themselves are not very happy with it. It has severe stability issues when firing or moving. Rocking from side to side and has crashed to it's side while making a right turn on the road. Older BUK variants are for more numerous and capable.
Interesting article. Thanks so much.
"The only asset the US has that can operate in an enemy air defense environment is the F-35....
....Suppression of enemy air defenses within a certain locality could create a pocket of air superiority that would allow fourth generation aircraft to protect and support ground forces, but theatre-wide air superiority against an entity such as Russia is not a reality."
1. F-35 is increasingly the primary NATO asset with hundreds in service. As of 2024 over 1,000 F-35s have been built.This does not include many other long range strike assets ala Tomahawks, B-2, JASSMs. Storm Shadow as well as F-22 for air superiority.
2. Even the Ukrainians whose military is still relatively primitive relative to US has been able to punch holes through Russian air defences and more importantly cause heavy attrition to Russian IADS. Indeed the Ukrainians have destroyed or damaged at least 15% of all S400 (56 battalion sets,(about 56 delivered) and the rate of destruction of Russian IADS is accelerating.
3. Then there's American ISTAR which is far more developed than Russia's and which is fully integrated into its military system unlike Ukraine's. It would also be operating at its full capacity. This makes life even more miserable for Russians IADS cause the Americans can find them and neutralise them far more quickly than Ukrainians.
Then there's other enablers eg spec ops delivered via stealthy choppers, submarines and other means.
So I think NATO would be able to establish theatre level air superiority.
What is a "stealthy chopper"? Rotor blades are kind of a big problem :-)
Stealthy choppers ala modified UH-60s used tin Bin Laden raid.
what might be "stealthy" for terrorists is not the same for a near-peer adversary. Even a composite blade will light up like a Christmas tree on a Doppler radar (I assume, I don't have any first hand experience)
Very true. But we've already had instances of very unstealthy Ukrainian Mi-24s conducting strikes and missions in Belgorod despite the Russian IADS umbrella. 1 has been confirmed as shot down but note the attacks have been occurring since near start of war.
Ukrainians also flew numerous supply missions into surrounded Mauripol with Mi-8/-17s. Again 2 confirmed shot down but they flew numerous successful missions.
Not saying it's without risk, but the Americans have far more capabilities than Ukraine when it comes to special ops using helicopters.
And I think the Russians IADS is clearly not as capable as western analysts have made it out to be.
Not so sure about China though as they've incorporated elements of western technology into their designs and their actual capabilities are largely unknown.
"The only asset the US has that can operate in an enemy air defense environment is the F-35"
.....
Plus F-22, B-2, RQ-170 and RQ-180.
"terrorist act with lethal outcome"
It's nice to see Russia is so concerned about unarmed planes being hit. I presume this is the reason they have handed over their nationals who were involved in the destruction of MH17, right? All of them?
A very interesting read, thank you!
Dear Donald,
Thank you for the sources and coverage!
A cornerstone material for the history of this war.
I am seeing there two interesting strategic perspectives/consequences which start to form.
First it is shocking to hear of the poor pre war state of readiness and integration of NATO military. And certainly it is a big strategic blunder on the ru side to give NATO time to adapt.
On the other hand I am hearing "US have to react on way ru adapts to the ways UA fights this war". Which is a mind-blowing US strategic blunder. To let things to prolong and evolve, instead of applying maximum effort to shorten the course of war. Which all sounds to me as a recipe for an even bigger war, unfortunately.
Thanks Don. In the scenario of a full scale war: Wouldn't there be the 4th generation jets roam over friendly territory armed with HARMs lurking for any radar that gets switched on?
Of course there would be - just like there would be dozens of Pantsyrs to take these HARMs, and 4th gen jets down.
Pantsyr. Kind of a joke. Even Russians themselves are not very happy with it. It has severe stability issues when firing or moving. Rocking from side to side and has crashed to it's side while making a right turn on the road. Older BUK variants are for more numerous and capable.
Yes, but the mass of them is not moving. Especially not all the time.
Thank you Don this was very good I learned many things reading this, outstanding report
It is fascinating. Thank you! I would like to see more of these kinds of articles.
Awesome, thank you Don and Tom!
Any idea about THAAD in Ukraine. Yes/No/Maybe?
Could it be useful? Would it make sense?