Potential Ukrainian Air Force losses

[MigBuster 2,884]

It’s hard to say how many aircraft the Ukrainian Air Force has lost.

 

 

Some reports, especially those on the pro-separatists side seem to be a bit exaggerated but, as Ainonline website reported, on the basis of Ukrainian and British sources, the Ukrainian Air Force has lost 22 aircraft throughout the crisis.

Ukrainian military aviation had not been in a very good shape before the hybrid-conflict with the separatists started, and any losses may be considered to be severe.

 

The total loss count includes 9 combat planes, 3 cargo planes and 10 helicopters, most of which have been shot down with MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defense Systems) and, in case of some of the lost helicopters, with rocket propelled grenades.

In total, the UAF conducted 740 sorties during the operation, which is dubbed by the Kiev government to have an “anti-terrorist” character.

Starting from losses within the group of combat planes, one Su-24 Fencer, six Su-25 Frogfoots and two MiG-29 Fulcrums have been lost, where one of the Fulcrums was reportedly shot down by a Russian MiG-29.

The cargo planes which have been lost include single examples of An-26 Curl, An-30 Clank and Il-76 Candid. The Curl was reportedly hit by a Buk missile system; the same type of anti-aircraft system behind the downing of MH17 flight (according to most analysts). The Il-76 mentioned above was shot down in Luhansk, and it was a Candid in a flight of three such planes landing at Luhansk at the time. The first Candid made a safe landing, while the crew of the last one aborted landing.

 

The British sources state that lack of proper flight experience and intelligence data was the main reason for the incurred losses. The ECM systems on the Ukrainian jets have been made in Russia, which means that they were easy to overcome. According to the Polish outlet altair.com.pl, the Western countries were asked to supply new electronic countermeasures, however in fear of these being intercepted by the Russians, they were never delivered.

 

In the light of the analysis of the potential of the Ukrainian Air Force conducted by Dr Sean Wilson, which has been published in the Polish “Lotnictwo” magazine last year, the above losses may be considered to be significant.

According to Wilson, Ukraine, back in 1992, inherited 3,600 aircraft, including 850 helicopters, out of which 285 assault choppers and 2,750 aircraft, out of which 1,650 were combat planes. Back in 2013 the estimated data suggested that out of these numbers only 200 combat aircraft were in active service and about 70 were combat capable.

 

At that time, the fleet consisted of 15-20 MiG-29 Fulcrums, 10-12 Su-24M/MR Fencers, 14-18 Su-25 Frogfoots and 16 Su-27 Flankers. 16 MiG-29’s, 4 Su-24’s and 15 Su-25 were to be withdrawn by 2015.

 

Reports claim that 80 Frogfoots remain in active service and at least 14 are combat-capable. Which may be a significant notion, as the number is almost as high as the number of Frogfoots which were to be withdrawn.

 

Ukraine also had 66 examples of Su-27 Flankers, respectively 40 Su-27S Flanker-B’s (which are capable of conducting air-to-ground sorties), and 26 Su-27P Flanker-B’s (interceptor variant) and Su-27UB Flanker-C’s (two-seater). 36 of these were to remain in active service, while 16 were to be fully operational.

All of the Flankers are being currently used as interceptors. Modernization of these has been planned, and some examples have been updated before the conflict started.

 

When it comes to cargo planes, Ukrainians inherited 180 Candid-B transport aircraft, however, not many of these remained active. Two examples of An-30 Clanks were said to be still flying within the Open Skies program. About 20 Il-78air tankers have been also a part of the post-Soviet inheritance; nonetheless the refueling equipment on these has been removed and maximally 8 of them remained active back in 2013 in a cargo role.

 

When it comes to the qualitative side of the analysis, the Ukrainian AF undertook several modernization programs for both fighters and attack aircraft. The modernizations included new avionics and navigational systems based on both GPS, as well as on its Russian counterpart – GLONASS.

 

Still, the Ukrainian Air Force suffered considerable losses during such a limited conflict a sign that the weapons in the hands of the separatists have been extremely effective against Kiev’s combat planes and helicopters so far.

 

 

http://theaviationist.com/2014/12/02/analysis-of-ukrainian-air-force-losses-in-eastern-ukraine-clashes/

Edited December 2, 2014 by MigBuster

[+Gepard 11,323]

 

The ECM systems on the Ukrainian jets have been made in Russia, which means that they were easy to overcome. According to the Polish outlet altair.com.pl, the Western countries were asked to supply new electronic countermeasures, however in fear of these being intercepted by the Russians, they were never delivered.

 

Perhaps it would be better to say, that the ukrainian ECM systems were not able to beat the Buk-M system. That western systems would be better is not confirmed. If you remember back to the last year, when the syrians shot down a turkish Phantom which had a state of the art western ECM system, then doubts are well founded.

[Stratos 3,192]

Interesting read, altough I agree with Gepard concerning certain news agencies diminishing Russian gear capabilities.

 

Anyway, central government troops painted their helicopters with two distinctive white bands on the tail, any idea of why? After all AFAIK the rebels never had any air capability so anything flying should be central government force.

 

 

[JediMaster 451]

Obviously in case any Russian birds came in, not separatists.

[Stratos 3,192]

Obviously in case any Russian birds came in, not separatists.

 

Yeah, and the BabaYaga too. Only joking, do you really think that was needed? Ukrainian and Russian aircrafts use different insignias and in some cases even totally different cammos.

[MigBuster 2,884]

Perhaps it would be better to say, that the ukrainian ECM systems were not able to beat the Buk-M system. That western systems would be better is not confirmed. If you remember back to the last year, when the syrians shot down a turkish Phantom which had a state of the art western ECM system, then doubts are well founded.

 

 

 

There is nothing to go on - you could make up anything..........

 

No idea what if any systems were on that F-4 - even something like the pilot forgot to switch it on is possible in reality.

No idea what type of system knocked it down.

 

 

 

Can Ukraine manufacture and modify their own systems or do they depend on Russia?

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

AFM did a report on the Uke AF in August and their information was only 9 of the Su-27s were operational at the time, and only 2 of those had been modernised (with roughly a total of 10 in the first batch of the local, limited,  modernisation program). Also, when the Russians took Belbek, they captured something like 75% of Ukraine's Mig-29s and these are nearly all in pieces now. Most of those weren't operational (I think only 6 were, at that site, at the time), and have since been moved from that site. I can't remember if they were confiscated by the Russians, or they were later returned to the Ukrainians, but either way, they're of no use to anyone right now.

After all AFAIK the rebels never had any air capability so anything flying should be central government force.

Not quite. Russian Mi-24s and Mi-8s have been very active over disputed territories. They're also fully operational, unlike the Ukranian Mi-24s that were, like the air force, in the process of upgrading their platforms. Again, thanks to Yanukovych siphoning a shit-tonne of money from the military budgets, the Hind upgrades were hampered by a severe lack of funds. It's pretty much the same story for most of the military. They're in no position to fight anyone, which is why it blows me away when (uninformed) people claim that the Ukraine is the aggressor in this situation.

[+whiteknight06604 934]

which is why it blows me away when (uninformed) people claim that the Ukraine is the aggressor in this situation.

how can you say that? of course the Ukrainians are the aggressors.... didn't you see them viciously and without provocation throw their territory under the Russian military? hehehehehe

[+Gepard 11,323]

Ukrainian and Russian aircrafts use different insignias and in some cases even totally different cammos.

Of course, but a simple and easy to detect discrimination sign is better in combat situations. Its the same with the invasion stripes in 1944 on allied planes. All planes that have this markings are ours, the rest is "fire free".

 

They're in no position to fight anyone, which is why it blows me away when (uninformed) people claim that the Ukraine is the aggressor in this situation.

 

You mix the ukrainian military and the so called volunteer forces. The later ones are in the most cases private armies of oligarchs. Funded with a lot of money and equipped with all they can get and the "moneygiver" can pay. With the ukrainian army i agree with you. The losses are high. 2/3 of the armored vehicles are destroyed in a fight against a more or less guerilla army.

The question who the aggressor is is not as easy to answer like the western yellow press/media always say. The problem in the Donbass area appeared when the new more or less western orientated more or less democratic government ordered, that the russian language is not longer used as an equal language. Then the Donbass became a barrel of powder. A skilled and good willing politician would have now acted placatory, to prevent, that the Donbass explode. But our friends in Kiev decided to send the Army do keep the peace in the Donbass. The result we all know. Putin used this marvelous chance to stir things up and our western politicians looked like the cow in front of a new door.

 

As i have wrote some month ago. With a little bit more brain and less testosteron the whole mess would not have happend. When the russians took the Crimea we should have sent silently the german french brigade for a longer combat exercise into the baltic states. And after a while replace this forces by the german dutch brigade, then an american brigade, then a british and so on. To show force. To give our eastern allies moral support and to show Putin where the border is.

A short friendship trip of an US carrier group in the Baltic Sea would have bee also a good and powerfull sign. Travel from Kopenhagen to Kiel, then to Gdansk, the Kleipeda, Riga, Tallin. Always wave and smile. Always speak softly but show the big stick.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Uk also painted two white stripes on all their vehicles.

 

Recall F-15s downing own choppers -- oops that was 1994. They look for visual but insignia not seen or not identified, forgot.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Lexx_Luthor

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

lost it....found it ~>  http://lostarmour.info/armour/

 

Vehicle losses in the Uk War this summer, also one-sided. The successful air defence allowed a pure ground war.

 

 

Geps, after the (kinda) cease fire, funny video I saw of Motorola's men presenting him with an old Motorola cell phone. See if I can find it.

 

My fave has to be....ugh forgot...the commander defending llovaisk (sp?) ... in interview video a Ukie shell//rocket landed and his men scrambled, he just stood there talking didn't notice a thing. Cool bro there.