What is happening to the enemy’s tactical aviation now?

09/08/2024 – Translated from Ukrainian via Google and OFP

Western countries, particularly the United States, continue to maintain their position on the issue of granting Ukraine the right to strike with Western long-range missiles deep into Russian territory. They justify this with various reasons – from the threat of escalation to the fact that Russia has allegedly withdrawn its aircraft deep into the territory, and therefore there is no point in such strikes . But is this really so? Let’s figure it out.

Before I answer the above question, revealing either the hypocrisy or the unprofessionalism and deep incompetence of the speakers who voice such arguments, I will note one very important point.

Whatever missiles we receive the appropriate approval for – be it the ballistic ATACMS or the subsonic air-launched cruise missiles Storm Shadow, Scalp-EG and AGM-158 JASSM, and possibly the very specific AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon – they will all be limited to a target engagement range of 300 km.

Even those modifications, which in the tactical and technical characteristics indicate 500, 600 or even 1000 km, will be limited by international rules for the export of missile weapons – 300 km. That is why, speaking about the possibilities of using long-range missile weapons of Western manufacture on the territory of Russia, we are talking about a depth of use from the border of 300 km.

And now the most interesting thing – is it true that all Russian aviation has now been withdrawn from this zone? Looking ahead, I will answer right away – NO! But first things first.

Airfields within 300 km from the border with Ukraine

On August 27, the American publication The Wall Street Journal published an article citing the words of a certain, as is usually the case with Western media, unnamed official. He noted that Ukraine is not receiving approval for strikes on Russian territory with ATACMS missiles, since the Russian Aerospace Forces have withdrawn 90% of their aircraft deep into the territory, beyond the reach of ballistic missiles.

But this is a lie, which was voiced on September 5 by the Deputy Spokesperson for the US Department of Defense, Sabrina Singh, at a briefing at the Pentagon.

Currently, there are 20 air bases in the near kill zone that are actively used by the Russian Aerospace Forces. These air bases house both attack and multi-role helicopters, as well as different types of tactical and attack aircraft. But in most cases, when we talk about Russian aviation, we think of frontline bombers with the functionality of the Su-34 fighter. But this is wrong.

In the airspace of Ukraine, over the temporarily occupied territories, not only the Su-34, but also the Su-25 attack aircraft, Su-24 frontline bombers, Su-27, Su-30 fighters, Mi-24/35, Ka-52 helicopters, etc. are regularly used.

According to the performance characteristics, with a normal combat load, the flight range of these aircraft is as follows:

Su-25 – 500-650 km;

Su-24 – 500-600 km;

Su-27 – 450-600 km;

Su-30 – 500-1,200 km;

Su-34 – 600-1,200 km;

Su-35 – up to 1,500 km.

Let me point out right away that these figures are averages, taking into account the combat aircraft’s flight range without a full load of weapons, with a full load, without an external fuel tank (PTB) and with it. That is, in order not to give out a sheet of data for each situation, they were averaged. But I will continue.

Mi-24 – 450 km;

Mi-35M – 550 km;

Ka-52 – 400 – 450 km;

Mi-28 – 450-550 km.

Now pay attention: how could Russia push 90% of its aircraft deep into its territory if these 90% have an average flight range of 600 km or less? After all, this is, in fact, a distance of 300 km from the border with Ukraine in depth – in the round trip mode. But somehow, in a combat zone, these aircraft continue to carry out combat missions.

In the area of ​​Yeysk, Kursk, Voronezh, Morozovsk and so on, air bases continue to be actively used not only for the needs of the ubiquitous Su-34, but also Su-25, Su-24, etc. And if Ukraine had permission to strike all these bases with Western-made missiles, then Russia would lose the opportunity to actively use these 90% of aircraft, which it did not withdraw anywhere (and if it did, it simply would not have a chance to fly to the border with Ukraine with a full combat load).

In turn, in the middle zone of destruction, beyond 300 km from the border, Russia has only six airfields that could use Su-34 and Su-35 to strike Ukraine – but mainly in the near border zone, since the flight range with a full load would not be enough. And this would also affect the average daily number of strikes on the territory of our country.

The use of long-range missile weapons on Russian territory would disarm and critically weaken Russian aviation. It would make it as useless as the Russian Black Sea Fleet became useless in the Black Sea, having now turned into a flotilla.

Conclusions

When our Western partners justify the lack of permission to strike Russia with Western missile weapons and directly at airfields by saying that there is nothing left to strike there, this is an outright lie. Or the speaker is deeply incompetent and does not understand (or does not know) what he is talking about.

But in addition to air bases, within a radius of 300 km from the border with Ukraine there are hundreds of other military facilities that are just begging for a ballistic missile to land.

https://t.me/uaobozrevatel/130969?single

And let’s not forget something important – the Kursk region, which 
allows us to strike at Russian territory from Russian territory. That is, expanding the possibilities of strikes deep into the Russian Federation by 30, 40, 50 km… Who knows how far the operation in the Russian borderland will go, but the fact remains a fact.

https://war.obozrevatel.com/ukr/kovalenko-publikatsii-v-zahidnih-zmi-pro-zaboronu-udariv-uglib-rosii-mistyat-grubu-pomilku-scho-zaraz-iz-taktichnoyu-aviatsieyu-voroga.htm