"Air-to-air refuel Ukrainian aeroplanes in NATO airspace?" Topic

That's purely teoretical question. What if scenario. Next ladder in escalation.

MiG29 cannot. But Su can. And in the future: F16, Gripens, Mirage, Tornado etc.

UA aeroplanes would jump the border, refuel and jump back.

That would greatly expand capablity of Ukraine airfleet and would help them defend the sky. Longer CAPs. Much less very risky, detectable landings. Only ammo expediture would demand landing.

Of course NATO airtankers would be protected by NATO fighters and should be at every moment flying only at NATO territory.

It is legal and right to assist ship (airship) in need.

Pros and cons?

That would be incredibly dangerous escalation. Pretty sure Russians would shoot down Tankers and fighter escort not much use agains SAMs… and if did get into dogfight with Russian jets… or attempt to destroy SAM sites…WW3.

And I am pretty sure Russians would NOT attack NATO airforce in NATO airspace as it would be Article 5.

And I am sure that shooting airtankers would be extremely difficult (NATO airspace, AA, control, distance, intelligence). How Russian SAMs could effectively attack airtankers flying 150+ km from Belarussian border and 15 km into Polish/Slovakian/Romanian airspace?
Dogfighting???? Into NATO airspace? Without Russian support of "AWACS" A-50? Against NATO overwhelming intelligence superiority? Against all NATO AA and ECW?

Ruskies tried that once in Turkya with great outcome.

Russian pilots send at such suicidal missions would probably defect and ask for asylum and million$ prize.

I think Russia is far more likely to give NATO a public warning and a couple days to withdraw tankers or the tankers and the bases they operate out of will be considered legitimate targets of the ongoing war.

If NATO doesn't back down I would assume cruise missile and maybe ballistic missile strikes on the bases specifically trying to target the refueler planes and the runways. As much as possible avoid casualties. Give NATO an out while clearly drawing a red line.

Russian ship refueled at Saudi harbours.
link
Can UA attack those harbours? Can those harbours are "legitimate targets"?

Missile attack at NATO base? Article 5. Detectable. Defensible.

Russia threatened us many, many times. Many red lines, both sides.

Yeah, I don't think the Russians will cross into NATO airspace. Or attack NATO or Ukraine aircraft in that airspace … They know that certainly will active Art. 5. Putin has enough trouble with the Ukraine let alone all of NATO.

Of course, Putin, et al would again pound their shoe on the table, rant, saber-rattle, posture, etc. With NATO refueling Ukraine's aircraft …

Can UA attack those harbours? Can those harbours are "legitimate targets"?

Not if they don't want to possibly expand the war. The USA no longer has the power/credibility, etc. to deter an expansion, etc. like that. Those harbors belong to the KSA… Not Russia. Even if they just attacked the Russian ship the possibility of Collateral Damage to the KSA's lives and infrastructure would not be worth the risk. Now if the Russian ship is in international waters … that may be another thing.

Theory behind refuelling in neutral ports in the past:

Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War (Hague XIII); October 18, 1907

Art. 19.
Belligerent war-ships may only revictual in neutral ports or roadsteads to bring up their supplies to the peace standard.

Similarly these vessels may only ship sufficient fuel to enable them to reach the nearest port in their own country.

They may, on the other hand, fill up their bunkers built to carry fuel, when in neutral countries which have adopted this method of determining the amount of fuel to be supplied.

NATO has long neglected air defense in favor of air power. I would agree on detectable. Not necessarily on defensible. The problem with saying it won't happen is that we assume everyone is operating rationally from our own perspective. If I were Putin I would never strike NATO airbases. I also never would've invaded Ukraine like he did…and yet here we are. Russia views itself as in an undeclared war with NATO. Just look at statements made by the Kremlin and state media. NATO has aided Ukraine in targeting data and has advisors on the ground. Refueling is another escalation in a perceived already occuring war. It encourages Russia to escalate back. I don't support Russia and am no Putin apologist. When I studied Geopolitics in college the lesson hammered home was perception determines reality. Putin's perception is vastly different from ours.

You know, I would so love to nuke Moscow. And Beijing, Pyongyang, and Tehran. Good thing I won't ever have my hand on the Big Red Button!

Russia seems to have decided that Ukraine is only allowed to attack Russian forces if they are actually inside Ukraine.
And that does not include Crimea or any other area Russia has annexed.
Everything else seems to be an escalation in Russia's mind.
I would think that if I were in charge of Ukraine and at war with Russia then ships at sea, and all of Russia would be legitimate targets, just as Russia seems to be okay with bombing Ukrainian cities.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Theory behind refuelling in neutral ports in the past:

Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War (Hague XIII); October 18, 1907

Art. 19.
Belligerent war-ships may only revictual in neutral ports or roadsteads to bring up their supplies to the peace standard.

Seems especially today … not everybody follows the Rules …

NATO has long neglected air defense in favor of air power.

Air Superiority or at least localized Air Parity was always very important, as we know. As we learned in WWII on.

The US Army we had[and have today] a number of ADA systems, that would put us under a "SAM Umbrella" i.e. like the Egyptians had in the Sinai in '73.

We also had MAPADs, as many Armies do. Now & then maybe a Stringer Tm was attached to us at Co. level. Plus, most of our APCs, Trucks, etc. had a .50 mounted on it. E.g. our M113s. And Rifle Squads had M60s and SAWs … When I was in training in '78 the ADA units still had Quad .50s too. IIRC the M42s were phased out by then.

Something when it comes to ADA in Infantry units, etc., with e.g. .50cals and other MGs, etc. If you put enough rounds at the incoming aircraft, with all the 4 & 1 Tracer. The pilot(s) may abort or jinx enough to miss the target. Or you might get lucky and shoot the SoB down. Of course, you may not have a lot of time in some situations. But it is better than not doing anything.

Of course, today with Patriots and Avengers we have a clear advantage. Then during the Cold War. And Patriots can shoot down missiles and rockets. Like during the Gulf War they were used to shoot down Saddam's SCUDs.

We also saw in A'stan when we outfitted the Muj with Stringers to shoot down Soviet aircraft, including Hind-Ds, etc. They were pretty effective … And these were in the hands of minimally trained 3d World Tribes men.

Just saw on in a news report, a young Ukrainian soldier was packing a Stinger[IIRC]. To shoot down Russian aircraft, etc.

was perception determines reality. Putin's perception is vastly different from ours.

Very true … seeing how, why, etc. your enemies will react, etc. to certain situations. Can be critical. E.g., fighting IJFs in WWII or islamic terrorist/jihadis in the GWoT, etc. In both cases, often they were glad to die and take you with him. Their perceptions were vastly different then ours.

As we see today[and in some cases WWII] with Putin/Russia they are more than willing to take heavy losses. With poorly trained, motivated, lead, supplied, etc. troops. The West does not fight like that.

Good thing I won't ever have my hand on the Big Red Button!

The Green Button is for Coffee, the Red Button destroys the World. That was what I was taught … 😁🤩

@Legion 4 I appreciate that we have those layers of air defense and air superiority will also help. However, all those systems won't get every cruise missile, ballistic missile, and hypersonic missile an enemy launches. More investment in systems like the C-RAM and Aegis ashore would allay my concerns.

Yes, I know that … I was just adding context based on my experience and training. Albeit many Moons ago. I try to keep current.

And of course, no system is perfect/100%. But I do agree being a former Grunt. We like weapons that keeps us from becoming a static.

NATO started downsizing like a K-Mart going out of business. Not so long after the USSR fell. The US started to do the same. NATO, they believed the US would probably come to their defense if need be. As has happened at least twice before.

However, as we know all NATO members including the US are subject to Art.5. Don't get me wrong … I believe in supporting our NATO allies and others. As much of NATO and even some others did after 9/11 attacks. Many ended up with the US in A'stan. Again Art.5 came into play.

Now upon saying all that, we see over the past two years+ we see the US Military is no longer the effective force as it once was. New top leadership has new priorities. E.g. many times, and I saw the footage much more than once, the military was told their primary mission was climate change. I saw it being said to groups of troops from our top leadership.

The US recently spends[wastes] a lot of $ on a number of things that don't make the USA safer. But just the opposite.

Our enemies are not concerned about climate change, woke, DEI, CRT, BLM, etc. As none of those current dogmas, movements, activists, etc. have anything to do with combat readiness. We see too much time in the military wasted on those dogmas, etc. Which does not make us better at warfighting. After all it is called the "Arm Forces" for a reason …

So NATO was not prepping for the next war. As based on history there always is another one sooner or later. And again as of recently, the US combat readiness/prepping for a conflict had to take second place. To many of the new leaderships' priorities, etc. E.g. pronouns, changing names of posts, ships, etc. …

[sorry to go in rant mode – rant mode terminated]

No arguments from me on that. You are spot on

👍👍

I do enjoy reading your posts … you seem pretty well versed on the subject of modern warfare …