Does Ukraine Have the Capacity for a Doolittle Raid.

C

Clip4

Final Approach
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Messages
9,431
Location
A Rubber Room
Display Name
Display name:
Cli4ord
Mig 29 Fighter Bomber. 612 NM from LVIV to Moscow. Cruise speed 800 NM / 1100 with from tanks. Range 772. 44 minutes to target.
 
Last edited:
I think Russian air defense might come into play a few minutes into that flight.
 
Where would they land? Finland?

Where did Doolittle land, China?
 
Clip4 said:
Mig 29 Fighter Bomber. 612 NM from LVIV to Moscow. Cruise speed 800 NM / 1100 with from tanks. Range 772. 44 minutes to target.
Click to expand...

They have been unable to target a 40 mile long convoy only 25 miles from Kiev.

why do you think they might be able to get to Moscow unseen and untouched?
 
Ever since that pesky Cessna landed in red square, the Russians are very interested in airplanes coming their way. They really beefed-up their air defenses. Hard to hide at 800 knots, unless you’re stealth.
 
I think a few dozen ground launched Tomahawks that were donated could depart from Ukrainian territory and probably make an impact or two…
 
And Putin blows up an orphanage in Moscow and claims the Ukranians did it.

Doolittle was aiming for China, which was a co-belligerent. The Ukranian crew would have only neutrals for an option, who would have a hard time trying to hold onto the aircrew that "killed the children. "

Ron Wanttaja
 
orca64 said:
They have been unable to target a 40 mile long convoy only 25 miles from Kiev.

why do you think they might be able to get to Moscow unseen and untouched?
Click to expand...
When you can’t hit a long skinny target get a really big round one?
 
Yeah, shipboard container launched to the back of a truck doesn't seem like much of a lift. They did it pretty quickly with Phalanx, and that probably required more changes.

That would be kind of entertaining. 500 kts at 200' or so would be challenging for anything to bring down.
 
Actually, Ukraine is FAR better off if it limits actions to within its own borders.

They've garnered all of their international support from their status as the victim. If they attack well outside their borders, they can be painted as an aggressor. Remember that Putin claims it's a "denazification" and anti-terrorism action. If they strike Moscow, it just gives Putin propaganda fodder.

Consider, too, the ramification of a strike far from Ukranian borders. Is it going to sway the opinion of ordinary Russians? Would it make a difference if it DID? Putin is going to do what he wants to do, he doesn't care what Ivan Ivanovitch thinks about it. And he can make considerable capital on it; just think of the Reichstag fire.

Attacking Russia would just give credence to those in the US who are supporting Putin, and lever some doubt among those supplying weapons now.

Personally, I think Ukraine should be doing some shipping strikes in the Black Sea. Blown up Russian tanks yield good publicity, but a sinking ship or two would be better.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Ah, but the bad guy isn't in the house, is he? Optics are important, of course, but there are plenty of military targets in Russia.

A closer, but still distant comparison would be to Pablo Escobar. We bent a few rules over that one, but it all worked out OK in the end. And Pablo caused far less damage than this little guy has. (No, not suggesting a similar strategy at all. Only that we've done worse for a lot less, and it wasn't noticed much.)
 
They blew up the ship they told to **** off.

wanttaja said:
Actually, Ukraine is FAR better off if it limits actions to within its own borders.

They've garnered all of their international support from their status as the victim. If they attack well outside their borders, they can be painted as an aggressor. Remember that Putin claims it's a "denazification" and anti-terrorism action. If they strike Moscow, it just gives Putin propaganda fodder.

Consider, too, the ramification of a strike far from Ukranian borders. Is it going to sway the opinion of ordinary Russians? Would it make a difference if it DID? Putin is going to do what he wants to do, he doesn't care what Ivan Ivanovitch thinks about it. And he can make considerable capital on it; just think of the Reichstag fire.

Attacking Russia would just give credence to those in the US who are supporting Putin, and lever some doubt among those supplying weapons now.

Personally, I think Ukraine should be doing some shipping strikes in the Black Sea. Blown up Russian tanks yield good publicity, but a sinking ship or two would be better.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
 
To reach Moscow they’d need a flight of B-58s. I’m sure at least one would get through. ;)
 
Do they have an aircraft carrier? Cause you can’t Dolittle someone without an aircraft carrier.
 
DaleB said:
I think Russian air defense might come into play a few minutes into that flight.
Click to expand...
Would be interesting to see how they respond. If how they have handled parts of this invasion I’d say Ukraine has a pretty good chance. Problem is that it might really embolden the Russians behind the war instead of question it
 
DaleB said:
I think Russian air defense might come into play a few minutes into that flight.
Click to expand...

Or maybe not. Doolittle raid Ukraine style had to have an unbelievable moral boast across the country.

 
Last edited:
I've been wondering how long this war was going to be confined to Ukrainian soil.
 
Clip4 said:
Or maybe not. Doolittle raid Ukraine style had to have an unbelievable moral boast across the country.
Click to expand...

The really weird thing is that Ukranain officials have denied/played dumb around the attack. "We don't know anything about it." I'm not sure I understand that approach.

I'd take the approach of "We took out a fuel supply hub along the border. What's the issue?"
 
kyleb said:
The really weird thing is that Ukranain officials have denied/played dumb around the attack. "We don't know anything about it." I'm not sure I understand that approach.
Click to expand...

Attacking a target not on their own soil can change the narrative of being purely defensive, which could matter especially for some of the countries that are supplying them, in a way that has the potential to backfire.

It can also reduce Russia’s inhibition to use nuclear weapons, since their longstanding policy is to use them if Russian territory is attacked.
 
Clip4 said:
Mig 29 Fighter Bomber. 612 NM from LVIV to Moscow. Cruise speed 800 NM / 1100 with from tanks. Range 772. 44 minutes to target.
Click to expand...
Mathias Rust (Cessna 172) May 28, 1987. Helsinki direct Red Square. Low level, undetected until landing. No flight plan.

I have no idea what he did enroute, but he arrived "Winchester." Russia is wide open
 
Maxnr said:
...undetected until landing....
Click to expand...
Not quite:

Mathias Rust (born 1 June 1968)[1] is a German aviator known for his flight that ended with a landing near Red Square in Moscow on 28 May 1987. A teenage amateur pilot, he flew from Helsinki, Finland, to Moscow, being tracked several times by Soviet Air Defence Forces and civilian air traffic controllers, as well as Soviet Air Force interceptor aircraft. The Soviet fighters did not receive permission to shoot him down, and his aeroplane was mistaken for a friendly aircraft several times. He landed on Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge, next to Red Square near the Kremlin in the capital of the Soviet Union.
​
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust
 
NoHeat said:
Attacking a target not on their own soil can change the narrative of being purely defensive, which could matter especially for some of the countries that are supplying them, in a way that has the potential to backfire.

It can also reduce Russia’s inhibition to use nuclear weapons, since their longstanding policy is to use them if Russian territory is attacked.
Click to expand...

A) You're right.
B) Russia's argument is nonsensical. They are physically invading Ukraine, but Ukraine taking out a fuel dump on Russian soil is an escalation. That's quite the alternate universe, but that's where Putin seems to live.
 
Probably wasn’t an area really covered by heavy Russian ADA forces. I was cruising along the Iranian border once doing a pipeline patrol with a general in the back. I pondered with the crew how far could we penetrate before getting noticed. It wasn’t very populated so I thought a good 50 miles but it wasn’t something I wanted to test. ;)
 
Palmpilot said:
Not quite:

Mathias Rust (born 1 June 1968)[1] is a German aviator known for his flight that ended with a landing near Red Square in Moscow on 28 May 1987. A teenage amateur pilot, he flew from Helsinki, Finland, to Moscow, being tracked several times by Soviet Air Defence Forces and civilian air traffic controllers, as well as Soviet Air Force interceptor aircraft. The Soviet fighters did not receive permission to shoot him down, and his aeroplane was mistaken for a friendly aircraft several times. He landed on Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge, next to Red Square near the Kremlin in the capital of the Soviet Union.
​
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust
Click to expand...
OK,OK. Not intercepted.
 
I don’t understand why any counterattacks or a counteroffensive against Russia by Ukraine would need to be a Doolittle style attack. Totally different scenarios.
 
Palmpilot said:
Not quite:

Mathias Rust (born 1 June 1968)[1] is a German aviator known for his flight that ended with a landing near Red Square in Moscow on 28 May 1987. A teenage amateur pilot, he flew from Helsinki, Finland, to Moscow, being tracked several times by Soviet Air Defence Forces and civilian air traffic controllers, as well as Soviet Air Force interceptor aircraft. The Soviet fighters did not receive permission to shoot him down, and his aeroplane was mistaken for a friendly aircraft several times. He landed on Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge, next to Red Square near the Kremlin in the capital of the Soviet Union.
​
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust
Click to expand...
The Steeleys on this guy. 50 hour pilot decides to take a cross county, eh ocean, from Hamburg to Faroe Islands then Iceland in a 172. Wow.
 
benyflyguy said:
The Steeleys on this guy. 50 hour pilot decides to take a cross county, eh ocean, from Hamburg to Faroe Islands then Iceland in a 172. Wow.
Click to expand...

I'm not someone who follows (or followed) him closely, but I think he proved himself a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.
 
When I was stationed in Germany in the mid 80's, we operated on the assumption that we had a calculated parity ratio of six to one. Meaning, in theory, we should have been able to defeat a Soviet force up to six times our strength.

Do I believe that? The Soviets had problems. They had severe command and communication issues. Few vehicles were equipped with radios and those that were were mostly one way.

Their battle strategy was mass. They had unvarying, large, battalion sized elements that, if you could identify the specific components, you could call for fire and decimate their unit.

They did that by necessity. They didn't have the autonomous command structure that we did. The lowest unit that could make decisions on there end was on the battalion level On our end, it was pretty much the last man, but at least at the company level. Our strategy relied on fast movement, communications, and autonymous command structure.

They weren't stupid. They worked with what they had to work with. We worked with what we had to work with It was like a game of chess.

They aren't infallible. It took, what, thirty years and a lot of ****ed off Ukrainians to prove it, but we were right.

I almost want to go to war with Russia. But that would turn nuclear, and nobody needs that.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I almost want to go to war with Russia. But that would turn nuclear, and nobody needs that.
Click to expand...

I think there are a lot of people in the over 50 crowd who would like to get one good piñata swing at Russia without it going nuclear. Red Storm Rising and all that. The bear turned out to be a paper tiger, at least in terms of conventional warfare.
 
Sac Arrow said:
When I was stationed in Germany in the mid 80's, we operated on the assumption that we had a calculated parity ratio of six to one. Meaning, in theory, we should have been able to defeat a Soviet force up to six times our strength.

Do I believe that? The Soviets had problems. They had severe command and communication issues. Few vehicles were equipped with radios and those that were were mostly one way.

Their battle strategy was mass. They had unvarying, large, battalion sized elements that, if you could identify the specific components, you could call for fire and decimate their unit.

They did that by necessity. They didn't have the autonomous command structure that we did. The lowest unit that could make decisions on there end was on the battalion level On our end, it was pretty much the last man, but at least at the company level. Our strategy relied on fast movement, communications, and autonymous command structure.

They weren't stupid. They worked with what they had to work with. We worked with what we had to work with It was like a game of chess.

They aren't infallible. It took, what, thirty years and a lot of ****ed off Ukrainians to prove it, but we were right.

I almost want to go to war with Russia. But that would turn nuclear, and nobody needs that.
Click to expand...

I feel so much the same…for four years as an Attack pilot in Cold War Germany you knew that you were a DIP ( Die in Place). Our job was to plug the Fulda Gap and planning told us we only needed to push forward fuel and ammo for one rotation into the rearm and refuel point because life expectancy was in hours not days until a unit would need to be reconstituted.
In 18 months we killed 23 soldiers in an Aviation Brigade, most were aircrew. For some the Cold War was not so cold. I never have and never will embrace the Soviets/Russians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top