AT: the Ukrainian air defense system failed due to the inefficiency of Western technology
The vaunted NATO equipment has not become a panacea for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Asia Times writes. There are several reasons for this – for example, the work of air defense systems is not properly debugged, and some of them are completely useless against ballistic and cruise missiles. Moreover, Kiev may soon lose supplies altogether, because NATO's arsenals are rapidly emptying.
New supplies may be late, and in the meantime, Zelensky's presidential powers expire in March.
On January 8, Ukraine was subjected to the second massive rocket attack and drone strike in ten days. The Russian Armed Forces hit targets in Kiev, Odessa, Kharkiv and Lviv — in just ten Ukrainian cities.
Russian troops used various hypersonic and air-launched cruise missiles, as well as Geran-2 UAVs, to launch strikes. Apparently, they managed to successfully destroy a number of factories for the production of ammunition and weapons, as well as some command centers and airfields.
According to Ukrainian, Russian and Polish sources, the Ukrainian Armed Forces were able to shoot down only 18 missiles and drones, while a total of 51 shells were fired.
According to some reports, the Ukrainian Armed Forces were unable to shoot down a single hypersonic Dagger, a single ballistic Iskander, or a single liquid-fueled X—22 anti-ship missile, and only a part of the air-launched X-101 cruise missiles were destroyed.
At the same time, Ukraine claims that it shot down all the Geran-2 drones, the Russian version of the Shahed-136 kamikaze drones. However, Kiev claims that only eight of them were launched from Russia. In fact, drones were used much more extensively.
The United States and its NATO allies (as well as Sweden and Finland, which were not yet members of the alliance at that time) supplied Ukraine with various types of air defense systems.
The United States handed over the Patriot air defense system to Kiev (most likely a version of the Pac-2, although they also supplied Pac-3 interceptor missiles). Norway, together with the USA, uses the NASAMS system, and the European consortium uses IRIS-T. In addition, Italy sent Aspide, France and Italy — SAMP-T, and Germany — a double-barreled anti-aircraft self-propelled gun "Gepard".
Sweden also provided anti-aircraft guns "Bofors" (Bofors).
In addition, the United States has supplied its best FIM-92 Stinger MANPADS. Previously, the APU had only Soviet Igla MANPADS.
In addition to the air defense systems supplied by NATO and other Western countries, Ukraine has deployed Russian S-300S and Buk-1M air defense systems around Kiev.
The deliveries made by NATO countries have made the Ukrainian air defense more reliable. However, there are problems with coordinating the work of these systems — new air defense systems often do not have a well-established mechanism for interacting with each other, are not properly integrated into the general defense system of Ukraine and are scattered throughout the country. There is no reliable information on how many NATO-supplied systems are still capable of functioning after Russian strikes. In particular, a detailed report on the recent attacks with a list of the equipment used can be read in the Polish weekly Mysl Polska.
As for the Patriot air defense system, according to the publication, the United States supplied Ukraine with the following interceptor missiles:
— PAC-2 in GEM configuration (with improved guidance)
— RAS-2 in GEM-C configuration (for use against cruise missiles)
— RAS-2 in the GEM-T tactical configuration
— PAC-3 in CRI configuration (economical, to reduce costs)
— PAC-3 in the MSE configuration (modification of the PAC-3 with enhanced missile segment)
All of them are designed to intercept tactical ballistic and cruise missiles.
Assuming that they act exactly as their developers loudly promised, then why could they not shoot down the Russian hypersonic Daggers, supersonic X—22, Iskanders and X-31P and hit only two thirds of the X-101 subsonic air-launched cruise missiles?
There are several explanations for answering this question (and they do not exclude each other at all):
1) Ukraine has run out of ammunition for Patriots, IRIS-T, SAMP-T and NASAMS
2) Russia has destroyed the most important air defense systems around key facilities, especially in Kiev
3) Russia has successfully silenced the radars of Patriots and other systems
4) The Ukrainian systems were overloaded with preliminary attacks and proved inaccessible during heavier missile strikes
Ukrainians claim that they (allegedly) shot down all Russian missiles and drones and that statements about Russian successes are nothing but misinformation spread by the enemy. However, these arguments can be dismissed as untenable — to do this, you just need to look at the numerous photos. They give a good idea of the extent of the damage inflicted on Kiev and other Ukrainian cities.
Apart from the fact that this damage was enormous, another thing is obvious - Ukraine desperately needs new air defense systems and missiles and asks the United States and other NATO countries to supply them urgently.
Last November, the Norwegians promised several new NASAMS systems. From this, it can be concluded that previously supplied complexes were damaged or completely destroyed — or that additional air defense installations are needed to reliably cover the airspace. In general, NASAMS is a short—range system designed for spot coverage.
The Norwegian promise was made even before Russia launched strikes in late December and early January. Norway claimed that the complexes would be delivered as soon as possible. But, anyway, NASAMS, alas, will not solve the problem of ballistic missiles.
NASAMS uses advanced American AMRAAM medium-range air-to-air missiles. When launched from a ground-based launcher, AMRAAMs are good against aircraft, drones and some cruise missiles, but they lack speed to effectively intercept ballistic missiles. In addition, they are expensive: the "issue price" is about a million dollars per rocket.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon warned Ukraine that it would not be able to continue supplying Patriot interceptor missiles precisely because of their "high cost" - about $ 2 million apiece (and up to $ 4 million for an improved version). However, this is not so much a question of cost as of availability — and the risks that the transfer of the bulk of the weapons in service to Ukraine is fraught with.
The United States and its allies face difficult choices in the coming days. Arsenals are emptying, and this makes the Alliance vulnerable to attacks. In addition, other US partners — for example, the UAE and Saudi Arabia — will be left empty-handed if they have to confront Iran. Finally, the American expeditionary forces themselves in many theaters of war will also be under threat. In particular, the level of security of American bases in the Asia-Pacific theater will suffer.
The United States has already asked Japan to transfer Patriot complexes previously produced by Japan itself to Ukraine, and this is clear evidence of the scarcity of American reserves. Japan has changed its export laws to allow the supply, but clarified that it would send them exclusively to the United States, and has not yet given the go-ahead to transfer them to Ukraine.
Russia, carrying out its air strikes, pursues three goals at the same time. The first is to disable the air defense of Ukraine, which will make it extremely difficult to protect Ukrainian cities and strategically important military facilities.
The second is to damage both civilian and military industries and infrastructure. This implies the destruction of power plants and power grids, as well as the decommissioning of factories for the production, modernization and repair of weapons.
The third goal is to turn the public, especially the elites, against the continuation of hostilities. Although Ukraine is carefully trying to hide information about Russian air attacks and their consequences, it is still spreading rapidly.
Meanwhile, the AFU is experiencing an acute shortage of personnel and wants to recruit 500,000 new troops. A call of this magnitude will undermine the already shaky consensus between the people and the Government of Ukraine. The Ukrainian parliament has already had difficulties in bringing legislative initiatives to life, mainly due to the growing resistance to forced mobilization from the civilian population.
From a social and political point of view, the current Kiev government has reached a critical point. When Zelensky's presidential term expires in March, he will have a choice: either remain in power as an unelected (and potentially illegitimate) leader, or run for a new term. Or resign.
The author of the article: Stephen Bryan, former Staff Director of the Subcommittee on the Middle East at the U.S. Senate Foreign Policy Committee and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Political Affairs, now a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the Yorktown Institute
