April 2023

Russian Combat Air Strengths and Limitations:

Lessons from Ukraine
Justin Bronk

Unlimited distribution
IOP-2023-U-035263-Final
Abstract

This study provides an in-depth examination of the performance of the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) over Ukraine,
and an analysis of where and why this performance differed from Western civilian and military pre-war expectations.
It draws on fieldwork in Ukraine by the author, including interviews with senior Ukrainian Air Force commanders,
military scientists, and inspection of captured and recovered Russian weapons and aircraft systems. The primary
purpose of the study is to provide an open-source assessment of the enduring threat posed by the VKS to Ukraine in
the short term, and to NATO nations in the medium and long term. To that end, the final section of the study looks
specifically at the nature of that threat; particularly in the context of Russia’s highly effective ground-based air defence
network and long-range precision fires capabilities.

This report is part of a series generously funded by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.
CNA’s Occasional Paper series is published by CNA, but the opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do
not necessarily reflect the views of CNA or the Department of the Navy.

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

Administrative or Operational Use 4/17/2023

This work was performed under Specific Authority Contract No. G-19-56503

Cover image: Russian Ministry of Defense.

This document may contain materials protected by the Fair Use guidelines of Section 107 of the Copyright Act, for
research purposes only. Any such content is copyrighted and not owned by CNA. All rights and credits go directly
to content’s rightful owner.

Approved by: April 2023

Michael Kofman, Research Program Director

Russia Studies Program
Strategy, Policy, Plans and Programs Division

© 2023 CNA Corporation

Contents

Lessons from Ukraine about Russian Combat Air Strengths and Limitations ...................... 1
VKS Performance in the Russia-Ukraine War ......................................................................................... 2
Explaining VKS Performance Compared to Pre-war Expectations.............................................. 12
VKS Medium- and Long-term Threat Outlook...................................................................................... 16
Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................................20

CNA Occasional Paper | i

This page intentionally left blank.

CNA Occasional Paper | ii

Lessons from Ukraine about Russian
Combat Air Strengths and Limitations

One of the defining features of the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and subsequent
full-scale war has been the inability of the much larger and more technologically advanced
Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) to establish and exploit air superiority over its Ukrainian
opponents. This came as a surprise to most Western and Ukrainian military and civilian
analysts and has prompted a widespread reappraisal of the current capabilities of the VKS and,
perhaps more importantly, the potential threat that it can pose in the medium term.1 However,
these efforts have been hindered by the lack of granular information about the actual tactics
and operational tempo of VKS operations over Ukraine.
For external analysts, areas of VKS weakness have generally been possible to infer from the
absence of visible operations and destructive effects. Examples of visible weakness include the
VKS’s inability to effectively conduct suppression and destruction of enemy air defense
(SEAD/DEAD) operations, or to project fixed-wing or rotary strike sorties over most of
Ukraine. However, the sorties that Russia’s combat aircraft have been flying and the effects
they have been achieving are much harder for outside observers to see and. In the land domain,
ubiquitous small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and handheld cameras have provided a rich,
albeit fragmentary, source of information on the tactics and nature of operations being
undertaken by both sides at each stage in the conflict.2 In contrast, footage available for air
operations has been limited to cockpit footage that is carefully collated and released

1 For example, see Samuel Charap and Scott Boston, “The West’s Weapons Won’t Make Any Difference to Ukraine,”
Foreign Policy, Jan. 21, 2022, https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/21/weapons-ukraine-russia-invasion-military/,
accessed Dec. 16, 2022; Thomas Newdick, “How the Russian and Ukrainian Air Forces Stack Up Against Each
Other,” The War Zone, Dec. 23, 2021, https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43603/face-off-over-donbas-how-
russian-and-ukrainian-air-forces-stack-up, accessed Dec. 16, 2022. For this author’s pre-war estimation of
Ukraine’s options against the VKS, see Justin Bronk, “Ukrainian Air Defence Options in the Event of a Russian
Attack,” RUSI Commentary, Feb. 8, 2022, https://rusi.org/explore-our-
research/publications/commentary/ukrainian-air-defence-options-event-russian-attack, accessed Dec. 16, 2022.
2 See, for example, WarLeaks—Military Blog, “Watch How This Single Ukrainian Tank Takes on an Entire Russian

Column in Extraordinary Combat Footage,” YouTube, Apr. 6, 2022, https://youtu.be/BfTrQiFkWyk, accessed Dec.
16, 2022 and The Sun, “Ukrainian Troops Destroy Russian Infantry Fighting Vehicles in Donetsk,” YouTube, Dec. 7,
2022, https://youtu.be/UtmcsdjTXD8, accessed Dec. 16, 2022.

CNA Occasional Paper | 1

periodically by both sides and clips filmed from the ground of aircraft either flying past or
sometimes being engaged by surface-to-air missiles (SAMs).3
To help bring greater granularity to the Western picture of Russian combat air operations in
Ukraine, the British think tank the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) produced a special
report based on face-to-face interviews conducted in Ukraine in August and October 2022 with
senior Ukrainian Air Force (UkrAF) aviation, ground-based air defense (GBAD), intelligence,
maintenance, and capability development commanders.4 In compiling this report, the authors
also inspected and disassembled significant numbers of Russian missiles, UAVs, and other
weaponry, and conducted numerous secondary interviews with external intelligence
professionals to cross-reference the material gathered. This paper builds on that work to
assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Russian VKS as the war in Ukraine moves towards
its second year.
The paper begins with an analysis of the major successes and failures of the VKS in operational
and tactical terms during 2022. Next, it provides an analysis of the likely core reasons for the
significant differences between the observed combat performance of the VKS over Ukraine and
pre-war assessments. The paper then concludes with a section that examines the potential
medium-term threat posed by the VKS to both Ukraine and, potentially, European NATO
countries.

VKS Performance in the Russia-Ukraine War

It is important to begin by acknowledging the most influential failure of the VKS fixed-wing
forces over Ukraine: the failure to find, fix, and destroy the bulk of Ukraine’s GBAD assets. As
2022 came to a close, the UkrAF continued to operate a significant number of its 9M38M1 (SA-
11) “Buk,” S-300PS/PT (SA-10) “Grumble,” and S-300V1 (SA-12) “Gladiator” SAMs, and the
Ukrainian Army continues to operate numerous 9K33 (SA-8) “Osa” SAMs.5 The effective

3 For example, The Sun, “Dramatic Moment Ukrainian Troops Shoot Down Russian Helicopter Using British
‘Starstreak’ Missiles,” YouTube, Apr. 2, 2022, https://youtu.be/rXnjQmoV2D8, accessed Dec. 16, 2022; The War
Zone, “Ukrainian Mig-29 Fulcrum Firing US AGM-88 High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile,” YouTube, Aug. 30, 2022,
https://youtu.be/BuOkZc2I8cw, accessed Dec. 16, 2022; WarLeaks—Military Blog, “Russian Su-30 Shot Down in
Southern Ukraine,” YouTube, Sep. 24, 2022, https://youtu.be/BuOkZc2I8cw, accessed Dec. 16, 2022; The Sun,
“Russian Fighter Planes Launch Air Strikes at Ukrainian Military Facilities,” YouTube, Nov. 11, 2022,
https://youtu.be/d-L2oVet_a4, accessed Dec. 16, 2022.
4 Justin Bronk, Nick Reynolds, and Jack Watling, “The Russian Air War and Ukrainian Requirements for Air

Defence,” RUSI Special Report, Nov. 7, 2022, https://static.rusi.org/SR-Russian-Air-War-Ukraine-web-final.pdf,

accessed Dec. 16, 2022.
5 Author interviews with UkrAF GBAD commanders and military intelligence officers, Ukraine, Oct. 2022. Cross-

referenced in ongoing discussions with Western military intelligence officers in the United Kingdom and United
States, Nov. and Dec. 2022.

CNA Occasional Paper | 2

employment of these systems by Ukrainian forces has denied Russia air superiority over
Ukraine and continues to force the VKS to operate very cautiously near the front lines.
Despite the overall mismatch in force ratios in favor of the VKS in the air domain and the
Russian ground forces on land, the scale of the SEAD/DEAD challenge for the VKS is significant.
Ukraine began the war with an impressive air defense inventory, the core of which was three
brigades and two regiments of S-300PS/PT systems (SA-10), comprising an estimated 25 fire
units with up to 12 launchers and a radar and command vehicle in each.6 In addition, the UkrAF
fielded one brigade of S-300V1s (SA-12) with at least two fire units and two brigades of SA-11
Buk with at least 11 fire units, and the Army fielded over 100 SA-8 Osa vehicles.7 The Ukrainian
air defense forces also fielded several units of largely immobile but deeply modernized S-125
(SA-3) Goa and reconditioned mobile 9K330 (SA-15) “Tor” systems. However, unlike in the
land domain, where the Ukrainian Army has been reinforced by large quantities of Western-
made equipment since the start of the invasion, in the air defense realm, Ukraine largely
defended its skies with its own systems until October 2022.
Western partners supplied thousands of shoulder-fired man-portable air defense systems
(MANPADS), such as Stinger, especially during the initial months of the invasion.8 They proved
an important threat to Russian jets and helicopters at low altitudes, alongside Ukraine’s
extensive existing stockpiles of Igla and Strela MANPADS. However, it was thanks to Ukraine’s
own ground-based SA-11, SA-8, and S-300 SAMs that Russian aircraft were forced to fly low,
inside the MANPADS threat envelope, in the first place. Since late October, IRIS-T SLM air
defense systems, German-donated Gepard self-propelled anti-aircraft guns (SPAAGs), and
United States–donated NASAMS batteries have been introduced and become increasingly
important for cruise missile and counter-loitering munition defense around Ukrainian cities
and key civilian infrastructure sites.9
To neutralise this extensive Ukrainian air defense network, Russia began the invasion with a
significant SEAD campaign that also included DEAD efforts. The former was far more successful
than the latter. On the morning of February 24, 2022, Russian Tu-95MS and Tu-160 strategic
bomber aircraft from the VKS long-range aviation (LRA) force conducted a series of massed

6 Alexander Mladenov, “Inside Ukraine’s Extensive but Ageing Air Defence System,” Key Aero, Jan. 17, 2022,
https://www.key.aero/article/inside-ukraines-extensive-ageing-air-defence-system, accessed Dec. 16, 2022.
Numbers quoted by Mladenov were broadly verified in author interviews with UkrAF GBAD commanders in
Ukraine, Oct. 2022.
7 Ibid.
8 Alexandria Chastenet de Gery, “The West Needs to Keep Supporting Ukraine with MANPADS,” The German

Marshall Fund, Apr. 20, 2022, https://www.gmfus.org/news/west-needs-keep-supporting-ukraine-manpads,

accessed Mar. 19, 2023.
9 For an outline of Western air defense supplies sent, see Michael Peck, “Ukraine Is Scrambling to Shoot Down

Russian Missiles and Drones. Here Are the Weapons Other Countries Are Sending in to Help,” Business Insider, Nov.
14, 2022, https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-are-giving-ukraine-air-defenses-for-russian-missiles-
drones-2022-11?r=US&IR=T, accessed Dec. 16, 2022.

CNA Occasional Paper | 3

sorties to launch waves of Kh-101 and Kh-555 air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) against
Ukrainian air defense sites.10 These were coordinated with salvos of 3M-54 Kalibr naval cruise
missiles from surface ships and submarines in the Black Sea, and 9M720/9M723 ballistic
missiles and 9M728 cruise missiles fired from Iskander systems on land.11 In other words,
Russia employed synchronized long-range precision fires effects from multiple domains as
part of a unified fires plan. It is important to note, however, that although several hundred
missiles were fired, the strike plan fell far short of the weight of fire that Russia could have
employed given its missile stocks and available launch platforms.
The standoff missile strikes were accompanied by effective electronic warfare attacks to
degrade and damage Ukrainian early warning, target acquisition, and fire control radars. Many
Ukrainian air defense systems and radars were effectively blinded. Some cases required the
replacement of components and multiple full system resets to bring the systems back online.12
Russia was able to leverage its detailed understanding of the base SA-10, SA-12, SA-11, and SA-
8 systems operated by Ukrainian air defense forces, since all of these systems had been made
originally in the Soviet Union and have since been operated by the Russian Armed Forces.
However, Ukraine had independently upgraded many of the key hardware components and
the software controlling these systems in successive modernization programs since gaining
independence, meaning that Russian electronic attacks caused less permanent damage than
Russian planners anticipated.13
The Russian missile strikes and electronic attack efforts showed a strong understanding of the
Ukrainian air defense network laydown, with more than 75 percent of sites accurately engaged
in the first days of the invasion.14 Crucially, however, Ukrainian forces received high-fidelity
intelligence from foreign partners about the impending attack in the hours leading up to the
invasion and so most of the air defense sites that were hit by the Russian strikes had already
been vacated by mobile systems.15 However, in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, multiple

10 Author interviews with UkrAF aviation and GBAD commanders and military intelligence officers, Ukraine, Oct.
2022.
11 Ibid. See also Sam LaGrone and Heather Mongilio, “Russian Navy Has Limited Role in Initial Invasion of

Ukraine,” USNI News, Feb. 24, 2022, https://news.usni.org/2022/02/24/russian-navy-has-limited-role-in-initial-

invasion-of-ukraine, accessed Dec. 16, 2022.
12 Author interviews interviews with UkrAF aviation and GBAD commanders and military intelligence officers,

Ukraine, Oct. 2022.

13 Ibid.
14 Ibid. See also Mykhaylo Zabrodskyi, Jack Watling, Oleksandr V. Danylyuk, and Nick Reynolds, “Preliminary

Lessons in Conventional Warfighting from Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: February–July 2022,” RUSI Special Report,
Nov. 30, 2022, p. 24-25, https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf,
accessed Dec. 16, 2022.
15 Ibid. See also Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, “Footage of the Destroyed Position of the S-300 Air

Defence System Division of the Armed Forces of Ukraine,” Mar. 30, 2022,
https://eng.mil.ru/en/special_operation/multimedia/video/watch.htm?id=17688@morfVideoAudioFile,
accessed Dec. 16, 2022.

CNA Occasional Paper | 4

SA-10 and SA-3 air defense sites that were immobile or could not be moved in time were badly
hit.16
Immediately after the standoff missile strikes on Ukrainian air defenses, VKS Su-34 “Fullback”
frontal bombers flew dozens of sorties up to 300 kilometers inside Ukrainian airspace to
perform additional attacks on SAM sites, especially along the routes being used by massed
helicopter formations to insert VDV and Spetznaz forces at Hostomel and elsewhere. Around
75 percent of these sorties were carried out by single aircraft against each target, with most of
the remaining 25 percent being pairs rather than larger formations.17 The most common
weapons used were stacks of unguided bombs, and most strikes were carried out from around
4,000 meters. As with the cruise missile strikes, most of these fixed-wing airstrikes were
conducted with reasonable accuracy against air defense positions that had, until only a few
hours previously, been occupied by Ukrainian SAM systems, mobile radars, and command
posts. However, for both the missile and fixed-wing aircraft strikes, Russian battle damage
assessment was poor and follow-up strikes were seldom conducted, even though most of the
strikes did not produce the intended physical effects.18
In assessing the initial VKS SEAD/DEAD performance, the physical damage was limited and did
not create the DEAD effect that had been built into Russian overall campaign planning
assumptions. However, the strikes forced Ukrainian SAM units to repeatedly reposition. This,
alongside the electronic warfare effects, created a sufficient SEAD effect to allow two waves of
Russian airborne forces (VDV) to be inserted by large-scale helicopter assaults into Hostomel
airport (and other locations elsewhere in Ukraine) via routes that should have been defended
by multiple Ukrainian air defense positions.19 Collectively, the Russian SEAD effort was
successful in itself, since it forced the Ukrainian fighter force to conduct the vast bulk of air
defense tasks on its own during the first two days of the war, exposing it to serious losses from
Russian GBAD and fighter patrols.20
The most significant limiting factor in terms of the initial VKS strike campaign was that
dynamic battle damage assessment and retargeting processes were not granular enough or
fast enough to account for Ukraine’s successful repositioning of most of its mobile air defenses
in the hours leading up to the attack to achieve large-scale DEAD results. However, it should be

16 Author interviews with UkrAF aviation and GBAD commanders and military intelligence officers, Ukraine, Oct.
2022.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid. See also Zabrodskyi et al., “Preliminary Lessons.”
19 Zabrodskyi et al., “Preliminary Lessons.” See also Sebastien Roblin, “Pictures: In Battle for Hostomel, Ukraine

Drove Back Russia’s Attack Helicopters and Elite Paratroopers,” 19FortyFive, Feb. 25, 2022,
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/02/pictures-in-battle-for-hostomel-ukraine-drove-back-russias-attack-
helicopters-and-elite-paratroopers/, accessed Dec. 16, 2022.
20 Justin Bronk with Nick Reynolds and Jack Watling, “The Russian Air War and Ukrainian Requirements for Air

Defence,” RUSI Special Report, Nov. 7, 2022, p. 6-12, https://static.rusi.org/SR-Russian-Air-War-Ukraine-web-

final.pdf, accessed Dec. 16, 2022.

CNA Occasional Paper | 5

acknowledged that the VKS succeeded in producing an extensive and generally accurate target
list for LRA and fighter-bomber regiments, and the strike plan was well coordinated with
ground forces’ long-range strike assets, electronic warfare systems, and naval fires. This
targeting process was largely informed by an extensive network of human intelligence
(HUMINT) assets, including multiple long-term penetrations of the Ukrainian state and
military hierarchy, as well as teams from the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed
Forces of the Russian Federation (GRU) and other Russian special services agencies.21 The VKS
had also conducted regular Su-24MR “Fencer-E” and Il-20M “Coot” electronics intelligence
gathering reconnaissance sorties from January 2022 onward along Ukraine’s borders to help
detect and map changes in the Ukrainian air defense laydown.22
Fighter patrols were another area of comparative VKS success in the initial days of the invasion.
While the ground strike sorties flew into Ukrainian airspace, Russian Su-35S and Su-30SM
multirole fighters conducted independent combat air patrols at higher altitudes of around
8,000 meters. Several Russian fighters engaged UkrAF strike sorties and fighter patrols in
uneven combat, while others fired numerous Kh-31P and older Kh-58 anti-radiation missiles
(ARMs) against any illuminated Ukrainian radars.23 Both the ARMs and the R-77-1 (NATO
designation: AA-12B) air-to-air missiles were generally launched at long ranges and with
cumbersome command and control procedures that together greatly reduced the probability
of kill for each shot.24 Disciplined use of short illumination times and regular relocation tactics
by Ukrainian SAM operators further reduced the hard-kill effectiveness of Russian ARM
launches. Attempts to coordinate the ARM launches for SEAD with Su-25s flying alone or in
pairs at low altitudes to find and conduct DEAD strikes were made throughout March and April,
but were not successful.25 However, Ukraine lost a significant number of fighter and ground-
attack jet sorties from its Su-27, Mig-29, Su-24, and Su-25 fleets as well as a light trainer jet to
a mix of VKS fighters and long-range SAM engagements during the first week of the invasion.26
The radar and missile performance of the primary Russian Su-35S and Su-30SM fighters has
been impressive throughout the conflict. The N035 Irbis-E and N110M Bars-M radars on the

21 Author interviews with senior Ukrainian intelligence officers from multiple intelligence agencies, Ukraine, Oct.
2022.
22 Ibid.
23 Author interviews with UkrAF aviation and GBAD commanders and military intelligence officers, Ukraine, Oct.

2022.
24 Ibid. See also HUD footage in film from VKS sorties such those in as Kirill Kunetsky and Nikolay Baranov, “В МО

РФ показали кадры применения Су-35 в ходе спецоперации на Украине” [“The Ministry of Defence of the
Russian Federation Showed Footage of the Use of Su-35 During a Special Operation in Ukraine”], Zvezda, Mar. 7,
2022, https://tvzvezda.ru/news/202237820-suPZe.html, accessed Dec. 16, 2022.
25 Author interviews with UkrAF aviation and GBAD commanders and military intelligence officers, Ukraine, Oct.

2022.
26 Ibid. See also some of the confirmed losses geolocated in Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans, “List of Aircraft Losses

During the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine,” Oryx, Mar. 20, 2022,
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/03/list-of-aircraft-losses-during-2022.html, accessed Oct. 18, 2022.

CNA Occasional Paper | 6

two respective fighters give them a major advantage over Ukrainian fighters in a meeting
engagement with up to five times the effective range, greater tactical flexibility with track-
while-scan (TWS) capabilities, and significantly better ability to burn through electronic
interference compared to the radars carried on Ukrainian Su-27P and MiG-29 fighters.27 Both
radars have also performed well in look-down, shoot-down engagements against very low-
flying jets, helicopters, and UAVs trying to hide in ground clutter.28 Su-34 fighter bombers and
also Su-30SM and Su-35S fighters have also generally carried L-175 “Khibiny” electronic
warfare pods throughout the war, although during the first week many did not have them
fitted.29 The Khibiny pods have proven effective at degrading Ukrainian in-flight
communications and radar performance, although they also interfere with Russian radar
performance when in use.30
Meanwhile, the use of the AA-12B medium range air-to-air missile has consistently allowed
Russian pilots to fire at much greater ranges than their Ukrainian opponents, who have been
limited to shorter ranged R-27R/ER (AA-10A/C) missiles for beyond-visual-range combat.31
The combination of an active-radar seeker head on the AA-12B and the TWS capabilities of the
N035 and N110M radars has also allowed Russian fighters to engage Ukrainian fighters and
ground-attack jets without sacrificing situational awareness or giving a tracking lock or missile
launch warning to their opponents. TWS also allows Russian pilots to guide multiple missiles
simultaneously against multiple targets, and the active seeker on the AA-12B allows the
launching fighter to turn away and break radar lock to maintain positional advantage or defend
against any incoming shots once the missile has “gone active” and acquired the target for
itself.32 By contrast, Ukrainian pilots have had to get much closer and illuminate Russian
aircraft in a single-target-track (STT) lock before firing. An STT provides reflected radar energy
to guide the semi-active seeker on the AA-10A/C missile, but the lock must be maintained until
missile impact. Furthermore, the amount of concentrated radar energy involved in an STT lock
also generally ensures that Russian pilots receive warnings about locks and missile launches
from their radar-warning receivers.
Given the much stronger technical capabilities of Russian fighters, the threat from long-range
Russian SAM systems, and the fact that Ukrainian pilots have been consistently outnumbered
in the air, Ukrainian fighters have been consistently forced to fly at very low altitudes using

27 Author interviews with UkrAF aviation commanders and military scientists, as well as inspection and
disassembly of Russian R-77-1 (AA-12B) and R-37M (AA-13) air-to-air missiles, Ukraine, Oct. 2022. For more
detail, see Bronk, Reynolds, and Watling, “The Russian Air War.”
28 Ibid.
29 Zabrodskyi et al., “Preliminary Lessons.”
30 Author interviews with UkrAF aviation commanders and military scientists, as well as inspection and

disassembly of Russian R-77-1 (AA-12B) and R-37M (AA-13) air-to-air missiles, Ukraine, Oct. 2022. For more
detail, see Bronk, Reynolds, and Watling, “The Russian Air War.”.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.

CNA Occasional Paper | 7

terrain masking and clutter to try to evade early detection. However, missiles fired from low
altitudes and at correspondingly slower speeds against faster, higher-flying targets must
overcome additional aerodynamic drag in the dense air at low altitude and also work against
gravity to reach their targets with enough kinetic energy left to complete a successful intercept.
In other words, the Russian fighter force radar and missile capabilities forced Ukraine to adopt
tactics in aerial clashes that further increased the effective range disparity between their
missiles. During the first few days of the war, Ukrainian fighter pilots used very low-level
terrain masking and clutter to, in some cases, get close enough to higher flying Russian aircraft
to fire missiles without being locked onto and engaged.33 However, they lost significantly more
aircraft to the combination of Russian fighters and SAMs than they were able to claim as high-
confidence kills.34
The lack of success conducting DEAD operations against the Ukrainian mobile SAM systems,
which began to take a significant toll of Russian fighters and helicopters from the third day of
the invasion, meant that VKS fighter patrols were rapidly forced back to high altitudes on their
own side of the frontlines. However, they have continued to pose a serious threat to Ukrainian
fighter, ground-attack, helicopter, and TB-2 Bayraktar UAV sorties near the front lines, even at
very low levels.35 The range at which Russian combat air patrols (CAPs) can take valid missile
shots against Ukrainian aircraft has also significantly increased since September 2022. The key
change has been the use of large numbers of the long-range R-37M (AA-13) air-to-air missiles
by both Mig-31BM interceptors and modified Su-35S fighters.36 Better coordination has also
been observed between Russian fighters on CAP and supporting A-50U and Il-20 command
and control and surveillance aircraft as the war has progressed.37 Therefore, one area where
the VKS can be assessed as having been reasonably successful is in its use of fighter CAPs to
provide an enduring threat and deterrent against Ukrainian sorties close to the front lines.
One area where the VKS has almost completely failed to be effective throughout the war,
however, is in providing dynamic close air support to Russian units on the battlefield. Once it
became clear that the initial Russian plan to decapitate the Ukrainian political, military, and
security leadership and compel a rapid capitulation by surrounding key cities had failed, its
ground forces were forced to rapidly adapt while under fire from the unexpectedly formidable

33 Author interviews with UkrAF aviation commanders and military scientists, Ukraine, Oct. 2022.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid. Verified by author inspection and disassembly of two R-37Ms recently fired into Ukraine by the VKS,

Ukraine, Oct. 2022. Also referred to specifically as threat in Thomas Newdick, “A MiG-29 Pilot’s Inside Account of
the Changing Air War over Ukraine,” The War Zone, Dec. 15, 2022, https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/a-
mig-29-pilots-inside-account-of-the-changing-air-war-over-ukraine, accessed Dec. 18, 2022.
37 Ibid.

CNA Occasional Paper | 8

Ukrainian resistance.38 Consequently, the various VKS fast jet and rotary regiments assigned
to each military district on the various axes were tasked with close air support to assist the
Russian ground forces in breaking through Ukrainian defensive positions from the beginning
of March. However, by this time, Ukrainian SAM systems had been repositioned and brought
back online throughout most of the country, making Russian penetrating sorties across the
frontlines above very low altitude extremely hazardous. The VKS accordingly switched to low-
level daylight attacks, primarily using unguided bombs and rockets, until the end of the first
week of March 2022.39 These strikes, however, produced almost no significant results because
it is extremely difficult to find, identify, and accurately hit dug in troops and vehicle positions
in dense terrain at very low altitudes. At very low altitude, pilots are only likely to have a few
seconds of clear line of sight to a given target, and can only make a single pass unless they are
willing to brave concentrated anti-aircraft fire from fully alerted defenders. Outside the Su-
25SM(3) Frogfoot fleet, moreover, very few Russian fixed-wing pilots had significant training
or currency for very low-altitude close air support in contested airspace, since this never
formed part of their core training tasks before the invasion.40
In exchange for causing very limited damage to Ukrainian frontline positions, Russian fixed-
wing aircraft and helicopters suffered serious losses with this switch to daylight, low-level
close air support operations, with around 10 jets and a similar number of helicopters shot
down during the first week of March.41 Flying below 3,000 meters, and especially orbiting or
making multiple passes looking for targets, left them highly vulnerable to the large number of
shoulder-fired MANPADS, such as Igla-S and Stinger, carried by Ukrainian troops and mobile
air defense teams. After a week of such unproductive operations, the VKS rapidly ceased
daylight penetrations across the frontlines with both fixed-wing and rotary aircraft. Instead,
close air support efforts switched to standoff bombardments with unguided S-13 and S-8
rockets from gunships and Su-25s, and standoff precision guided missile attacks with Kh-29

38 For more detail, see Jack Watling and Nick Reynolds, “Operation Z: The Death Throes of an Imperial Delusion,”
RUSI Special Report, Apr. 22, 2022, p. 2-6, https://static.rusi.org/special-report-202204-operation-z-web.pdf,
accessed Dec. 18, 2022.
39 Author interviews with UkrAF aviation and GBAD commanders, Ukraine, Oct. 2022. See also contemporary

footage, such as OP Info, “Russian Su-34 Bombers Operate in the Kharkiv Region,” YouTube, Feb. 28, 2022,
https://youtu.be/hneCGWKAuKw, accessed Dec. 18, 2022.
40 For more information, see Justin Bronk, “Developments in Russian Combat Air Spending and Likely Operational

Implications,” in Pentti Forsström (ed.), Russian Concept of War, Management and Use of Military Power (Helsinki:
Finnish National Defence University, 2022), 100-101,
https://doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/185874/Russia%20Seminar%20publication%202022_web.pdf,
accessed Dec. 19, 2022.
41 Author interviews with UkrAF aviation and GBAD commanders, Ukraine, Oct. 2022. Confirmed losses have been

geolocated; see Mitzer and Oliemans, “List of Aircraft Losses.” See also Joseph Trevithick, “The Russian Air Force
Just Had a Terrible Day over Ukraine,” The War Zone, Mar. 7, 2022, https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-
zone/44602/the-russian-air-force-just-had-a-terrible-day-over-ukraine, accessed Dec. 18, 2022.

CNA Occasional Paper | 9

and Kh-59 missiles by the Su-30 and Su-34 fleets.42 In addition, the Su-34 “Fullback” fighter-
bomber and Ka-52 “Alligator” attack helicopter fleets continued to conduct low-level
penetration missions at night, with the Ka-52s attempting traditional hunter killer operations
and the Su-34s almost exclusively dropping sticks of unguided bombs on large targets such as
the besieged cities of Chernihiv, Sumy, Kharkiv and Mariupol.43 However, once Ukrainian
mobile MANPADS teams began to be equipped with effective night vision goggles, even these
nighttime penetrating sorties trailed off, so that by April 2022, almost no penetrations were
being flown across Ukrainian lines by either fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft.44
VKS close air support tactics and patterns have remained similar following the Russian retreat
from the Kyiv axis, during the subsequent battles in Donbas from late April to mid-July and
then over Kherson and Kharkiv. The bulk of strikes have been standoff rocket lobbing attacks
conducted by Su-25 Frogfoot, Ka-52 Alligator, Mi-28 Havoc, and Mi-24/35 Hind, while the
latter gunships have also conducted antitank guided missile (ATGM) strikes on visible vehicle
and fighting position targets from limited standoff ranges across the frontlines. The rocket
lobbing attacks produce an effect similar to 122 millimeter “Grad” rocket artillery—able to hit
rough grid squares and cause a suppressive effect against troops and vehicles moving in the
open, or keep troops under cover in defensive positions, but insufficiently accurate to hit
individual vehicles of positions with any regularity.45
Airstrikes on known static targets such as Ukrainian command and control positions and
logistics concentrations have been carried out primarily by Su-34s, sometimes Su-30SMs using
Kh-29, and occasionally satellite-guided KAB-series bombs from medium altitudes and several
kilometers behind the frontlines. These strikes are more akin to standoff battlefield
interdiction than close air support in most cases, but these tactics have also been used to hit
established Ukrainian frontline positions.46 One more recent change during October and
November 2022 is that Su-34s have been observed conducting low-level unguided bombing
runs against frontline positions by day.47 This suggests an increasingly acute shortage of

42 Author interviews with UkrAF aviation and GBAD commanders, Ukraine, Oct. 2022. See also footage such as
AirForceTube, “Russian Mi-28N Havoc and Ka-52 Alligator firing Rockets,” YouTube, Mar. 17, 2022,
https://youtu.be/RM30BNUYOe8, accessed Dec. 18, 2022; Defence Simplified, “Russian MoD releases video
showing Su-34 Bomber launching Kh-29 Air-to-ground missile on Ukraine,” YouTube, Apr. 24, 2022,
https://youtu.be/yPOBfHtGPu0, accessed Dec. 18, 2022; WarLeaks—Military Blog, “Russian Su-25 Combat Sortie
Over Ukraine POV,” YouTube, June 14, 2022, https://youtu.be/ATwkpH9mSqI, accessed Dec. 18, 2022; and
RedIntelPanda, “Russian SU-25 Fires Rockets on Zaporizhzhia Front—Located,” YouTube, Oct. 16, 2022,
https://youtu.be/rAZR70XaobU, accessed Dec. 18, 2022.
43 Author interviews with UkrAF aviation and GBAD commanders and military scientists, Ukraine, Oct. 2022.
44 Ibid.
45 Author interviews with Ukrainian operations analysis specialists and military scientists, Ukraine, Oct. 2022.
46 Ibid.
47 For example, see Rum Raisin, “Russian Su-34 Low-Altitude FAB-250 Bomb Run in Ukraine,” YouTube, Nov. 4,

2022, https://youtu.be/7zteCjC8vcc, accessed Dec. 20, 2022; Rum Raisin, “Russian Su-34 FAB-500 Bomb Run on
Ukrainian Trenches Near Berestovoe,” YouTube, Nov. 19, 2022, https://youtu.be/97jYPrBYILM, accessed Dec. 20,
2022.

CNA Occasional Paper | 10

standoff precision-guided munitions (PGMs), since the danger from MANPADS and even anti-
aircraft artillery is high for low-level daylight bombing runs, and both VKS planners and pilots
would undoubtedly prefer to avoid running the risk if possible.48 In terms of losses during close
air support attempts, the confirmed VKS fixed-wing ground-attack aircraft losses as of late
March 2023 include 20 Su-34s from a fleet of approximately 130 at the start of the war and 30
Su-25SM(3)s from a fleet of around 120.49 For the helicopter gunships, the confirmed losses at
time of writing include 33 Ka-52 Alligators out of a fleet of around 120, and 11 Mi-28 Havocs
out of a fleet of similar size.50 In other words, the VKS has taken serious losses without
significant results across both its fixed-wing and rotary tactical ground-attack fleets.
In conclusion, over Ukraine, the VKS has performed reasonably well in the defensive and at
times offensive counter-air mission using Su-35S and Su-30SM fighters, and in long-range
standoff strike operations against a range of strategic and operational targets using cruise
missiles fired by bombers from the LRA force, and sometimes Kh-59 cruise missiles fired from
Su-34 fighter bombers, Su-30SM, and Su-35S fighters. The LRA strikes in particular, in
combination with naval- and ground-launched fires and electronic warfare effects, were
successful in producing effective SEAD effects against Ukrainian air defenses during the first
three days of the invasion. They have also continued to reliably cause damage to infrastructure
and logistics targets across Ukraine throughout the war. However, the VKS has proven
incapable of effectively conducting DEAD against Ukrainian mobile SAMs or performing
effectively in the close air support role on the battlefield. Both of these deficiencies essentially
boil down to an inability to reliably find, fix, identify, and accurately strike dynamic mobile
targets in a contested air environment. Together, the failures to prosecute a successful DEAD
campaign or be effective as a close air support force have prevented the VKS from exerting a
decisive effect against Ukraine in 2022.

48 For example, see Factor War, “Ukrainian Air Defense Systems Shoot Down a Russian Su-34 During a
Counteroffensive,” YouTube, Oct. 8, 2022, https://youtu.be/4IdUlrARjqI, accessed Dec. 20, 2022.
49 For confirmed losses, see Mitzer and Joost Oliemans, “List of Aircraft Losses.” For early 2022 VKS fleet

acquisition and modernisation totals according to Russian sources, see Bronk, “Developments in Russian Combat
Air Spending,” 89-95.
50 Mitzer and Oliemans, “List of Aircraft Losses.” For Ka-52 fleet size estimates, see Dan Parsons, “Ukraine

Situation Report: Russia’s Ka-52 Attack Helicopter Fleet Has Been Massacred,” The War Zone, Oct. 25, 2022,
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-russias-ka-52-attack-helicopter-fleet-has-
been-massacred, accessed Dec. 20, 2022; for Mi-28 fleet size estimates, see Alexander Mladenov, “Mean Havoc
Rising,” Key Aero, Dec. 24, 2022, https://www.key.aero/article/mean-havoc-rising, accessed Dec. 20, 2022.

CNA Occasional Paper | 11

Explaining VKS Performance Compared to
Pre-war Expectations
The most significant aspect of the VKS performance over Ukraine that had been overlooked or
at least not explicitly predicted by VKS experts before the invasion is the fact that Russian pilots
and planning staff lack the ability to plan, organize, and execute composite air operations
(COMAOs). COMAO is a NATO term used to describe missions where “dissimilar types of
aircraft interact in coordinated actions, to achieve defined military objectives within a given
time and geographical area…normally involving between 20–100 aircraft.”51
The Russian VKS began the invasion with an inventory of around 400 genuinely modern
multirole fighter and fighter-bomber aircraft like the Su-35S, Su-30SM, and Su-34, and another
300 or so heavily modernized legacy types like the Mig-31BM, Su-25SM(3), and Mig-29SMT.52
Therefore most external analysts simply assumed that these technically impressive fleets
would be employed in COMAOs to leverage the combined strengths and compensate for the
weaknesses of each type against Ukraine. This assumption was held despite that fact that the
VKS had never really demonstrated such a capability in practice. For example, over Syria, the
vast majority of Russian sorties were flown by single aircraft or pairs, involving largely fighter
patrols and unguided weapon drops from medium altitude.53 VKS training sorties have also
almost always been flown in small formations or by single aircraft, and largely involve simple
navigation sorties, unguided weapon deliveries on open ranges, ground-controlled
interception tasks, and SAM-target simulation serials.54 Furthermore, the typical Russian fast
jet pilot flew only around 80–100 hours per year before the invasion, and VKS regiments do
not have access to the sort of modern simulator facilities that Western air forces increasingly
rely on for complex synthetic training.55 Together, this lack of exposure to large formation
tactics in training and previous operations, limited live flying training hours for frontline pilots,

51 Pål Kristian Fredriksen, “Interaction in Aerial Warfare: The Role of the Mission Commander in Composite Air
Operations (COMAO),” in G.-E. Torgersen (Ed.), Interaction: ‘Samhandling’ Under Risk. A Step Ahead of the
Unforeseen, (Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, 2018), 481–500,
https://press.nordicopenaccess.no/index.php/noasp/catalog/view/36/175/1742, accessed Dec. 20, 2022.
52 Bronk, “Developments in Russian Combat Air Spending,” 89-101.
53 Author interview with senior NATO air force officer with experience monitoring Russian air operations over

Syria, London, Mar. 16, 2022.

54 Author interview with senior NATO fighter force commander, Helsinki, Feb. 9, 2022.
55 “В командовании Военно-воздушных сил ВКС подвели итоги за 2018 год” [The Command of the Air Force

of the Aerospace Forces Summed up the Results for 2018], Department of Information and Mass Communications
of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Dec. 4, 2018,
https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12206756@egNews, accessed Feb. 11, 2022. See also
Piotr Butowski, Flashpoint Russia: Russia’s Air Power: Capabilities and Structure (Czech Republic: Harpia
Publishing, 2019), 33.

CNA Occasional Paper | 12

and a focus on relatively simple tasks during those training hours explains why the VKS was
not able to fly COMAOs in Ukraine.
COMAOs are absolutely critical to the way that the US and its NATO allies employ airpower in
contested airspace. By combining the capabilities of many different types of combat aircraft
and enablers such as aerial refuelling tankers and airborne warning and control system
(AWACS) and electronic support aircraft, NATO has routinely deployed combat air packages
that are far more capable in aggregate than the sum of their individual parts would suggest.
For example, a typical NATO COMAO during the first week of a campaign against an enemy air
force and air defense network might combine both offensive and defensive fighter sweeps, a
core strike package to force defenses to illuminate and engage, ARM “shooters” such as F-16CM
and electronic jamming and escort aircraft such as the EA-18G for SEAD, and DEAD elements
such as F-35A to locate and physically destroy suppressed SAM systems.56
To enable all the different force elements to safely assemble at an initial point, fly the required
mission, and recover safely with allowances for combat maneuvers, extensive aerial refuelling
would be provided at a safe distance from enemy defenses, and AWACS aircraft would provide
early warning and mission-command/deconfliction functions.57 Because this way of operating
is so central to the US Air Force and its main partner air forces, the extraordinary complexity
of the planning, enabler support provision, and command and control arrangements required
is often overlooked or forgotten by non-practitioners. Below the planning level, flying COMAOs
in a complex and contested environment requires highly experienced weapons instructor
pilots at the squadron level to plan, brief, lead, and then debrief each sortie. It also requires
that regular pilots are trained from basic flying training onwards to execute complex sorties
while adapting their route, fuel calculations, communications planning, and tactical decisions
on the fly so that when enemy action, weather, or mechanical failures change things, they still
hit their assigned rendezvous and weapon release points accurately to within several
seconds.58 This is simply not a skill set that can be quickly learned or backfilled if it is not a core
part of an air force’s training DNA.
Put simply, VKS has never trained its pilots to operate in the relatively independent, mission
command-focused way that RAF, US Air Force, Armée de l’Air or other Western air forces have
always done. Instead, Russian pilots are trained to perform narrower mission profiles under
tighter command and control arrangements in smaller formations. Therefore, when the
invasion of Ukraine began, neither the pilot capacity nor a sufficient understanding among VKS

56 Author interviews with multiple NATO fast jet weapons instructor pilots at RAF Coningsby, July 6–7, 2021; AEE
Orange-Caritat, Aug. 18, 2021; RAF Lakenheath, Sep. 23–24, 2021; RCAF Bagotville, May 24–27, 2022; GAF Laage,
Aug. 16, 2022; RAF Marham, Sep. 20, 2022; RAF Lossiemouth, Nov. 2, 2022.
57 Ibid.
58 Author interviews with multiple NATO fast jet weapons instructor pilots at RAF Coningsby, July 6–7, 2021; AEE

Orange-Caritat, Aug. 18, 2021; RAF Lakenheath, Sep. 23–24, 2021; RCAF Bagotville, May 24–27, 2022; GAF Laage,
Aug. 16, 2022; RAF Marham, Sep. 20, 2022; and RAF Lossiemouth, Nov. 2, 2022.

CNA Occasional Paper | 13

commanders of the practical planning requirements were present to enable COMAOs at scale
to facilitate effective offensive counter-air, SEAD/DEAD, and strike tasks. Instead, as detailed
in the first section, Russian fighters flew CAPs and launched ARMs while individual or pairs of
strike aircraft were sent to hit individual air defense targets.
It should be pointed out at this stage that the inability to conduct COMAOs and, consequently,
the inability to sequence effective SEAD/DEAD operations with effective deep strike and
offensive counter-air sweeps should not have come as a major surprise to Western analysts
given the traditional doctrinal role of the VKS within the Russian military as a whole. Russia
has long relied primarily on its extensive ground-based integrated air defense system (IADS)
to control the air in any conflict with NATO forces. The US and NATO collectively have a fairly
unassailable technology and experience lead in the air-to-air domain. The devastating lethality
of NATO airpower against ground forces once air superiority had been attained has also been
repeatedly demonstrated over Iraq, the Balkans, and Libya. Therefore, Russia has long
doctrinally and financially prioritised denying NATO airpower the ability to operate effectively
rather than the ability to project VKS sorties into defended airspace. By the same token, NATO
has collectively under-invested in GBAD capabilities since the end the of Cold War. Where
Russia has made investments, they have generally been in systems such as Patriot PAC-3 and
THAAD that are optimised for anti-ballistic missile work rather than intercepting combat
aircraft.59 Consequently, the primary high-end threat that the VKS itself had to plan to face was
from NATO fighter aircraft rather than NATO SAM systems. This was a further incentive to
deprioritise investment in the specialist weapons and training required to conduct
SEAD/DEAD effectively at scale.
The observed VKS limitations around close air support (CAS) and battlefield interdiction in
Ukraine should also not have been surprising given the known deficiencies in Russian laser-
and GPS/GLONASS-guided PGMs and targeting pods compared to Western multirole fighters.60
Modern targeting pods such as the Litening III and Sniper are vital to Western CAS tactics as
performed by fighter aircraft and bombers. They provide a sensor with well-stabilised multi-
spectral optics that allow target acquisition, identification, tracking, and designation from a
holding orbit at a sufficient distance and altitude to remain outside the reach of short-range air

59 Paul van Hooft and Lotje Boswinkel, “Surviving the Deadly Skies Integrated Air and Missile Defence 2021–
2035,” The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, Nov. 2021, 1-2, https://hcss.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2021/12/Integrated-Air-and-Missile-Defense-HCSS-Dec-2021.pdf, accessed Dec. 21, 2022.
60 For more information, see Justin Bronk, “Russian and Chinese Combat Air Trends Current Capabilities and

Future Threat Outlook,” RUSI Whitehall Report 3–20, Oct. 2020, 19-23,
https://static.rusi.org/russian_and_chinese_combat_air_trends_whr_final_web_version.pdf, accessed Dec. 20,
2022.

CNA Occasional Paper | 14

defense systems and MANPADS.61 However, despite producing several prototype targeting
pods for potential export customers, the VKS has not bought them for its own fast jet fleets and
so lacks this crucial capability.62
As a dedicated ground-attack aircraft, the Su-34 has a retractable electro-optical sensor with
laser-designation capabilities called “Platan,” but this only provides a limited field of view
forward and downwards and does not include thermal sighting capability for night or bad
weather operations.63 The fixed SOLT-25 sensor on the Su-25SM3 or the Kaira 24 retractable
system on the older Su-24M come with even worse field-of-view limitations, although the
SOLT-25 at least includes an infrared capability.64 In addition to the fixed forward field of view,
Russian optical targeting systems provide significantly worse stabilisation and zoom
performance compared to Western targeting pods, further limiting VKS pilots’ ability to rapidly
find and accurately identify battlefield targets from a safe distance. What this means in practice
is that even dedicated Russian ground-attack aircraft have to fly toward a target area while
trying to locate, identify, and then designate and drop/fire weapons at Ukrainian positions or
vehicles, using sensors with limited bad weather performance, poor stabilisation, and limited
resolution and zoom capabilities. This results in greatly increased time pressure and cockpit
workload and a flight path that increases vulnerability while within effective sensor range of
battlefield targets. For fighters such as the Su-35S and Su-30SM, the situation is even worse,
since the only really viable way to conduct CAS with PGMs against targets that do not show up
on radar or have a known fixed GPS/GLONASS position is to fly toward them while trying to
use an electro-optical or IR sensor on the missile itself to locate, identify, and lock onto targets.
The sensors on missiles are by nature more constrained by cost, space, weight, and power
limitations than those fitted to aircraft or targeting pods, so they provide worse image
resolution, zoom, resolution, and stabilisation. They also have much more limited fields of view
than targeting pods or even systems like Platan or SOLT-25.
In Syria, many of these limitations were mitigated by the fact that the VKS was able to operate
fixed-wing bombing sorties at medium altitude outside the range of MANPADS so that it could
take its time to find, designate, and hit targets. Even then, most of the munitions dropped were

61 Examples of Western targeting pods include the Litening III/V series, Sniper Pod series, and Damocles. See
“LITENING Advanced Targeting Pod,” Northrop Grumman, https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-
do/air/litening-advanced-targeting-pod/, accessed Dec. 21, 2022; “Sniper ATP Superior Targeting Capability,”
Lockheed Martin, https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/sniper.html, accessed Dec. 21, 2022; and
“DAMOCLES Multi-function Targeting Pod,” Thales, https://omnirole-rafale.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/05/Fiche-technique-DAMOCLES.pdf, accessed Dec. 21, 2022.
62 Piotr Butowski, Russia’s Air-Launched Weapons: Russian-Made Aircraft Ordnance Today (Czech

Republic: Harpia Publishing, 2017), 40-41.

63 Thomas Newdick, “All the Crazy Quirks and Features on Russia’s Su-34 Fullback Strike Fighter,” The War Zone,

Jan. 23, 2022, https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43921/all-crazy-quirks-and-features-on-russias-su-34-

fullback-strike-fighter, accessed Dec. 21, 2022.
64 Alexander Mladenov, “Fighting Workhorse,” Key Aero, Apr. 27, 2017, https://www.key.aero/article/fighting-

workhorse, accessed Dec. 21, 2022.

CNA Occasional Paper | 15

unguided bombs, and the targets were primarily fixed fighting positions or besieged urban
areas. The success of the Russian air campaign in Syria largely hinged on the fact that
opposition groups had no way to contest control of the air and were struggling to hold ground
under sustained bombardment with little capacity to maneuver unpredictably. In Ukraine, the
VKS’s inability to destroy Ukrainian mobile SAM systems has prevented them from operating
at altitude beyond the frontlines, and the vulnerability of its jets and helicopters to MANPADS
when flying very low has prevented repeat passes over targets within visual range. In this
context, the VKS’s technical limitations go a long way towards explaining why its relatively
inexperienced crews have struggled to effectively conduct battlefield interdiction or CAS.
Without targeting pods, they can only reliably hit fixed targets pre-identified by friendly troops,
HUMINT sources, or UAVs using standoff weapons or conduct standoff barrages against area
targets with rockets.
Many of these limitations stem not from inherent Russian technological limitations, but from
the fact that the Russian military as a whole has long relied on massed artillery, armored
vehicles, and land-based precision fires for the core of its tactical and operational level
battlefield lethality rather than CAS. Therefore, Russia has not invested heavily in the sort of
sensors, weapons, and pilot training that Western air forces have taken for granted after
decades of counter-insurgency campaigns where airpower provided the majority of deployed
joint force firepower. Consequently, it should not have been a surprise for Western observers
that the VKS proved poor at conducting dynamic CAS and interdiction on the battlefield in
Ukraine.65

VKS Medium- and Long-term Threat Outlook

In assessing the threat posed by the VKS to Ukrainian military fortunes in the ongoing war to
retake territory still illegally occupied by Russian forces, it is crucial to understand why it has
not had a major effect on the ground war so far. First and foremost, it is because of Russia’s
failure to establish control of the air over most of Ukraine, and even over most frontline areas.
This is almost entirely due to the inability of the VKS to fly COMAOs and bring the required mix
of SEAD/DEAD capabilities to bear to reliably suppress, fix, and destroy Ukrainian mobile
SAMs. This is important because it follows that the threat that the VKS can pose to Ukraine in
the ongoing war is almost entirely dependent on whether Ukraine can sustain its GBAD
coverage near the frontlines. Ukraine has lost a significant number of SA-11 and SA-8 SAM

65Previously identified by this author as a VKS limitation pre-invasion in Justin Bronk, “Russian and Chinese
Combat Air Trends,” 19-23, and Justin Bronk, “Developments in Russian Combat Air Spending and Likely
Operational Implications,” in Pentti Forsström (ed.), Russian Concept of War, Management and Use of Military
Power (Helsinki: Finnish National Defence University, 2022), 89-101,
https://doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/185874/Russia%20Seminar%20publication%202022_web.pdf,
accessed Dec. 21, 2022.

CNA Occasional Paper | 16

systems over the course of the war, primarily to artillery, missile, and loitering munition strikes
after being located and designed by Orlan-10 UAVs operated by Russian ground forces.66
Furthermore, Ukraine is increasingly reliant on external missile supplies to keep its Soviet-
made SAM systems combat-effective because of the high rate of ammunition consumption
required to continuously intercept Russian aircraft, UAVs, and cruise missiles throughout the
country.67
Russia’s fighter force has shown that it is more than capable of overmatching Ukrainian fighter
aircraft due to the great disparities in radar and missile performance, as well as superior
Russian numbers and electronic warfare equipment. Furthermore, the VKS attack aircraft
fleets have proven in Syria that they can be brutally effective against fixed defensive positions,
cities, and infrastructure targets if they are able to operate freely at medium altitude.68
Therefore, if Ukraine’s SAM systems cannot be kept resupplied, augmented, and ultimately
replaced by Western partner nations, then the VKS could credibly threaten to overpower the
UkrAF’s remaining fighters and gain control of the airspace over the frontlines in key areas.
This would pose a serious risk to the Ukrainian Army’s ability to sustainably hold fixed
defensive positions, assemble reinforcements and reserve units in rear areas, and safely
marshal ammunition and logistics supplies. However, if Ukraine can maintain its current levels
of tactical and strategic SAM coverage, then it is unlikely that the VKS will be able to
significantly change its fortunes so far into the war.
In terms of a threat to NATO nations in a medium-term context, the Russian airpower picture
remains largely unchanged. The two major Russian military capability areas that threaten the
ability of NATO to establish and exploit air superiority, and thereby credibly defend its
territory in the event of Russian aggression, have always been the IADS and long-range
precision strike capabilities. Both of these capabilities have performed very effectively in
Ukraine.
Russian SAM systems have proven extremely lethal against both Ukrainian aircraft and also, in
many cases, munitions when emplaced and operating within the IADS as doctrinally intended.
From very long-range S-400 launches against low-flying Ukrainian fighters and ground-attack
aircraft guided by exotic radars like the 48Ya6-K1 to medium- and short-range engagements
by SA-17s and SA-15s, Russian SAMs remain the primary killer of Ukrainian fast jets,

66 For details of the Orlan-10, see James Byrne et al., “The Orlan Complex: Tracking the Supply Chains of Russia’s
Most Successful UAV,” RUSI Special Report, Dec. 15, 2022, p. 7-8, https://static.rusi.org/SR-Orlan-complex-web-
final.pdf, accessed Dec. 21, 2022. For confirmed Ukrainian SAM losses, see Stijn Mitzer with Joost Oliemans,
“Attack On Europe: Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The 2022 Russian Invasion Of Ukraine,”
Oryx, Mar. 20, 2022, https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html,
accessed Dec. 18, 2022.
67 Author interviews with UkrAF GBAD commanders, Ukraine, Oct. 2022.
68 Michael Kofman, “Syria and the Russian Armed Forces,” Foreign Policy Research Institute, Sep. 2020, 13-14,

https://www.fpri.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/syria-and-the-russian-armed-forces-kofman.pdf, accessed
Dec. 21, 2022.

CNA Occasional Paper | 17

helicopters, and UAVs.69 Furthermore, despite some success with the AGM-88 HARM missile
since summer 2022, Russian SAM losses in Ukraine remain a small fraction of Russia’s total
inventory.70 As such, the Russian IADS remains a serious threat to NATO’s ability to rapidly
establish control of the air over the battlespace in any medium-term clash. The extent that this
remains the case will depend on whether or not European NATO air forces prioritise the
regeneration the capability to conduct SEAD/DEAD against Russia’s modern, mobile SAM
systems at scale in the coming years.71
In terms of cruise and ballistic missiles, salvos from VKS LRA, ground-based Iskander systems,
and naval platforms have consistently proven accurate enough hit their targets in quantity at
great distances.72 The threat to NATO from the VKS was always primarily cruise missiles and
air-launched quasi-ballistic missiles fired from the LRA Tu-95 and Tu-160 bombers and Mig-
31K modified interceptors, respectively. These assets allow the VKS to credibly threaten NATO
air forces with large salvos of accurate precision-guided missiles against the main operating
bases lacking air defenses that are largely the norm in Europe following decades of
uncontested Western air operations. Against Ukraine, the LRA fleets have consistently
maintained solid readiness and a reliable launch tempo from the first waves of the invasion to
the winter bombardment of Ukrainian power and water infrastructure. These bombardments
have depleted stockpiles, but Russia maintains the ability to produce at least 6 9M723 Iskander
ballistic missiles and around 40 cruise missiles per month, so even a pause of a few years would
allow the VKS to rebuild a sufficient arsenal to cause major damage to NATO bases not
protected by layered GBAD.73 If effective Western sanctions succeed in cutting the flow of key
sub-components to Russian factories, then a key determinant of sustainable re-armament
efforts in this area (and elsewhere) will be the degree to which China steps in to assist with key
components or even whole systems once a ceasefire is reached in Ukraine.74

69 Author interviews with UkrAF aviation commanders and military scientists, Ukraine, Oct. 2022. For more
information, see Justin Bronk with Nick Reynolds and Jack Watling, “The Russian Air War and Ukrainian
Requirements for Air Defence,” RUSI Special Report, Nov. 7, 2022, p. 12-13, https://static.rusi.org/SR-Russian-Air-
War-Ukraine-web-final.pdf, accessed Dec. 16, 2022.
70 For confirmed Russian SAM losses, see Mitzer and Oliemans, “Attack on Europe.”
71 Justin Bronk, “Getting Serious About SEAD: European Air Forces Must Learn from the Failure of the Russian Air

Force over Ukraine,” RUSI Defence Systems, Apr. 6, 2022, https://rusi.org/explore-our-

research/publications/rusi-defence-systems/getting-serious-about-sead-european-air-forces-must-learn-failure-
russian-air-force-over-ukraine, accessed Dec. 21, 2022.
72 Author interviews with UkrAF aviation commanders and military scientists, Ukraine, Oct. 2022. For more

information, see Bronk, Reynolds, and Watling, “The Russian Air War,” 23-34.
73 Ibid. See also General Vadym Skibitsky’s comments in Marc Santora, “Russia Is Using Old Ukrainian Missiles

Against Ukraine, General Says,” The New York Times, Dec. 12, 2022,
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/12/world/europe/russia-ukraine-missiles.html, accessed Dec. 21, 2022.
74 For detailed analysis of the Western components in Russian cruise missiles, see James Byrne et al., “Silicon

Lifeline: Western Electronics at the Heart of Russia’s War Machine,” RUSI Special Report, Aug. 8, 2022,
https://static.rusi.org/RUSI-Silicon-Lifeline-final-updated-web_1.pdf, accessed Dec. 21, 2022.

CNA Occasional Paper | 18

The medium-term threat to European NATO from the VKS fighter, fighter-bomber/ground-
attack, and helicopter gunship fleets should be understood in this context. Ukrainian
experience has confirmed that the VKS is not capable of effective SEAD/DEAD, is not good at
organic CAS or battlefield interdiction, and almost certainly cannot meet the best Western air
superiority types head-on. However, civilian analysts and military intelligence agencies were
likely aware of these facts before the invasion.75 It is unlikely that Russia will be able to fix
many of these deficiencies for the foreseeable future, especially since the skills required to
routinely employ combinations of air assets in COMAOs would require total reform of basic
pilot training and sufficient time for the resulting skills to be promoted up to operational
commander level. The primary threats to European NATO airpower were always Russia’s long-
range precision strike and IADS, and those capabilities have been largely verified as effective
in Ukraine.
Despite poor tactical employment and an unworkable strategic plan, the Russian ground forces
have also proven resilient in the face of terrible losses and able to concentrate vicious massed
artillery and electronic warfare effects when on the attack. In a future frontal, single-axis clash
over disputed territory with NATO forces, the Russian military would not fundamentally need
air superiority to threaten NATO. Instead, it requires the ability to deny NATO air superiority
until ground can be taken with massed artillery firepower, and then nuclear threats can be
made to try to secure those gains. Therefore, the dangerous but not first-class combat air patrol
and strike capabilities against fixed targets that the VKS might bring to any future NATO
confrontation should be seen for what they are: a situationally potent second echelon behind
the primary IADS, long-range precision strike, and massed artillery threats.
In terms of the VKS’s long-term equipment plans, the primary question is whether or not China
ultimately chooses to supply its more modern sensors, targeting pods, PGMs, and air-to-air
missiles to help Russia re-arm after the war. This would require a significant policy change on
both sides, but it is unarguable that Russia will depend on Chinese economic and component
supply support anyway, and that China has a strong geopolitical interest in Russia remaining a
military threat to European security to tie down US and European NATO capabilities away from
the Indo-Pacific. Either way, with a faltering economy likely to remain fragile and under
extensive sanctions, Russia’s own military-industrial complex is likely to fall back on producing
and attempting to modernize existing types. Therefore, the VKS threat is likely to remain
concentrated around its existing bomber, Foxhound, Flanker, and Fullback fleets and the
missiles they carry, rather than vanity programs like the Su-57 Felon, Su-70 Okhotnik-B, or
PAK DA bomber, which are unlikely to see production in large quantities.76

75 For example, see Kofman, “Syria and the Russian Armed Forces,” 13-14, and Bronk, “Russian and Chinese
Combat Air Trends.”
76 For more detailed analysis, see Bronk, “Developments in Russian Combat Air Spending,” 96-100.

CNA Occasional Paper | 19

Abbreviations

ALCMs Air-launched cruise missiles

ATGM Antitank guided missile
AWACs Airborne warning and control system
CAPs Combat Air Patrols
CAS Close air support
COMAO Composite air operations
GBAD ground-based air defense
GLONASS Globalnaya Navigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistem (Russian GPS)
HUMINT Human Intelligence
IADS Integrated air defense system
LRA Long Range Aviation
MANPADS Man-portable air defense systems
PGM Precision-guided munitions
RUSI Royal United Services Institute
SAMS Surface-to-Air Missiles
SEAD/DEAD suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses
SPAAGs self-propelled anti-aircraft guns
STT single-track-target
TWS Track-while-scan
UkrAF Ukrainian Air Force
VKS Russian Aerospace Forces

CNA Occasional Paper | 20

This report was written by CNA’s Strategy, Policy, Plans, and Programs Division (SP3).
SP3 provides strategic and political-military analysis informed by regional expertise to support
operational and policy-level decision-makers across the Department of the Navy, the Office of
the Secretary of Defense, the unified combatant commands, the intelligence community, and
domestic agencies. The division leverages social science research methods, field research,
regional expertise, primary language skills, Track 1.5 partnerships, and policy and operational
experience to support senior decision-makers.

Any copyright in this work is subject to the Government's Unlimited Rights license as defined in DFARS 252.227-7013 and/or DFARS 252.227-7014.
The reproduction of this work for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited. Nongovernmental users may copy and distribute this document
noncommercially, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice is reproduced in all copies. Nongovernmental users may not use technical
measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies they make or distribute. Nongovernmental users may not accept
compensation of any manner in exchange for copies.

All other rights reserved. The provision of this data and/or source code is without warranties or guarantees to the Recipient Party by the Supplying
Party with respect to the intended use of the supplied information. Nor shall the Supplying Party be liable to the Recipient Party for any errors or
omissions in the supplied information.

This report may contain hyperlinks to websites and servers maintained by third parties. CNA does not control, evaluate, endorse, or guarantee content
found in those sites. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for the actions, products, services, and content of those sites or the parties that
operate them.
CNA is a not-for-profit research organization that serves the public interest by providing in-
depth analysis and result-oriented solutions to help government leaders choose the best course
of action in setting policy and managing operations.

IOP-2023-U-035263-Final
3003 Washington Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22201
www.cna.org 703-824-2000