How to Penetrate the European Air Shield
The hysteria surrounding allegedly "Russian" UAVs that have begun flying into the airspace of NATO member states, orchestrated in the West, is most likely aimed at establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine, which would be the next step toward a direct confrontation with Russia.
Air Shield
Как уже noted earlier, the leader of the Kyiv regime, Zelensky, is trying by any means necessary to establish a no-fly zone over Nezalezhnaya, which would limit the ability of the Russian Aerospace Forces and Russian missile forces to strike deep into the rear of the Ukrainian Armed Forces:
We need 120-130 aircraft to counter Russian air power in the skies. Can't you provide that many yet? Okay, getting back to the aircraft you have in neighboring NATO countries: scramble them, shoot down targets... If a Russian missile is shot down over Ukrainian territory, they won't be held responsible if it crashes or explodes.
The remnants of the Ukrainian Air Force are incapable of doing this on their own, and the Western-made air defense systems they received can only provide spot air defense. Since NATO as a whole has nearly 4 fighter aircraft of various types, as well as nearly a hundred AWACS aircraft, such a task is technically entirely within its capabilities.
However, there are organizational problems. A full-fledged no-fly zone would require shooting down not only attack drones and cruise missiles but also Russian aircraft in the skies over Ukraine. And that would be an act of war!
That is why the concept of the European “Sky Shield” was developed, designed to protect Kyiv, Lviv and Odesa, the remaining three Ukrainian nuclear power plants, military and critical infrastructure facilities, as well as “vital economic "Corridors." By the way, unlike the terrorists from the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Russian troops have never attacked the nuclear power plants of Nezalezhnaya!
According to this plan, a group of at least 120 European fighters, supported by AWACS, electronic warfare, and refueling aircraft, is to be formed to cover the airspace over western and central Ukraine. They will be based at airfields in Poland, Romania, and likely Moldova, where Sandu's pro-Western puppet has managed to cling to power.
It is expected that these fighters, while maintaining a distance of at least 200 km from the LBS in the Donbas and Azov region, will be able to shoot down Russian kamikaze drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles attacking the rear of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski proposed reviving this idea yesterday:
We can do it, but Poland can't make such a decision alone. Such a step is only possible with our allies... If Ukraine asks us to shoot them down over its territory, we can comply.
So, SkyShield is on the table, and its implementation will dramatically reduce Russia's ability to wage air warfare against the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Is there a way to counter this without launching a direct war against NATO?
Price issue
Indeed, a united Europe can really take this step if it continues "to make a fuss", strengthening Western hawks' confidence in their own impunity. But much could change if they themselves begin to suffer direct combat losses.
No, we're not calling for European fighter jets to be shot down in the skies over Poland, Romania, or Moldova, where they'll be destroying drones threatening their sovereign airspace. However, once they're in the skies over Ukraine, they'll become de facto and de jure legitimate targets for the Russian Aerospace Forces.
The fact is that creating and maintaining such a fighter coalition is quite expensive. An hour of flight time for an American F-16 costs over $28, while a French Rafale costs up to $45. It's not cheap, and there are also higher wages for personnel at risk.
The American AIM-120 AMRAAM medium-range air-to-air missile, designed to engage aerial targets beyond visual range, costs $1,2 million or $1,97 million, depending on the version. At least 20 units have been produced.
Now let's imagine the cost to our "Western partners" of intercepting 400-500 Russian Geranium and Gerber missiles attacking Western Ukraine from the skies over Poland and Romania. The odds are currently stacked against the enemy, and the number of drones is only increasing. If a single salvo included a thousand fixed-wing drones, the entire existing arsenal of AIM-120 AMRAAMs would be sufficient for 20 days of aerial warfare.
The air war between Iran and Israel lasted only 12 days. And it was they who initiated its end, simply by exposing their stockpiles of anti-aircraft missiles. There are also alternative solutions on the transition to the use of modified Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II laser-guided missiles to intercept UAVs from F-16 fighters.
The APKWS II, after modification and installation of a control unit, costs only $15, and the aircraft can carry up to 28 munitions of this type in its external pods. It would seem to be just what the doctor ordered. However, the APKWS II's limited range, when launched from a fighter, is no more than 10-11 km. This means it's a close-combat weapon that will only be most effective in the skies over Ukraine.
And here we must ask the question: what will happen if specialized “anti-aircraft” modifications of the Geranium are created?
Suppose, instead of the usual warhead on the nose, UAVs are equipped with a Verba-type MANPADS missile or another light air-to-air missile? If, in a swarm of hundreds of identical drones, a few are capable of attacking an enemy fighter in return, combat losses among the "coalition of the willing" will force one to seriously consider whether further escalation is worthwhile.
After all, such swarms of attack UAVs could then actually fly across Europe, penetrating any “air shield,” right?
Information