Russia invades Ukraine

[AM9]

Seven months ago European governments were (mostly) fine with buying US-made weapons. Now they are not. What else has changed in that time?

I think you've misunderstood my comments. I was commenting on your agreeing with @Annetts key 's suggestion that a European equivalent to the PAC2 ballistic missile that Ukraine would need, could be developed. Your post suggested that such a development would include an ability to use launch equipment already on the ground there. Sure, Trump can stop )and probably has stopped} any equipment being supplied, but assisting with information is different.Compatibility with ground equipment to and useful degree would need more information from the manufacturers than they are prepared to give. It's just not done unless it is contracted to give away key information, which Trump certainly would not sanction. Even if the [any] president was neutral, US defence industry is only co-operative when it can gain a commercial advantage.

 

[najaB]

Your post suggested that such a development would include an ability to use launch equipment already on the ground there. Sure, Trump can stop )and probably has stopped} any equipment being supplied, but assisting with information is different. Compatibility with ground equipment to and useful degree would need more information from the manufacturers than they are prepared to give.

In much the same way that F-14s were way too advanced for Iran to keep flying without US assistance. Oh, wait...

 

[edwin_m]

Nato encourages interoperability between weapons systems, this as it is obviously useful for military equipment to be interchangeable especially when different countries are fighting alongside each other. A simple example is Nato and other Western-aligned countries using the same cailbre of artillery (apart from remaining Soviet Bloc equipment) which can take each others' shells. A more complicated example is making the HIMARS launcher take pods for GMLRS or ATACMS rockets. I assume there is some sort of interface specification here that suppliers are contractually required to meet, although some of it may just be a single supplier adopting closed standards.

 

[AM9]

Nato encourages interoperability between weapons systems, this as it is obviously useful for military equipment to be interchangeable especially when different countries are fighting alongside each other. A simple example is Nato and other Western-aligned countries using the same cailbre of artillery (apart from remaining Soviet Bloc equipment) which can take each others' shells. A more complicated example is making the HIMARS launcher take pods for GMLRS or ATACMS rockets. I assume there is some sort of interface specification here that suppliers are contractually required to meet, although some of it may just be a single supplier adopting closed standards.

You are correct in terms of many interfaces, e.g mechanical such as physical mounting, and electrical with Mil-Std and Stanag data interface protocols, but scenario and mission loading can differ between different customers of the same equipment can vary, so compatibility at the point of use is not a given.

 

[Three-Nine]

In much the same way that F-14s were way too advanced for Iran to keep flying without US assistance. Oh, wait...

Which is true, with some caveats - Iran was the only foreign customer of the F-14 (indeed, it may not have been built without their funding) and presumably that status involved the supply of parts, manuals, training etc. When they got them, they were indeed one of the worlds most advanced fighter aircraft, but as time went on they were stuck with the original F-14A model (the US Navy being able to update to the later B, and then in small numbers, much improved D) with its original troublesome engines, 1960s/70s electronics (admittedly this would have applied to US models to some extent), presumably the "A" model Phoenix missile (as opposed to the improved "B", though the Iranians supposedly did make good use of them; accounts vary) which they may have started running out of; they were experimenting with putting HAWK surface-to-air missiles on them as a substitute at one point. And exactly how many they keep serviceable at any one point is difficult to ascertain; the F-14 was notoriously maintenance intensive. They were reportedly being kept flying with black market or reproduced parts. It is impressive they kept it going as long as they did, but as time went by... well, "Its been a minute, huh, Mav... "...

 

[Peter C]

I've just seen this story reported by the BBC:

'What's with Russia violating Polish airspace?' - Trump reacts to Moscow drone incursion on Nato ally

Moscow insists it did not plan to hit targets in Poland, after Warsaw says it shot down Russian drones in its airspace.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Poland shoots down Russian drones after 'unprecedented airspace violation'"

Here is the summary on the live reporting page:

Summary
Polish armed forces say Russian drones have been 'downed' - the first time the Nato country has directly engaged Russian assets in its airspace since the Ukraine war started in 2022

Polish and Nato aircraft were deployed, with authorities saying they began operations in Polish airspace early on Wednesday morning

The country's prime minister, Donald Tusk, who was at the scene of the operations, tweeted that an operation "related to multiple violations of Polish airspace" was under way

The scale of the incursion by Russian drones is new territory for Poland - and for Nato, our correspondent in Kyiv writes

Poland also shut down four airports as reports of the objects first emerged

-Peter

 

[styles]

Russia invading Polish airspace now, and being shot down alongside NATO scrambling.

Poland downs drones during airspace intrusion as Russia attacks Ukraine

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk says military defences deployed after ‘multiple violations of Polish airspace’.

www.aljazeera.com

Poland has shot down drones over its territory after repeated violations of its airspace during a Russian aerial attack on neighbouring Ukraine, the Operational Command of the Polish Armed Forces said.

“During today’s attack by the Russian Federation targeting targets in Ukraine, our airspace was repeatedly violated by drones,” the Polish command said in a statement early on Wednesday.

“At the request of the Operational Commander of the Armed Forces, weapons have been used, and operations are under way to locate the downed targets,” the military said.

The army said that Polish and NATO military aircraft had been mobilised to ensure airspace safety.

 

[Peter C]

I've just seen this story reported by the BBC:

'What's with Russia violating Polish airspace?' - Trump reacts to Moscow drone incursion on Nato ally

Moscow insists it did not plan to hit targets in Poland, after Warsaw says it shot down Russian drones in its airspace.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Poland shoots down Russian drones after 'unprecedented airspace violation'"

Here is the summary on the live reporting page:


-Peter

And this may be of interest, posted at 6.53 a.m. on the same BBC News live page:

Poland's military says operation has ended
published at 06:53
06:53
Breaking

Adam Easton
Warsaw Correspondent

The Polish military has ended its military operation after it shot down drones that entered Polish airspace overnight.

Writing on X, it said: "The operations of Polish and allied aviation related to violations of Polish airspace have concluded. The search and localisation of possible impact sites of objects that violated Polish airspace are ongoing.

“With the safety of citizens in mind, we urge that in the event of observing an unknown object or its debris, do not approach, touch, or move it. Such elements may pose a threat and contain hazardous materials. They must be thoroughly inspected by the appropriate services."

-Peter

 

[DustyBin]

From what I’ve read it looks like a very deliberate “test” and as such it was vital these drones were shot down. What follows (if anything) will be interesting, as the loss of a few drones in itself won’t concern the Russians.

 

[Cloud Strife]

From what I’ve read it looks like a very deliberate “test” and as such it was vital these drones were shot down. What follows (if anything) will be interesting, as the loss of a few drones in itself won’t concern the Russians.

It almost certainly was a deliberate attempt to see how NATO would respond, and from what is being said in the Polish media, everything worked as it should. There's conflicting information as to whether the German-supplied Patriots were used or whether they simply engaged their targets, but it seems more likely that the Polish Air Force shot at least two down.

From the information so far, at least one of the drones was intentionally sent deep into Poland, as it crashed in the middle of the country. It may have been intentionally left to see where it would go, as it appears to have run out of fuel rather than being shot down. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that drones and cruise missiles were heading towards the Polish border, but it doesn't seem as if any cruise missiles did cross the border.

Given the location of the shot down drones: in Czosnówka near Biała Podlaska, Mniszków near Opoczno (Łódź Voivodeship), Wyryki in the Lublin Voivodeship, and Cześniki near Zamość, it seems quite clear that these drones were not intended to hit Ukraine, but they were very clearly sent in Poland.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2025 ==

Latest update: it seems that at over 20 drones, possibly at least 23 entered Polish airspace. Not only the Polish Air Force were involved, but also Dutch F-35s, although the Ministry of Defence hasn't confirmed whether the Polish F-16s were also involved.

Some of the provincial Territorial Defences have also been put on a state of readiness, with those closest to the border being on 6 hour call, those in middle being on 12 hours, but with no change in the western provinces.

 

[Annetts key]

It is about time that European NATO countries took the threat from Russia seriously and shot the Russian drones down.

The war by Russia is not simply about grabbing some Ukrainian territory. It's about trying to force the whole of Ukraine to capitulate.

And there is a real risk that Putin will not stop with Ukraine. So this war is about European security. As such, Europe countries should be doing as much as they can to both help themselves and help Ukraine.

At the very least, that includes being ready to take out any Russian drone, missile or aircraft that approaches the airspace of any European NATO country so that as soon as it goes over the border, it gets shot down.

But I still think that the European countries that are part of NATO should go further. They should offer to help Ukraine with dealing with these drone and missile attacks by engaging them over Ukrainian territory. Thus allowing Ukrainian forces to concentrate their own efforts in the central and eastern parts of Ukraine.

 

[brad465]

Ukraine should say Moscow and/or Russian-occupied Donbas is playing host to a number of Hamas members, then the IDF will bomb the area to oblivion.

 

[edwin_m]

It is about time that European NATO countries took the threat from Russia seriously and shot the Russian drones down.

The war by Russia is not simply about grabbing some Ukrainian territory. It's about trying to force the whole of Ukraine to capitulate.

And there is a real risk that Putin will not stop with Ukraine. So this war is about European security. As such, Europe countries should be doing as much as they can to both help themselves and help Ukraine.

At the very least, that includes being ready to take out any Russian drone, missile or aircraft that approaches the airspace of any European NATO country so that as soon as it goes over the border, it gets shot down.

But I still think that the European countries that are part of NATO should go further. They should offer to help Ukraine with dealing with these drone and missile attacks by engaging them over Ukrainian territory. Thus allowing Ukrainian forces to concentrate their own efforts in the central and eastern parts of Ukraine.

I agree this opens the door to that response. Nato (or individual countries) could announce that they reserve the right to shoot down any Russian projectile in Ukrainian airspace that they consider poses a risk of entering their own.

There is however a risk of Western countries using up valuable munitions on these drones, that might be better held back for more serious potential threats. Ukraine tends to deal with drones with relatively cheap and sustainable countermeasures such as rapid-firing guns or interceptor drones, but these are also short-range. So even if Poland or other countries have that capability, they wouldn't be able to employ it much beyond their borders unless they base it on the Ukrainian side.

 

[Cloud Strife]

At the very least, that includes being ready to take out any Russian drone, missile or aircraft that approaches the airspace of any European NATO country so that as soon as it goes over the border, it gets shot down.

By all accounts, NATO has performed admirably last night. Italy sent their monitoring plane down from Estonia, the Dutch F-35s were active, a NATO air tanker was used, and everything seems to have worked exactly as it should. The latest count is that seven drones have been found, so it's clear that NATO is ready and waiting.

But I still think that the European countries that are part of NATO should go further. They should offer to help Ukraine with dealing with these drone and missile attacks by engaging them over Ukrainian territory. Thus allowing Ukrainian forces to concentrate their own efforts in the central and eastern parts of Ukraine.

Absolutely. This should happen without delay, because while protecting the eastern part of Ukraine is more difficult, we can at least deal with threats towards the western oblasts. At the very least, we should be shooting down these drones for target practice at this point.

The frightening thing right now for me isn't a few drones, but the fact that the claim that these are "Ukrainian drones" or "a planned provocation so we will go to war" is being amplified on Polish social media. It's a bit OT, but there's a growing amount of evidence that supporters of the far right in Poland are actually quite afraid of being sent to war, so they're amplifying a lot of Russian propaganda online as a result.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2025 ==

There is however a risk of Western countries using up valuable munitions on these drones, that might be better held back for more serious potential threats. Ukraine tends to deal with drones with relatively cheap and sustainable countermeasures such as rapid-firing guns or interceptor drones, but these are also short-range. So even if Poland or other countries have that capability, they wouldn't be able to employ it much beyond their borders unless they base it on the Ukrainian side.

I think there's no reason why we couldn't go drone hunting with planes. NATO is short on air-to-air combat experience, and there's no reason why we couldn't send relatively cheap to operate Gripens, F-16s, etc to shoot down drones. It would give NATO valuable experience in air combat, and air policing (unlike ground forces) is quite uncontroversial.

 

[edwin_m]

I think there's no reason why we couldn't go drone hunting with planes. NATO is short on air-to-air combat experience, and there's no reason why we couldn't send relatively cheap to operate Gripens, F-16s, etc to shoot down drones. It would give NATO valuable experience in air combat, and air policing (unlike ground forces) is quite uncontroversial.

As long as this doesn't involve depleting supplies of missiles that can't quickly be replaced.

 

[najaB]

As long as this doesn't involve depleting supplies of missiles that can't quickly be replaced.

Drones are relatively slow and fly pretty much straight and level (in comparison to crewed fighters) = literal cannon fodder.

 

[DustyBin]

By all accounts, NATO has performed admirably last night. Italy sent their monitoring plane down from Estonia, the Dutch F-35s were active, a NATO air tanker was used, and everything seems to have worked exactly as it should. The latest count is that seven drones have been found, so it's clear that NATO is ready and waiting.

There was a USAF F-35 visible on FR24 as well (it looked to be refuelling from the NATO tanker) so yes, a good unified response.

Thanks for your insights from “on the ground“ incidentally, very interesting.

 

[Cloud Strife]

As long as this doesn't involve depleting supplies of missiles that can't quickly be replaced.

No need to waste missiles on these drones, they're slow moving and very predictable, you just have to go and hunt them down with standard 20mm ammo that's cheap, quick and easy to replace. Ukraine is doing a good job in general at taking out drones, but Russia appears to be simply trying to overwhelm their air defences by launching a huge amount of them.

The biggest issue is trying to shoot them down without causing casualties on the ground.

There was a USAF F-35 visible on FR24 as well (it looked to be refuelling from the NATO tanker) so yes, a good unified response.

Yes, I wonder what they were doing and if they were actively taking part in the response, or if they were simply in the air to make it clear that they're part of the defensive effort. The eighth drone has now been found, and it seems to be absolutely clear that these drones overflew Belarus on the way.

About the "on the ground" information, the British media is doing a much better job at reporting than the Polish media is! Having said that, some rational political commentors and defence experts are suggesting that the drone that flew west towards the centre of the country may have been disabled through Ukrainian countermeasures, while the other drones could have been overflying Poland in order to avoid Ukrainian defences. This seems quite plausible to me, as Ukraine has been steadily improving their ability to hunt down and destroy these drones, and Russia may have wanted to test whether NATO was capable of destroying them or not.

 

[Tetchytyke]

From what I’ve read it looks like a very deliberate “test” and as such it was vital these drones were shot down.

It almost certainly was a deliberate attempt to see how NATO would respond

Interesting timing too, whilst senior leaders in the US will have been focusing all their energy on tidying up Netanyahu's latest attempt to start World War Three.

 

[35B]

Interesting timing too, whilst senior leaders in the US will have been focusing all their energy on tidying up Netanyahu's latest attempt to start World War Three.

He's not trying to start WWIII, just wouldn't care if he did if it kept his vile coalition in office longer to try to stop justice catching up with him.

 

[Annetts key]

I agree this opens the door to that response. Nato (or individual countries) could announce that they reserve the right to shoot down any Russian projectile in Ukrainian airspace that they consider poses a risk of entering their own.

There is however a risk of Western countries using up valuable munitions on these drones, that might be better held back for more serious potential threats. Ukraine tends to deal with drones with relatively cheap and sustainable countermeasures such as rapid-firing guns or interceptor drones, but these are also short-range. So even if Poland or other countries have that capability, they wouldn't be able to employ it much beyond their borders unless they base it on the Ukrainian side.

As long as this doesn't involve depleting supplies of missiles that can't quickly be replaced.

Using conventional air to air missiles on the non-jet powered drones would indeed be a non-preferred solution and not something that should be done routinely.

NATO countries do need to show that they have the tools to deal with these drones. And continue to develop more effective tools.

High tech weapons are not needed. Indeed, fast modern jet fighters are not the only aircraft systems that are effective. Turboprop aircraft and helicopters with suitable automatic guns can be very effective at shooting the slow moving drones down.

 

[najaB]

Turboprop aircraft and helicopters with suitable automatic guns can be very effective at shooting the slow moving drones down.

I believe that Ukraine has been using small aircraft similar to Cessna 185s to shoot them down.

 

[J663738]

A Yak-52 and someone leaning out with a shotgun!
Plenty of videos of it happening.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Turboprop aircraft and helicopters with suitable automatic guns can be very effective at shooting the slow moving drones down.

I'd actually argue that this is a very good argument for smaller NATO members to develop fleets of small turboprops that can be used for air defence against slow moving drones. Of course it's not realistic that countries like Estonia will have fighter jets, but they can certainly develop their own fleets of turboprops that can also be deployed elsewhere within NATO.

There are plenty of Cessna 185s and the like available for purchase second hand for very little money, and a squadron of 16 turboprops could easily be acquired and converted to military use for no more than $25-30m USD. It would also give those countries a chance to develop pilots with experience of military operations, which could come in very handy in the event of any conflict where there's a need to produce more pilots.

The cost per hour of an F-35 is around $40,000 USD, whereas you can fly a Cessna for about $120 an hour.

 

[edwin_m]

I'd actually argue that this is a very good argument for smaller NATO members to develop fleets of small turboprops that can be used for air defence against slow moving drones. Of course it's not realistic that countries like Estonia will have fighter jets, but they can certainly develop their own fleets of turboprops that can also be deployed elsewhere within NATO.

There are plenty of Cessna 185s and the like available for purchase second hand for very little money, and a squadron of 16 turboprops could easily be acquired and converted to military use for no more than $25-30m USD. It would also give those countries a chance to develop pilots with experience of military operations, which could come in very handy in the event of any conflict where there's a need to produce more pilots.

The cost per hour of an F-35 is around $40,000 USD, whereas you can fly a Cessna for about $120 an hour.

Isn't the trouble there that someone could bring one down with an interceptor drone?

 

[Ediswan]

For reference, Yak-52 and Cessna 185 are both piston engined. Older technology still useful.

 

[najaB]

Isn't the trouble there that someone could bring one down with an interceptor drone?

Yes, but it's unlikely that Russia will be operating interceptor drones deep in Ukrainian territory.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Isn't the trouble there that someone could bring one down with an interceptor drone?

Of course, but these planes are very manoeuvrable. If they're equipped with even rudimentary defences, there's also a good chance that they'll be able to spot and kill an interceptor drone in time.

 

[Killingworth]

Launch 1000 drones, maybe 990 being unarmed decoys diverting defences from the 10 that are aimed at things that matter?

Warfare constantly evolves!

 

[najaB]

Warfare constantly evolves!

That's not really an evolution.

The same principle has been used countless times before. For example ICBMs with MIRVs (multiple independently-targetable re-entry vehicles). While in early days each re-entry vehicle was a viable physics package, these days half or more will be decoys.

The idea being to swamp any anti-ballistic missile defence system since instead of, say, 50 incoming targets all of which are warheads, they now have 100 incoming targets, 50 of which are decoys.