Policing a no-fly zone is nothing new for the RAF. However, patrolling the skies over Ukraine, potentially as part of an armistice between Kyiv and Moscow, would bring far greater dangers than any previous mission in recent history, according to former RAF Tornado pilot Mandy Hickson.
Having flown over Iraq during its most turbulent years, Hickson has experienced the very real threat of missile attacks and flak explosions. Yet, she warns that air-policing over Ukraine would be “way more dangerous and complex” than anything the RAF has faced in decades.
A New Level of Risk
Hickson, one of the first women to fly fast jets for the RAF, flew 45 combat missions over Iraq between 1999 and 2002. In those years, she helped police no-fly zones established after the Gulf War. While there were certainly risks, Hickson explains that Iraq’s outdated air defences meant the RAF had near-total air superiority. The country’s fighter jets were largely destroyed during the Gulf War, and its air force posed little threat.
In contrast, policing Ukraine’s skies would be an entirely different challenge. “The stakes would be much higher,” Hickson says. “Russia’s air capabilities far surpass anything we dealt with in Iraq.”
While Iraq had an ageing fleet and limited weapons systems, Russia boasts advanced fighter jets such as the MiG-31 and Su-35, alongside highly trained pilots and sophisticated air defence systems like the long-range S400 missile batteries. These weapons can engage aircraft from hundreds of miles away, without the need for Russian jets to even approach the Ukrainian border.
The Risk of Escalation
Hickson’s concern isn’t just the technology on Russia’s side. It’s the political and military risks that come with it. A no-fly zone over Ukraine could easily escalate into a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia. “One wrong move and it could go very, very wrong,” she warns. “If it came to blows, it would be seen as an act of war. Russia would likely retaliate, and that could escalate tensions dramatically.”
This sentiment is echoed by defence chiefs who are reportedly considering deploying an airborne “reassurance force” to Ukraine if peace talks between Russia and Ukraine succeed. The idea is to deter further Russian aggression by maintaining a presence in the sky, reducing the need for ground troops. However, the risks associated with this operation would be significant.
A Game of High-Stakes Strategy
The air-policing mission, which could see RAF Typhoon jets patrolling Ukrainian skies, is described by Hickson as the “world’s most dangerous game of chess.” The operation would require the RAF to respond to any air threats, which could come in the form of Russian aircraft or missile systems. But these decisions would be fraught with difficulty.
During her time flying over Iraq, Hickson recalls one incident in which a surface-to-air missile locked onto her Tornado jet. She and her crew managed to evade it using flares, which are decoys designed to confuse heat-seeking missiles. However, in Ukraine, the stakes would be much higher. A similar situation could easily escalate into a major military incident.
Can the RAF Handle It?
While Hickson believes the RAF is more than capable of executing the mission, she has concerns about the resources available. RAF Typhoon jets are versatile and capable, and pilots regularly train with NATO allies in exercises like Red Flag in Nevada. However, Hickson highlights that the RAF has faced years of defence cuts, which have put pressure on its resources.
“There would be a huge logistical effort involved,” Hickson says. “The question is whether the RAF has enough jets, crews, supplies, and support staff to operate in Ukraine while still defending UK and NATO interests.”
The risk of overstretching the RAF’s resources is compounded by the need for extensive air-to-air refuelling, maintenance, and intelligence-gathering to support such a mission. Hickson is concerned that the UK’s reduced defence budget could make sustaining such a mission difficult.
Air Policing or a No-Fly Zone?
The idea of enforcing a full no-fly zone over Ukraine remains uncertain. According to Greg Bagwell, a former RAF Air Marshal, the size of the force needed would depend on the stability of any peace agreement. In a fragile situation, a much larger multinational force might be needed to deter Russian aggression, while a more stable peace might only require a smaller number of aircraft.
At present, the UK’s approach seems to lean towards air policing, a form of rapid-response intervention in which RAF jets are on standby, ready to engage at a moment’s notice. This is a strategy already in use in places like the Baltic States, where RAF Typhoons have intercepted Russian aircraft on multiple occasions.
The Big Question: Is This Feasible?
As UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer prepares for crucial talks in Washington, the future of the RAF’s potential involvement in Ukraine remains unclear. While some reports suggest an airborne reassurance force may be sent, the full scope of the mission, and its associated risks, remain to be seen.
For Hickson, the situation remains a delicate balancing act. While the RAF has the capability to carry out such missions, she warns that the challenges would be immense. “It would be a massive test of our resources and strategy. I wish the Prime Minister luck at the talks, because this is a dangerous game with far-reaching consequences,” she concludes.
