Very interesting. I find it quite odd that the Western EU airforces had F16s with inferior(in range at least) radars even to what Ukrainian Su-27s have. But I believe this data you've presented after my expectations were dashed by the leopard tanks. I remember last year when Western politicians were so defensive about supplying tanks. For me, tanks on the Ukrainian battlefield didn't seem like a big deal considering there were much more smarter systems on the battlefield that Ukraine needed. It didn't make sense why the West didnt supply as many tanks as soon as they could....But, but with the way Western bureaucrats were being defensive I strongly believed that maybe,maybe Western tanks had some secret sauce APS systems and information systems software/hardware that they didn't want to get into Russian hands. But to my shock and horror, all the Western tanks provided are dumb slabs(with some level of compute and networking) of metal not ready for modern conventional warfare.
Couldn't even detect and defend themselves against cheap drones or didn't come with complementary systems capable of doing so. Like why did they even make a big deal about supplying them. Delaying a full year until Russians had caught up with using commercial off the shelf drones and even making them more vulnerable. So when it comes to the jets, I hope the West is looking into these aspects and how they can upgrade these radars before sending them to Ukraine. To fight the battle thats needed. As shown in some of your books, proper Air forces can change tides in battles, like the Zimbabwean air force did in a certain African war.
The tank has been losing its dominance gradually since about 1943 when the panzerfaust appeared in WWII. Next came ATGM (anti-tank guided missiles) and helicopters - together and separately.
Drones are the last stage - and this is the start. Right now, it isn't so much drones killing armoured vehicles, as as it is drones detecting armour for artillery to kill, but increasingly remotely piloted ammunition (kamikaze drones) are resulting in significant losses of armour whenever it is committed.
But make no mistake - some of the western tanks supplied to Ukraine (Leopard 2, Challenger II and Abrams) are usefully superior to those of the Russians in electronics and optics, and way ahead on crew survivability. Hits that would completely wreck a Russian tank and kill all the crew, will see one the above fixable and most if not all the crew alive - and often unharmed.
The leopard 1s, on the other hand, are not so good - quite a lot of these have been donated to Ukraine.
Thanks for the information, I didn't know this. I completely agree/makes sense to me. Maybe they need to be redesigned from the ground up with active protection systems and not simply having them as add ons. I would expect a $10mn armoured fighting vehicle to offer some more sophisticated level of modern protection than a $1mn Maxxpro MRAP. And as you said, drones have even made ground artillery systems even more dangerous. There need to be ways of integrating drones into armoured fighting vehicle's active protection system information loop and even the fire control system. Looking at how Ukrainians and even Russians have at times resorted to tanks as indirect fire, this needs to be looked at more by Western governments. Another thing is I dont think tanks should be manned anymore. I think we need to completely rethink what a lot of these systems actually do and what humans are meant to do on the battlefield. Integrating cheap off the shelf drones with cheap unmanned ground vehicles could be more devastating than current set ups. For $10,000,000 instead of 1 tank you could have 10 or more unmanned ground vehicles capable of defending themselves against a myriad of airborne threats as well as using data from drones controlled by humans or AI to hit targets with higher accuracy.
Nope, F-16 that Ukraine (if) gonna get, will be outdated, almost non usable in modern fighting sh*t. Simply because majority of F-16 that West have is almost non usable outdated sh*t, and because West very, very, super damn very, right to sh*tting their pants, is fearing russia in all possible meanings.
Outside of "putin already lost" narratives that you heared on daily basis from billion stars ex pentagon generals, and other narratives like "NATO can destroy russia in 3 days™", nope, putin doesn't lost this war (yet), not even close to it, and NATO will get major loses in straight war vs russia even if it happens right now.
Closer to the point. West don't want Ukraine to win. Like at all. Maybe in 20 years, when few generations of western politicians will change West will want Ukraine to win, but not in closer future. Western politicians afraid about their ratings, about putin's reaction if Ukraine gets "too much" weapons, about possible war West vs russia, about ecology, economics, christmas holidays and whatever you want else, but not about arming Ukraine to the teeth so Ukraine could win the war in short terms.
You will say like "hey, NATO is super duper military power, tons of fancy modern weapons" and you will be right. "11k, god damnit, tomahawks", and i support you in this copium. But after all this will be used and few hundreds thousands russian soldiers will be dead, what West gonna do with another few hundreds thousands of russian troops, with constant shahed drons spamming NATO cities, and russian AA systems shooting down Western aircrafts here and there, and possible using of nuclear weapons if russians territory get hit by West? Taking major loses (by western meaning), thats what West will be doing. "Oopsie doopsie", huh?
So coming back to your questin, why tanks was a big deal for West and F-16 is even more bigger deal with artificial "problems" popping up out of someone's ass all the time - thats why. West is honestly fears russia, West don't want Ukraine to win in short term to not cause any aggressive reaction from russia, West don't want to be in war with russia, and etc, etc. I know thats all is completely opposite from copium that you hear from western media and western politicians on daily basis, but it is what it is.
And just to nail it, just remember that russian shahed drones hit Romania 5-6 times (with big explosions, bells and whistles) and romanians with germans (they are protecting airspace in Romania) were so terrified about this, that they are not even intercepted the last one. They used their jets to find russian drone, they followed it, but not intercepted, because everyone was afraid to give that order, while drone was 7-8 kms away from Ukrainian border, balls deep in NATO territory. What they did about that is were thinking about evacuate romanians deeper from the villages near ukrainian border. Thats all.
Also few drones were found in Bulgaria, few in other countries, none were intercepted. russian missiles killed two poles farmers - they called it "ukrainian s300 missile". Another russian missile x55 which is capable to carry nuclear warhead (was armed with dull warhead imitator this time), was found right in the middle of Poland. And again, NATO air forces found it, followed it, didn't intercepted it, then was trying to silence it for 6 months like nothing happened at all.
Consuming all this, I'm as ukrainian very doubt that we will get something significant, some "gamechanger" or whatever. Like hell, West can't outproduce North Korea in simple dull shells, wtf are you talking about some F-16 with super long range radars? Not gonna happen.
P.S. HIMARS wasn't game changer itself, but the way UAF were using it was a game changer for a short time.
Dont kid yourself, the US would steam roll this Russian military in a conventional non nuclear war. You haven't seen or felt the weight of US air supremacy. On the other hand, dont be sure about the kinds of F16s Ukraine is going to get. I remember there were doubts Ukraine would get MALDS or PAC3 missiles or MiG 29s could be armed with Western anti radiation missiles. The truth is no one really knows since these things are not set in stone and these details are being worked out as we speak.
To steam roll russian military, US actually need to fight and strike russian territories, which immediately means nuclear war. "Conventional war against russia which is existential threat to the state" is one of the triggers for russia to use nuclear weapons due to their war doctrine since 2000. Thats the reason why US HIMARS were limited to not be capable to hit russian territories, as well as other weapons from other countries were given to Ukraine only if they won't be used to hit russian territories.
In conventional war against russia on Ukraine's or any other country territories, there is not so much the US army can do imo. Like yeah, US army will kill a lot of russians. And? Another enlistment, another few hundred thousands russian troops in 3 months, round two.
Also if US territories won't be hit by russians, there is very low chances that US will be fighting in straight conventional war against russia. Like US obligated to help Taiwan and Israel, including boots on the ground. What we are see now? We see how US parliament can't vote just for some billions for them and went to holidays. Article 5? Not an obligation to send troops at all, it's literally saying "any help that state seem as necessary", which means anything from just bullets and first aid kits, to " 'murica, f*ck yeah!" Holy Crusade.
What did US promised many times before and during russia-Ukraine war? "To protect every inch of NATO territories". Duh oh, NATO territories already were hitted by russians around 10 times and nothing happened. Probably those "inches" were some inches from different NATO.
What other NATO countries can do in conventional war against russia? Not too much tbh. Just lose some territories, lose a lot of people and waiting when, and more importantly praying that big US pappa will come at all to save the day.
I have no doubts that full NATO with US leading other countries into conventional war against russia eventually will win. But even then, it won't be like you said "steam rolling", there will be major loses of NATO troops and civilians. You are losing too many factors except that US just have a lot of cool weapons and big army. Factors like war experience not against enemies who hiding in caves and armed with something more deadly than rusty ak47, like there is not so much you can do against FPV drones at all and spending 1 million dollars missile on 400$ FPV drone will cause just wasting of those AA missiles until they simply ends (and you cant produce 50000 more in a month), there is nothing you can do with russian artillery constantly shelling civillians ans russian troops hiding behind civillians, and many more. And most important factor, that there is no political will in the West to get into conventional war against russia at all. NATO already swallowed up to 10 hits on NATO territories, lied about reason of why two poles farmers died, keep ignoring many obvious warnings that WWIII already started and russia won't stop on Ukraine, and keep believing that just talks can works with terrorists state. Meanwhile spreading bullsh*t about "putin already lost this war". For you, westerners, this war not even started yet. And if you really want to "steam roll" russia, you better to start preparing yesterday, instead of w*nking on populist narratives and believing in Big US Pappa saviour.
Here is some little thing to you to think about. If Trump wins next elections in US, in case of war NATO vs russia, he can simply say "nah, i don't like this, don't want to participate, here, take some first aid kits and helmets, cya" and thats not even breaks article 5. In fact, he will completely fulfil it.
It changes absolutely nothing. russia AA systems and air to air r37 missile is still outrange any possible radar on F-16, as well as any possible weapons on F-16. Plus only 18 F-16 against ±900 russian aircrafts of all kinds plus only god know how much russian AA systems - it's not a thing at all. To make at least tiny difference in air against russians, we need 150-200 F-16 with unlimited ammo for it of all kinds, plus powerful intelligence on the ground and in the air to make it work, plus numerous AA systems on the ground, plus whatever Tom Cooper noticed in this article, and this will be enough just for some limited air operations here and there on frontline with many F-16 shot down, and few months of preparations to make just tiny hole in russians AA systems on the frontlines.
The only difference the new radar will make, is now F-16 will be able to see russian drones and missiles further. Thats all.
May be I am wrong... but Ukarine supposed to receive from Norway, Denmark and Netherland F-16A/B MLU which should be equipped with APG-66(V2) Fire Control Radars (range at least 150 km)
There is a rumour that R-37M was designed to primarily be able to shoot down AWACS and long range bombers and is not very manoeuvrable. How will it fare against a small and agile F-16 ?
First, thanx to article. I personally had no idea about such significant range difference between F-16 and Su-s radars. %)
Second, you say "had to possess a know-how equal to academic degrees in engineering and electro-technics in order to operate technology equipping them". My question - is any particular reasons that the advance of tech itself was not supported by advance in interfaces? Personally, as an engineer I always should take into account operability as one of critical requirements to system.
I dont doubt your personal wat of approaching an engineering projektor, but I must say a lot of engineers dont hold to your standards. But your standards is how it should be done.
Glad to have you posting again. Made a lot of sense. And Even if the conditions are less than ideal how would that improvisert the situation for the one with the shorter range? Cant understand that Logic really. Less than ideal should hurt both. But Just out of curiosity how would an F35 rate on your scale? As we in Norway buss these things I personally can not see any better use for them, but I cannot think they would change things that much.
I'm guessing part 2 will be the problem of Ukraine penetrating the intergrated SAM, EW, and russian DATA link systems with F-16s that aren't compatible and thus not intergrated with the vast majority of GBAD systems that Ukraine has.
Basically the F-16's have pretty much just their own aircraft sensors, and some radio calls from early warning radar to help them build situational awarness, (maybe shared datalink between other F-16s). While the Russians have much more of their systems linked, and can share information, between ground based systems, AWACS, and other fighter aircraft, which paints a much better picture for Russian pilots of the battle field.
It ends up with the Russians having a much bigger force multiplier then just the individual aircraft compared by themselves to each other.
Can you provide any sources for: "Missile ranges cited above are based on confirmed or ‘known’ experiences from air combats of the last 20 years, NOT on advertisments by manufacturers." ?
Thank you. For a leek like me it made sense.
Had a little giggle at the start to be honest.
Thank you for your time Tom
Can’t wait to part 2. What of anything can be done. And will our idiot and cowardly politicians do the right thing?
Gripen can make difference?
Very interesting. I find it quite odd that the Western EU airforces had F16s with inferior(in range at least) radars even to what Ukrainian Su-27s have. But I believe this data you've presented after my expectations were dashed by the leopard tanks. I remember last year when Western politicians were so defensive about supplying tanks. For me, tanks on the Ukrainian battlefield didn't seem like a big deal considering there were much more smarter systems on the battlefield that Ukraine needed. It didn't make sense why the West didnt supply as many tanks as soon as they could....But, but with the way Western bureaucrats were being defensive I strongly believed that maybe,maybe Western tanks had some secret sauce APS systems and information systems software/hardware that they didn't want to get into Russian hands. But to my shock and horror, all the Western tanks provided are dumb slabs(with some level of compute and networking) of metal not ready for modern conventional warfare.
Couldn't even detect and defend themselves against cheap drones or didn't come with complementary systems capable of doing so. Like why did they even make a big deal about supplying them. Delaying a full year until Russians had caught up with using commercial off the shelf drones and even making them more vulnerable. So when it comes to the jets, I hope the West is looking into these aspects and how they can upgrade these radars before sending them to Ukraine. To fight the battle thats needed. As shown in some of your books, proper Air forces can change tides in battles, like the Zimbabwean air force did in a certain African war.
The tank has been losing its dominance gradually since about 1943 when the panzerfaust appeared in WWII. Next came ATGM (anti-tank guided missiles) and helicopters - together and separately.
Drones are the last stage - and this is the start. Right now, it isn't so much drones killing armoured vehicles, as as it is drones detecting armour for artillery to kill, but increasingly remotely piloted ammunition (kamikaze drones) are resulting in significant losses of armour whenever it is committed.
But make no mistake - some of the western tanks supplied to Ukraine (Leopard 2, Challenger II and Abrams) are usefully superior to those of the Russians in electronics and optics, and way ahead on crew survivability. Hits that would completely wreck a Russian tank and kill all the crew, will see one the above fixable and most if not all the crew alive - and often unharmed.
The leopard 1s, on the other hand, are not so good - quite a lot of these have been donated to Ukraine.
Thanks for the information, I didn't know this. I completely agree/makes sense to me. Maybe they need to be redesigned from the ground up with active protection systems and not simply having them as add ons. I would expect a $10mn armoured fighting vehicle to offer some more sophisticated level of modern protection than a $1mn Maxxpro MRAP. And as you said, drones have even made ground artillery systems even more dangerous. There need to be ways of integrating drones into armoured fighting vehicle's active protection system information loop and even the fire control system. Looking at how Ukrainians and even Russians have at times resorted to tanks as indirect fire, this needs to be looked at more by Western governments. Another thing is I dont think tanks should be manned anymore. I think we need to completely rethink what a lot of these systems actually do and what humans are meant to do on the battlefield. Integrating cheap off the shelf drones with cheap unmanned ground vehicles could be more devastating than current set ups. For $10,000,000 instead of 1 tank you could have 10 or more unmanned ground vehicles capable of defending themselves against a myriad of airborne threats as well as using data from drones controlled by humans or AI to hit targets with higher accuracy.
Nope, F-16 that Ukraine (if) gonna get, will be outdated, almost non usable in modern fighting sh*t. Simply because majority of F-16 that West have is almost non usable outdated sh*t, and because West very, very, super damn very, right to sh*tting their pants, is fearing russia in all possible meanings.
Outside of "putin already lost" narratives that you heared on daily basis from billion stars ex pentagon generals, and other narratives like "NATO can destroy russia in 3 days™", nope, putin doesn't lost this war (yet), not even close to it, and NATO will get major loses in straight war vs russia even if it happens right now.
Closer to the point. West don't want Ukraine to win. Like at all. Maybe in 20 years, when few generations of western politicians will change West will want Ukraine to win, but not in closer future. Western politicians afraid about their ratings, about putin's reaction if Ukraine gets "too much" weapons, about possible war West vs russia, about ecology, economics, christmas holidays and whatever you want else, but not about arming Ukraine to the teeth so Ukraine could win the war in short terms.
You will say like "hey, NATO is super duper military power, tons of fancy modern weapons" and you will be right. "11k, god damnit, tomahawks", and i support you in this copium. But after all this will be used and few hundreds thousands russian soldiers will be dead, what West gonna do with another few hundreds thousands of russian troops, with constant shahed drons spamming NATO cities, and russian AA systems shooting down Western aircrafts here and there, and possible using of nuclear weapons if russians territory get hit by West? Taking major loses (by western meaning), thats what West will be doing. "Oopsie doopsie", huh?
So coming back to your questin, why tanks was a big deal for West and F-16 is even more bigger deal with artificial "problems" popping up out of someone's ass all the time - thats why. West is honestly fears russia, West don't want Ukraine to win in short term to not cause any aggressive reaction from russia, West don't want to be in war with russia, and etc, etc. I know thats all is completely opposite from copium that you hear from western media and western politicians on daily basis, but it is what it is.
And just to nail it, just remember that russian shahed drones hit Romania 5-6 times (with big explosions, bells and whistles) and romanians with germans (they are protecting airspace in Romania) were so terrified about this, that they are not even intercepted the last one. They used their jets to find russian drone, they followed it, but not intercepted, because everyone was afraid to give that order, while drone was 7-8 kms away from Ukrainian border, balls deep in NATO territory. What they did about that is were thinking about evacuate romanians deeper from the villages near ukrainian border. Thats all.
Also few drones were found in Bulgaria, few in other countries, none were intercepted. russian missiles killed two poles farmers - they called it "ukrainian s300 missile". Another russian missile x55 which is capable to carry nuclear warhead (was armed with dull warhead imitator this time), was found right in the middle of Poland. And again, NATO air forces found it, followed it, didn't intercepted it, then was trying to silence it for 6 months like nothing happened at all.
Consuming all this, I'm as ukrainian very doubt that we will get something significant, some "gamechanger" or whatever. Like hell, West can't outproduce North Korea in simple dull shells, wtf are you talking about some F-16 with super long range radars? Not gonna happen.
P.S. HIMARS wasn't game changer itself, but the way UAF were using it was a game changer for a short time.
Dont kid yourself, the US would steam roll this Russian military in a conventional non nuclear war. You haven't seen or felt the weight of US air supremacy. On the other hand, dont be sure about the kinds of F16s Ukraine is going to get. I remember there were doubts Ukraine would get MALDS or PAC3 missiles or MiG 29s could be armed with Western anti radiation missiles. The truth is no one really knows since these things are not set in stone and these details are being worked out as we speak.
To steam roll russian military, US actually need to fight and strike russian territories, which immediately means nuclear war. "Conventional war against russia which is existential threat to the state" is one of the triggers for russia to use nuclear weapons due to their war doctrine since 2000. Thats the reason why US HIMARS were limited to not be capable to hit russian territories, as well as other weapons from other countries were given to Ukraine only if they won't be used to hit russian territories.
In conventional war against russia on Ukraine's or any other country territories, there is not so much the US army can do imo. Like yeah, US army will kill a lot of russians. And? Another enlistment, another few hundred thousands russian troops in 3 months, round two.
Also if US territories won't be hit by russians, there is very low chances that US will be fighting in straight conventional war against russia. Like US obligated to help Taiwan and Israel, including boots on the ground. What we are see now? We see how US parliament can't vote just for some billions for them and went to holidays. Article 5? Not an obligation to send troops at all, it's literally saying "any help that state seem as necessary", which means anything from just bullets and first aid kits, to " 'murica, f*ck yeah!" Holy Crusade.
What did US promised many times before and during russia-Ukraine war? "To protect every inch of NATO territories". Duh oh, NATO territories already were hitted by russians around 10 times and nothing happened. Probably those "inches" were some inches from different NATO.
What other NATO countries can do in conventional war against russia? Not too much tbh. Just lose some territories, lose a lot of people and waiting when, and more importantly praying that big US pappa will come at all to save the day.
I have no doubts that full NATO with US leading other countries into conventional war against russia eventually will win. But even then, it won't be like you said "steam rolling", there will be major loses of NATO troops and civilians. You are losing too many factors except that US just have a lot of cool weapons and big army. Factors like war experience not against enemies who hiding in caves and armed with something more deadly than rusty ak47, like there is not so much you can do against FPV drones at all and spending 1 million dollars missile on 400$ FPV drone will cause just wasting of those AA missiles until they simply ends (and you cant produce 50000 more in a month), there is nothing you can do with russian artillery constantly shelling civillians ans russian troops hiding behind civillians, and many more. And most important factor, that there is no political will in the West to get into conventional war against russia at all. NATO already swallowed up to 10 hits on NATO territories, lied about reason of why two poles farmers died, keep ignoring many obvious warnings that WWIII already started and russia won't stop on Ukraine, and keep believing that just talks can works with terrorists state. Meanwhile spreading bullsh*t about "putin already lost this war". For you, westerners, this war not even started yet. And if you really want to "steam roll" russia, you better to start preparing yesterday, instead of w*nking on populist narratives and believing in Big US Pappa saviour.
Here is some little thing to you to think about. If Trump wins next elections in US, in case of war NATO vs russia, he can simply say "nah, i don't like this, don't want to participate, here, take some first aid kits and helmets, cya" and thats not even breaks article 5. In fact, he will completely fulfil it.
News coming out is the radars for the F16s are being changed. I told you not to be so pessimistic.
It changes absolutely nothing. russia AA systems and air to air r37 missile is still outrange any possible radar on F-16, as well as any possible weapons on F-16. Plus only 18 F-16 against ±900 russian aircrafts of all kinds plus only god know how much russian AA systems - it's not a thing at all. To make at least tiny difference in air against russians, we need 150-200 F-16 with unlimited ammo for it of all kinds, plus powerful intelligence on the ground and in the air to make it work, plus numerous AA systems on the ground, plus whatever Tom Cooper noticed in this article, and this will be enough just for some limited air operations here and there on frontline with many F-16 shot down, and few months of preparations to make just tiny hole in russians AA systems on the frontlines.
The only difference the new radar will make, is now F-16 will be able to see russian drones and missiles further. Thats all.
Just be patient and wait to see dont jump to conclusions.
May be I am wrong... but Ukarine supposed to receive from Norway, Denmark and Netherland F-16A/B MLU which should be equipped with APG-66(V2) Fire Control Radars (range at least 150 km)
OK. Stretch that range to 150km. What and how much is that changing?
Not too much...( but better then now. BTW, forgot - thx for thread!
Makes them par with one more Russian aircrafts? Not enough to be a gamechanger in itself.
Just a newbie idea: may it help to evade incoming R37 (i.e. have a few more seconds to react)?
Please, check the Part 2: it's now up. The 'rest' is to follow in the Part 3... ;-)
(Yes, I'm an expert-teaser.)
So the F-16s will not do the job.
I hope part 2 will show some other options - and that politicians will make it happen (please!!)
Not alone. They will probably still be useful, imperfect aircrafts are better than no aircrafts etc.
There is a rumour that R-37M was designed to primarily be able to shoot down AWACS and long range bombers and is not very manoeuvrable. How will it fare against a small and agile F-16 ?
Will be explained in the Part 2. ;-)
Someone knows how to teaser
First, thanx to article. I personally had no idea about such significant range difference between F-16 and Su-s radars. %)
Second, you say "had to possess a know-how equal to academic degrees in engineering and electro-technics in order to operate technology equipping them". My question - is any particular reasons that the advance of tech itself was not supported by advance in interfaces? Personally, as an engineer I always should take into account operability as one of critical requirements to system.
I dont doubt your personal wat of approaching an engineering projektor, but I must say a lot of engineers dont hold to your standards. But your standards is how it should be done.
Glad to have you posting again. Made a lot of sense. And Even if the conditions are less than ideal how would that improvisert the situation for the one with the shorter range? Cant understand that Logic really. Less than ideal should hurt both. But Just out of curiosity how would an F35 rate on your scale? As we in Norway buss these things I personally can not see any better use for them, but I cannot think they would change things that much.
That will be discussed in the Part 2... perhaps even in the Part 3.... ;-)
Great article Tom, thank you.
I'm guessing part 2 will be the problem of Ukraine penetrating the intergrated SAM, EW, and russian DATA link systems with F-16s that aren't compatible and thus not intergrated with the vast majority of GBAD systems that Ukraine has.
Basically the F-16's have pretty much just their own aircraft sensors, and some radio calls from early warning radar to help them build situational awarness, (maybe shared datalink between other F-16s). While the Russians have much more of their systems linked, and can share information, between ground based systems, AWACS, and other fighter aircraft, which paints a much better picture for Russian pilots of the battle field.
It ends up with the Russians having a much bigger force multiplier then just the individual aircraft compared by themselves to each other.
Something of that kind is in preparation: thanks for inspiration!
....probably in Part 3 or 4....
Can you provide any sources for: "Missile ranges cited above are based on confirmed or ‘known’ experiences from air combats of the last 20 years, NOT on advertisments by manufacturers." ?
Sure. I'm just not sure you might 'like' them.
The mass is from my own research over the last 35+ years:
https://www.helion.co.uk/people/tom-cooper.php?sid=de120fcdefa53bce04c72d84b40e298e
Additional info is based on research by other authors for books like:
https://www.helion.co.uk/military-history-books/terror-and-response-the-india-pakistan-proxy-war-2008-2019.php
...or this one:
https://www.helion.co.uk/military-history-books/operation-allied-force-volume-1-air-war-over-serbia-1999.php
Interesting.
Would AN/APG-68 deployed on F16 change the rules of the game significantly?
https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1739004216692134268
That's an old radar, what if they come with the AN/APG-68
"It's the economy, stupid" is, I believe, tightly attributed to political consultant James Carville
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy%2C_stupid?wprov=sfla1