Hello everybody! In the Part 1 of this feature, I’ve emphasised the importance of 'range': the range of radars installed into combat aircraft, and the range of weapons - primarily air-to-air missiles - used to equip them. This prompted many reactions from different readers, each highlighting one or another of what I call ‘sub-factors’ of air combat. And yes: have no doubt, you’re all correct: there are numerous such sub-factors and the outcome of an air combat is not determined solely by the radar- and missile range. Indeed: there are so many sub-factors, alone trying to list all of them would easily fill several books.
Very insightful Tom, I can't thank you enough for everything I've learned from your writings in the last year and a half about warfare in general and air warfare in particular. You're a truly remarkable source of expertise.
Thank you Tom, very interesting. A couple of questions spring to mind... if Ukraine is to receive Link-16 to their F-16s, to what platforms can it connect to? Patriot systems? Are there other systems too? Also, what kind of advantage would this give to them, or is it simply just matching the similar system that Russia operates?
Yes, Patriots, IRIS-T, all associated Western-made radars... probably even to NATO's E-3s orbiting over Poland and Romania, 24/7.
...and yes, lots of other systems, too: there are no limits in this regards. Link-16 is the essence of Western-style aerial warfare for 20+ years, meanwhile.
Depends...there are a LOT of unknows. Will NATO even give link 16 to Ukraine (not gaurenteed)? If they do, will NATO allow those F-16s to then fly close to Russian air space and risk getting shot down over Russian territory?(highly unlikely) How effective will Link 16 be able to keep the uplink to F-16s in an active EW and jamming enviornment (it's significantly less effective if your data stream gets blocked for the critical moments just prior to and during the engagement)
AFAIK, NATO is doing that already - delivering real-time intel - for example during Russian cruise missile strikes. So, not really that new. I would say, NATO will be very keen to prevent any kind of F-16-losses, though, and thus probably try to support their ops as much as possible.
Yep. Not only the cost of replacing them, but every confirmed shot down F-16 is a potential hit for future F-16 weapon sales.
I still think that a large part of the reluctance of sending Leopard 2's and Abrams tanks to Ukraine before was the risk to the impact of future sales once pictures of destroyed tanks started getting posted.
Who cares about F-16-sales - when it's the sales of F-35s that matter, and when some F-16 gets shot down in Ukraine, the Pentagon can march all over the place and say, 'told you so'....?
Dec 20, 2023·edited Dec 20, 2023Liked by Sarcastosaurus
I mean Lockheed Martin owns both, and they're still pumping out F-16s to countries that can't quite afford the F-35, it's basically the modern equivalent to late models of the MiG-21 sold in the late 70's, but I digress.
1. "The importance of surface finish to an aircraft’s radar cross section can be gauged by the Royal Navy’s experience during the Falklands War. As the Task Force exercised while it sailed south, it became clear that there was a significant disparity between the RCS of different individual Sea Harrier airframes. Investigation revealed that this disparity was down to the amount of WD-40 (a spray oil used to repel moisture and inhibit corrosion) applied to the aircraft. Paint contaminated by WD-40 was found to be more reflective of radar energy."
WD-40 - herrlich ))
2. "In Europe, the new Have Glass V paint scheme has been applied by SABCA at its Gosselies (Charleroi) facility, in Belgium. SABCA is responsible for depot-level MRO work on USAF F-16s operated in Europe, and for the maintenance and upgrade of the type from nine different operators."
Dec 20, 2023·edited Dec 20, 2023Liked by Sarcastosaurus
I agree Link 16 capability in the F-16 are absolutely nesscessary for them to have any degree of effectivness, for the reasons mentioned. You can then use the western supplied ground systems (and NATO AWACS that are patroling NATO airspace that decide to just "share" their information with the Ukrainians over the datalink.) To help bulid situational awarness.
The F-16's will still be quite limited though to try and counter Russian Su-35s and MiG-31s. Some major problems the F-16's face is they need fairly long and clean strips to take off and land from as their landing gear is not extremely robust. This means that they will likely need to take off far from the front lines from airbases with significant air defenses protecting them. They will then absolutely need external fuel tanks to effectively make it to the front lines, (and ideally back) which will further increase their radar signature, even if the aircraft itself has radar absorbant coatings (not to mention any actual weapons the aircraft is carrying, as that increases radar cross sections as well). So basically the F-16 has to fly low in order to remain undetected for as long as possible (which burns even more fuel) realistically jettison drop tanks on most engagements (in order to help reduce radar signature, and to help it kinematicly, and those cost money), try to find a target using the datalink, switch on it's own radar last minute, aquire the target, pop up, fire an active guided missile, turn around get low again and run for home.
What I think would possibly work, and it might because the Ukrainians have shown a great degree in adaptability and in taking advantage of Russian complacency, is set up a trap where they bait the Russians. Basically taking advantage of the Russians running predictable CAP patterns with their long range fighter aircraft or with their strike aircraft, and then setting up a trap using DATA link to feed information to the F-16s to set up Giraffe attacks similar to what Iraq did with the Mirage F1, against Iranian F-14s in the Iran Iraq war. These will be highly risky, and will likely result in some F-16 loses in the attempt, but if some are successful that might then require Russia to pull their CAP and strike aircraft even further behind Russian lines and take some pressure off the front lines for the Ukrainians to work with.
Thats all cool, but i doubt F-16 will be used somewhere near frontline at all. russian AA systems like s300/400 can detect and intercept aircrafts on the range up to 300km, russian A50 can see fighters at ± same range, russian r37 missile can intercept aircraft at ± same range. While F-16 operational range is something above 100km. Getting that close to russian AA systems will lead only to destroyed F-16 and killed ukrainian pilot. Usage of F-16 near frontlines possible only if there will be gap in russians AA systems, which is hard to do.
I mean they do find holes (or make them) in it in even now in certain areas from time to time, and any trap mentioned above would require extensive coordination of assests to help surpress and distract both Russian GBAD and CAP assests in orded to make such an attack have even a remote chance of success which is why I mentioned it would still be highly risky, but it does allow some of the capabilities the F-16 does have to try and do something other then shoot down drones and cruise missiles over Ukrainian, which while still useful doesn't really do anything more then what Ukraines MiG-29s and Su-27s already do, except do it a little bit better.
Yeah, and it's done by months of constant hunting on russian AA systems, which won't be possible in nearest future after Ukraine gets F-16, because Western help is lowering and will be even lower by that time. West kinda focusing only on AA systems for almost 1,5 years, I don't think we will get F-16 capable to do something else except intercepting drones and missiles.
Not an expert, but i guess modern modifications of MIG29 and Su27s is better than older modifications of F-16 even in intercepting some drones and missiles. I do not believe Ukraine gonna get some modern modifications of F-16, considering how old and almost unusable other weapons were.
Let's just watch how the West is draining Ukraine, how Russian degenerates are picking apart the European Union and NATO one by one with an ordinary tourist knife)
Thank you, Tom for your educational posts. How do You think, if E-2C Hawkeye is compatible with F-16? I do realize the potential of Kh-31 and R-37, but anyway...
I find your technical stories the most intriguing, and I eagerly anticipate updates on them. Ukraine has requested an upgrade for the F-16, and I'm skeptical about whether it will be implemented or if something like Link-16 will be provided. Regrettably, I've lost some trust in the USA to consistently do what's right, but I remain hopeful for a positive outcome.
Hi Thomas! As a Ukrainian, I understand that the West doesn't owe us anything, but these deliveries seem more like a mockery. If these supplies had come in the first 24 months, it would have boosted morale. However, things are much more challenging now, and I doubt that anything at this point will reach significant results.
You are unfortunately right when saying this would have been more efficient last year. I certainly hope that more aid will help, even now. As to Owing Ukrainia... well I think we do and I also think it is help to self defense. But I am not in a position to change much.
I saw rumors about potential upgrade of AN/APG-66 (V) 2 radar to AN/APG-83 radar.
It would theoretically allow detecting enemy fighter jet at a higher distance than AN/APG-66(V)2.
2.
Unfortunately, F-16 A/B airframe don't have sufficient cooling capacity for 5th generation AN/APG-83 radar.
If installed, 83rd would work at a fraction of full power to avoid overheating. As a result, F-16 AM even in Has Glass paint will likely not be able to detect Su-35S before Su-35S detects it. That is my amateur calculation.
3.
I found online that
- F-16 A/B has radar cross section 5 m2.
- F-16 C has radar cross section 1.2 m2.
- f-16.net says F-16 C/D Block 32 and newer started to put Radiation Absorbent Material on the jet engine inlets, which greatly reduced RCS. I would assume that was part of modification reducing RCS.
4.
My calculation based on Irbis-E spec shows Russian Irbis-E radar can detect target like
- F/A-18 E/F (RCS 1 m2) at 150 km
- F-16C (RCS 1.2 m2) at 165 km .
Irbis-E radar detection range 200 km for a target with 3 m2 RCS.
5.
80-100 km detection range you mentioned, was it for F-16 AM painted with Has Glass paint? The F-16 with 5 m2 RCS before paint?
Or did they put some of the radar absorbent material into F-16 AM during MLU?
6.
I tried to calculate engagement envelopes for various F-16s and F/A-18s to measure their chances against Su-35S with R-37M.
F/A-18 Block 3 with AN/APG-79(V)4 radar will have about the same detection range of 150-155 km. About the same engagement envelope if armed with AIM-260 JATM or MBDA Meteor missiles. ECMs and AESA radar will most likely give an edge to Super Hornet. Egyptians proved that a few years ago.
7.
If Growler or Prowler is shipped to Ukraine together with Super Hornets or F-16s then it will be even better.
8.
Su-35S RCS is estimated 1-3 m2. I don't know which one is correct and calculate for 1 m2 RCS.
My calculation shows
F-18 E/F Block 3 Super Hornet with AN/APG-79(V)4 radar detects Su-35S (RCS 1 m2) at 150 km.
F-16 E/F Block 70/72 with AN/APG 83 radar detects Su-35S (RCS 1 m2) at 110 km.
F-16 C/D Block 50/52 with AN/APG 83 radar detects Su-35S (RCS 1m2) at 90 km (cooling capacity issue, limited radar power).
9.
If Has Glass paint can limit detection range of these F-16s to 80..100 km then it might be possible to deploy F-16 against Su-35S theoretically and pray for EW.
All the other factors play towards Russians the land based early warning systems, S-300 & S-400, A-50, the number of Su-35s or Mig-31 in the air all play towards Russians.
10.
I am trying to assess Has Glass paint factor for both F-16 C/D Block 25, Block 30, 32, 40 and for Super Hornet.
If my calculation is correct, then Irbis-E radar detection range of 80..100 km for means that RCS is reduced down to about 0.25-0.3 m2.
Is that what Has Glass can do?
From original 5 m2 RCS?
What Has Glass could do to Super Hornet or F-16C Block 32 or Block 40?
The reason why I am asking about Block 32 , Block 40 is because they are in storage in the US and I am planning an advocacy campaign to get Ukraine some of those after Supplemental bill is passed.
There is a significant number of retired Block 25s, some number of Block 30, fewer 32, and a few 40.
The chance for getting F/A-18 Block 3 with AN/APG-79(V)4 , AN./ALQ-212 and AIM-260 JATM is very small.
Please help me to figure out what to ask for in order to push Su-34, Su-24 and Su-35 away from Ukraine borders as well as to get air superiority over a limited part of the frontline.
Chance of getting F-35 is even smaller than chance of getting Super Hornets.
F-22 is banned from exports, even though some of them are being retired.
So the question is what's feasible.
Pairing Patriot, IRIS-T or NASAMS radars with F-16 via Link-16 is too dangerous. If they are closer to frontline then 80 km then drone attack is too dangerous. Some advanced Lancet drones reach that far.
F-16s or F/A-18s will have to count on other ISR capabilities and radio communication rather than Link-16.
Basically they are the secret sauce that reduce F-16 RCS by 76% from 5 m2 to 1.2 m2 if used the latest Have Glass V.
Earlier Have Glass I and II are known for a long time and they are less efficient.
So when I was doing my calculation for F-16 C with 1.2 m2 I already used the best possible RCS for F-16.
That means (according to my calculation) that NO F-16 can match Su-35S in radar detection capabilities (if EW is set aside).
And if EW is taken into account the outcome of the combat may or may not change.
F-16 E/F Block 70 has 1.2 m2 RCS.
It can be detected at ~165 km by Irbis-E.
F-16 E/F Block 70 can detect Su-35S with RCS 1 m2 at ~110 km by AN/APG-83 at full power.
Assuming ECM pod is extremely efficient, RWR notifies ECM and it automatically prevents Su-35 to lock-on F-16.
But at this point Su-35 having 50km advantage in detection (not taking into account A-50, SAMs and other Russian aircrafts) can turnaround if ECM pods 131, 184, or 257 appear to be THAT effective.
That is not air superiority, but air parity at best.
I would not risk F-16 pilots to go up high to figure out for sure whether they can reach Su-35 from up high. Whether ALQ-257 ECM is still as efficient as Rafale's ECM.
Of course, RCS of Su-35S could be 3 m2, who knows, and that would be a game changer too, but I would not bet on that unless someone knows the answer.
Ukraine will not have another year to juggle, dance and beg for more donations of newer fighter jets.
Following a Ukrainian writer on Medium, Bogdan Matefi. Today he wrote that:”On December 22, 2023, the Ukrainian Air Force achieved a significant air defense victory by successfully downing three Russian Su-34 fighter-bombers on the southern front.” News to me, but given that today is 22nd of December maybe not so surprising. He also wrote about a system (or several) called FrankenSam, where NATO and Soviet systems were merged. Aptly named at least. Do you have some details on this? Both the drownings and the FrankenSam? Can wait until volume 4 of course.
it seems that they relocated a Patriot battery near Kherson, so covering the left side of Dnipro near Krynky. If true, this gives a good cover against Su-34 and their gliding bombs.
I suppose that the Patriot system is also protected by multiple mid-range and short range layers of GBAD. If Ukraine effectively denies to Russian air force the area, this would permit a crossing of the Dnipro and opening a real bridgehead.
Yes, but that FrankenSam is related to installation of RIM-7 Sea Sparrow (or Aspide/Spada) missiles to Ukrainian Buks. AFAIK, latest shot-downs were all by PAC-2/3s, from very long ranges, too - deployed in the so-called 'Assault Mode', as described earlier this year:
Intersting to reread that section now in the light of this downing. Your case describes a likely, or at least possible scenario of how these planes where shot down. Not something that could be repeated every day, barring some technological breakthrough.
Indeed: the problem is that Ukraine can't risk defences of Kyiv and Odesa by moving parts of its PAC-sites closer to the frontline much more often. In turn, the more time it can't, the more time the Russians get to develop suitable countermeasures.
....and, after all the recent Su-34-losses, they'll be working on these, like mad.
Very insightful Tom, I can't thank you enough for everything I've learned from your writings in the last year and a half about warfare in general and air warfare in particular. You're a truly remarkable source of expertise.
Very much my pleasure.
Thank you Tom, very interesting. A couple of questions spring to mind... if Ukraine is to receive Link-16 to their F-16s, to what platforms can it connect to? Patriot systems? Are there other systems too? Also, what kind of advantage would this give to them, or is it simply just matching the similar system that Russia operates?
Yes, Patriots, IRIS-T, all associated Western-made radars... probably even to NATO's E-3s orbiting over Poland and Romania, 24/7.
...and yes, lots of other systems, too: there are no limits in this regards. Link-16 is the essence of Western-style aerial warfare for 20+ years, meanwhile.
So, there is the possibility that NATO can deliver real time information in real time? Like during the promotion to submarine for the Moscwa.
Depends...there are a LOT of unknows. Will NATO even give link 16 to Ukraine (not gaurenteed)? If they do, will NATO allow those F-16s to then fly close to Russian air space and risk getting shot down over Russian territory?(highly unlikely) How effective will Link 16 be able to keep the uplink to F-16s in an active EW and jamming enviornment (it's significantly less effective if your data stream gets blocked for the critical moments just prior to and during the engagement)
Along with multiple other factors
AFAIK, NATO is doing that already - delivering real-time intel - for example during Russian cruise missile strikes. So, not really that new. I would say, NATO will be very keen to prevent any kind of F-16-losses, though, and thus probably try to support their ops as much as possible.
Yep. Not only the cost of replacing them, but every confirmed shot down F-16 is a potential hit for future F-16 weapon sales.
I still think that a large part of the reluctance of sending Leopard 2's and Abrams tanks to Ukraine before was the risk to the impact of future sales once pictures of destroyed tanks started getting posted.
Who cares about F-16-sales - when it's the sales of F-35s that matter, and when some F-16 gets shot down in Ukraine, the Pentagon can march all over the place and say, 'told you so'....?
I mean Lockheed Martin owns both, and they're still pumping out F-16s to countries that can't quite afford the F-35, it's basically the modern equivalent to late models of the MiG-21 sold in the late 70's, but I digress.
May Ukraine receive some jamming device and may it help them, too?
That will be badly necessary - and then on every single F-16AM.
F16 will be able to deploy MALDs.. which can pretend to be F16s.. to draw russians to use their long range missiles against decoys..
...Part 3 or Part 4... ;-)
1. "The importance of surface finish to an aircraft’s radar cross section can be gauged by the Royal Navy’s experience during the Falklands War. As the Task Force exercised while it sailed south, it became clear that there was a significant disparity between the RCS of different individual Sea Harrier airframes. Investigation revealed that this disparity was down to the amount of WD-40 (a spray oil used to repel moisture and inhibit corrosion) applied to the aircraft. Paint contaminated by WD-40 was found to be more reflective of radar energy."
WD-40 - herrlich ))
2. "In Europe, the new Have Glass V paint scheme has been applied by SABCA at its Gosselies (Charleroi) facility, in Belgium. SABCA is responsible for depot-level MRO work on USAF F-16s operated in Europe, and for the maintenance and upgrade of the type from nine different operators."
🤞🤞
I agree Link 16 capability in the F-16 are absolutely nesscessary for them to have any degree of effectivness, for the reasons mentioned. You can then use the western supplied ground systems (and NATO AWACS that are patroling NATO airspace that decide to just "share" their information with the Ukrainians over the datalink.) To help bulid situational awarness.
The F-16's will still be quite limited though to try and counter Russian Su-35s and MiG-31s. Some major problems the F-16's face is they need fairly long and clean strips to take off and land from as their landing gear is not extremely robust. This means that they will likely need to take off far from the front lines from airbases with significant air defenses protecting them. They will then absolutely need external fuel tanks to effectively make it to the front lines, (and ideally back) which will further increase their radar signature, even if the aircraft itself has radar absorbant coatings (not to mention any actual weapons the aircraft is carrying, as that increases radar cross sections as well). So basically the F-16 has to fly low in order to remain undetected for as long as possible (which burns even more fuel) realistically jettison drop tanks on most engagements (in order to help reduce radar signature, and to help it kinematicly, and those cost money), try to find a target using the datalink, switch on it's own radar last minute, aquire the target, pop up, fire an active guided missile, turn around get low again and run for home.
What I think would possibly work, and it might because the Ukrainians have shown a great degree in adaptability and in taking advantage of Russian complacency, is set up a trap where they bait the Russians. Basically taking advantage of the Russians running predictable CAP patterns with their long range fighter aircraft or with their strike aircraft, and then setting up a trap using DATA link to feed information to the F-16s to set up Giraffe attacks similar to what Iraq did with the Mirage F1, against Iranian F-14s in the Iran Iraq war. These will be highly risky, and will likely result in some F-16 loses in the attempt, but if some are successful that might then require Russia to pull their CAP and strike aircraft even further behind Russian lines and take some pressure off the front lines for the Ukrainians to work with.
Thats all cool, but i doubt F-16 will be used somewhere near frontline at all. russian AA systems like s300/400 can detect and intercept aircrafts on the range up to 300km, russian A50 can see fighters at ± same range, russian r37 missile can intercept aircraft at ± same range. While F-16 operational range is something above 100km. Getting that close to russian AA systems will lead only to destroyed F-16 and killed ukrainian pilot. Usage of F-16 near frontlines possible only if there will be gap in russians AA systems, which is hard to do.
I mean they do find holes (or make them) in it in even now in certain areas from time to time, and any trap mentioned above would require extensive coordination of assests to help surpress and distract both Russian GBAD and CAP assests in orded to make such an attack have even a remote chance of success which is why I mentioned it would still be highly risky, but it does allow some of the capabilities the F-16 does have to try and do something other then shoot down drones and cruise missiles over Ukrainian, which while still useful doesn't really do anything more then what Ukraines MiG-29s and Su-27s already do, except do it a little bit better.
Yeah, and it's done by months of constant hunting on russian AA systems, which won't be possible in nearest future after Ukraine gets F-16, because Western help is lowering and will be even lower by that time. West kinda focusing only on AA systems for almost 1,5 years, I don't think we will get F-16 capable to do something else except intercepting drones and missiles.
Not an expert, but i guess modern modifications of MIG29 and Su27s is better than older modifications of F-16 even in intercepting some drones and missiles. I do not believe Ukraine gonna get some modern modifications of F-16, considering how old and almost unusable other weapons were.
Let's just watch how the West is draining Ukraine, how Russian degenerates are picking apart the European Union and NATO one by one with an ordinary tourist knife)
Many thanks Tom, highly interesting!
“As should be well-known (well, one can never know in these ‘post-factual times’), essential physical laws are those of gravity, and kinetic energy.”
This made my day though 😂
Thank you, Tom for your educational posts. How do You think, if E-2C Hawkeye is compatible with F-16? I do realize the potential of Kh-31 and R-37, but anyway...
Of course, the E-2 is compatible with the Link-16 - and via it any E-2 can also communicate to F-16s.
But, Ukraine is not going to get E-2s.
For a rough example of what Link 16 would look like and give to the F-16 you can see from this.
https://youtu.be/y2uXtaa9z-U?si=193syb2bo50bPyQp
Now this is from a video game so it's not going to be like this in real life nessesarily, but it at least gives a general idea.
I find your technical stories the most intriguing, and I eagerly anticipate updates on them. Ukraine has requested an upgrade for the F-16, and I'm skeptical about whether it will be implemented or if something like Link-16 will be provided. Regrettably, I've lost some trust in the USA to consistently do what's right, but I remain hopeful for a positive outcome.
Very insightful thank you.
Hi Thomas! As a Ukrainian, I understand that the West doesn't owe us anything, but these deliveries seem more like a mockery. If these supplies had come in the first 24 months, it would have boosted morale. However, things are much more challenging now, and I doubt that anything at this point will reach significant results.
You are unfortunately right when saying this would have been more efficient last year. I certainly hope that more aid will help, even now. As to Owing Ukrainia... well I think we do and I also think it is help to self defense. But I am not in a position to change much.
Thanks for this Tom! You are not Only an expert, You have the capacity to explain this to non military normal guys like me! Thanks for this!
1.
I saw rumors about potential upgrade of AN/APG-66 (V) 2 radar to AN/APG-83 radar.
It would theoretically allow detecting enemy fighter jet at a higher distance than AN/APG-66(V)2.
2.
Unfortunately, F-16 A/B airframe don't have sufficient cooling capacity for 5th generation AN/APG-83 radar.
If installed, 83rd would work at a fraction of full power to avoid overheating. As a result, F-16 AM even in Has Glass paint will likely not be able to detect Su-35S before Su-35S detects it. That is my amateur calculation.
3.
I found online that
- F-16 A/B has radar cross section 5 m2.
- F-16 C has radar cross section 1.2 m2.
- f-16.net says F-16 C/D Block 32 and newer started to put Radiation Absorbent Material on the jet engine inlets, which greatly reduced RCS. I would assume that was part of modification reducing RCS.
4.
My calculation based on Irbis-E spec shows Russian Irbis-E radar can detect target like
- F/A-18 E/F (RCS 1 m2) at 150 km
- F-16C (RCS 1.2 m2) at 165 km .
Irbis-E radar detection range 200 km for a target with 3 m2 RCS.
5.
80-100 km detection range you mentioned, was it for F-16 AM painted with Has Glass paint? The F-16 with 5 m2 RCS before paint?
Or did they put some of the radar absorbent material into F-16 AM during MLU?
6.
I tried to calculate engagement envelopes for various F-16s and F/A-18s to measure their chances against Su-35S with R-37M.
F/A-18 Block 3 with AN/APG-79(V)4 radar will have about the same detection range of 150-155 km. About the same engagement envelope if armed with AIM-260 JATM or MBDA Meteor missiles. ECMs and AESA radar will most likely give an edge to Super Hornet. Egyptians proved that a few years ago.
7.
If Growler or Prowler is shipped to Ukraine together with Super Hornets or F-16s then it will be even better.
8.
Su-35S RCS is estimated 1-3 m2. I don't know which one is correct and calculate for 1 m2 RCS.
My calculation shows
F-18 E/F Block 3 Super Hornet with AN/APG-79(V)4 radar detects Su-35S (RCS 1 m2) at 150 km.
F-16 E/F Block 70/72 with AN/APG 83 radar detects Su-35S (RCS 1 m2) at 110 km.
F-16 C/D Block 50/52 with AN/APG 83 radar detects Su-35S (RCS 1m2) at 90 km (cooling capacity issue, limited radar power).
9.
If Has Glass paint can limit detection range of these F-16s to 80..100 km then it might be possible to deploy F-16 against Su-35S theoretically and pray for EW.
All the other factors play towards Russians the land based early warning systems, S-300 & S-400, A-50, the number of Su-35s or Mig-31 in the air all play towards Russians.
10.
I am trying to assess Has Glass paint factor for both F-16 C/D Block 25, Block 30, 32, 40 and for Super Hornet.
If my calculation is correct, then Irbis-E radar detection range of 80..100 km for means that RCS is reduced down to about 0.25-0.3 m2.
Is that what Has Glass can do?
From original 5 m2 RCS?
What Has Glass could do to Super Hornet or F-16C Block 32 or Block 40?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottomline
The reason why I am asking about Block 32 , Block 40 is because they are in storage in the US and I am planning an advocacy campaign to get Ukraine some of those after Supplemental bill is passed.
There is a significant number of retired Block 25s, some number of Block 30, fewer 32, and a few 40.
The chance for getting F/A-18 Block 3 with AN/APG-79(V)4 , AN./ALQ-212 and AIM-260 JATM is very small.
Please help me to figure out what to ask for in order to push Su-34, Su-24 and Su-35 away from Ukraine borders as well as to get air superiority over a limited part of the frontline.
Chance of getting F-35 is even smaller than chance of getting Super Hornets.
F-22 is banned from exports, even though some of them are being retired.
So the question is what's feasible.
Pairing Patriot, IRIS-T or NASAMS radars with F-16 via Link-16 is too dangerous. If they are closer to frontline then 80 km then drone attack is too dangerous. Some advanced Lancet drones reach that far.
F-16s or F/A-18s will have to count on other ISR capabilities and radio communication rather than Link-16.
Learned a bit about Have Glass I, II , V and Radar Absorbing Materials (RAM) used near air inlets.
https://gunpowdermagazine.com/have-glass-v-f-16-stealth-modifications/
Basically they are the secret sauce that reduce F-16 RCS by 76% from 5 m2 to 1.2 m2 if used the latest Have Glass V.
Earlier Have Glass I and II are known for a long time and they are less efficient.
So when I was doing my calculation for F-16 C with 1.2 m2 I already used the best possible RCS for F-16.
That means (according to my calculation) that NO F-16 can match Su-35S in radar detection capabilities (if EW is set aside).
And if EW is taken into account the outcome of the combat may or may not change.
F-16 E/F Block 70 has 1.2 m2 RCS.
It can be detected at ~165 km by Irbis-E.
F-16 E/F Block 70 can detect Su-35S with RCS 1 m2 at ~110 km by AN/APG-83 at full power.
Assuming ECM pod is extremely efficient, RWR notifies ECM and it automatically prevents Su-35 to lock-on F-16.
But at this point Su-35 having 50km advantage in detection (not taking into account A-50, SAMs and other Russian aircrafts) can turnaround if ECM pods 131, 184, or 257 appear to be THAT effective.
That is not air superiority, but air parity at best.
I would not risk F-16 pilots to go up high to figure out for sure whether they can reach Su-35 from up high. Whether ALQ-257 ECM is still as efficient as Rafale's ECM.
Of course, RCS of Su-35S could be 3 m2, who knows, and that would be a game changer too, but I would not bet on that unless someone knows the answer.
Ukraine will not have another year to juggle, dance and beg for more donations of newer fighter jets.
My conclusion is that Ukraine needs
- 300-km ATACMS,
- JASSM,
- SLAM-ER,
- AGM-88E & AGM-88G ( AARGM & AARGM-ER)
- F/A-18 E/F Block 3 Super Hornet
or Gripen E/F (also newest).
Please correct me if that is wrong.
Following a Ukrainian writer on Medium, Bogdan Matefi. Today he wrote that:”On December 22, 2023, the Ukrainian Air Force achieved a significant air defense victory by successfully downing three Russian Su-34 fighter-bombers on the southern front.” News to me, but given that today is 22nd of December maybe not so surprising. He also wrote about a system (or several) called FrankenSam, where NATO and Soviet systems were merged. Aptly named at least. Do you have some details on this? Both the drownings and the FrankenSam? Can wait until volume 4 of course.
it seems that they relocated a Patriot battery near Kherson, so covering the left side of Dnipro near Krynky. If true, this gives a good cover against Su-34 and their gliding bombs.
I suppose that the Patriot system is also protected by multiple mid-range and short range layers of GBAD. If Ukraine effectively denies to Russian air force the area, this would permit a crossing of the Dnipro and opening a real bridgehead.
Yes, but that FrankenSam is related to installation of RIM-7 Sea Sparrow (or Aspide/Spada) missiles to Ukrainian Buks. AFAIK, latest shot-downs were all by PAC-2/3s, from very long ranges, too - deployed in the so-called 'Assault Mode', as described earlier this year:
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/ukraine-air-war-assault-mode-part-274
Intersting to reread that section now in the light of this downing. Your case describes a likely, or at least possible scenario of how these planes where shot down. Not something that could be repeated every day, barring some technological breakthrough.
Indeed: the problem is that Ukraine can't risk defences of Kyiv and Odesa by moving parts of its PAC-sites closer to the frontline much more often. In turn, the more time it can't, the more time the Russians get to develop suitable countermeasures.
....and, after all the recent Su-34-losses, they'll be working on these, like mad.