Thanks for report. All hope on f 16 to shot down su 34 and 35 is nonsense for me , because they should be block 70+ to do something. I personally hope that they will counter VKS indirectly increasing a number of Kabs(Jdams) from Ukrainian side. It would not protect Ukrainian troops, but cause more Russian attrition. 12 strikes against 120 is worse than 25-40 against 120.
A few questions:
1. In your opinion, how many Patriot batteries do Ukraine need to reduce VKS front activity( only front not protect cities)?
2. Jas 39 Gripen is also an option. How would one escadrille influence the problem on at least one piece of front( like Bahmut) ?
3. Why don't Russian attacks Dnipro bridges? They would need a lot of missles, but Russia wanted much more on energetics, whereas bridges collapse would have bigger front effect?
Without long range missiles like the MBDA Meteor, it's not easy to gain air superiority over the skies of Ukraine. The Gripen can use that missile, but getting an export license from the USA (due to jet engine and other American parts used) may be a real problem
The F-16 hasn't been certified for use with the Meteor.
Thanks Tom, I consider yesterday's question answered . . .
Now, the hard data, taking into account the number of 120 UMPK deployed in a single day, we are talking about a minimum of 30 daily bomber sorties (4 UMPK x SU-34), a number that triples the number of f-16s available, in The best case
Funny, I was having a conversation about this tonight with another friend who is a big airplane specialist (he works civil aviation and spent 30 years as a Blackhawk Mechanic in the NG). We were talking about how could Ukraine maximize the F-16s. The best idea we came up with was holding them until they had enough numbers to make a difference, and then holding them until the UA was ready for a major operation and let them go then to maximize the surprise and effect. I have to wonder though about how well can the RU actually engage at max range. That rarely happens in real life, but it can be done. The issue though is that even if not at max range they still have enough range to outrange the UA stuff (at least what they have now). It would be nice to get some Gripens with Meteors in the mix, and again, holding them until everything is in place. I expect ideas are already in the works for countering these weapons or for getting the most out of things.
I find it hard to believe that for the past 40 years, the USSR/Russia has had the ability to snipe US planes from long-rage, with the US airforce being unable to retaliate, and the Pentagon was somehow chill about it and didn't bother developing a countermeasure.
I'm far from the "US technology is the best" mindset, and the idea that 10 or so F-16 will turn the tide of the air war always sounded silly. But I just cannot imagine the Pentagon tolerating such air-to-air range inferiority against a major rival, for so long, it goes completely agains US doctrine. So there must be more to this story, maybe they're confident the AIM-120 has more range than it has demonstrated so far in practice?
That has been an interesting question for me as well, but you can also consider that from the Russian perspective, the inferiority of their own force at intermediate combat ranges is exactly what pushed them to invest in long-range AAM. The same dynamic must be at play in the historical Soviet investment, in long-range SAM, an advantage the US was seemingly always happy to allow the USSR to retain. Except in the anti-ballistic domain, which may have been perceived as the real threat to US assets.
I don't know USAF doctrine, but regarding the AAM gap they may have had an expectation that superior numbers, tactical integration/training, radar, and countermeasures would allow them to overwhelm Russian Mig-31 or Su-35 engaging at extreme range, with few losses. But I'm just speculating. The bottom line is that for over 30 years there just hasn't been a strong incentive to close any gaps on this variable. To the extent the US has been giving the issue more attention in recent years, such as with the JTAM, to my knowledge it's been more out of a focus on prospective South China Sea engagements than as a reaction to Russian technology.
As a tangent, I have heard that as a rule one should expect ranges on any American missile to be greater in practice than are advertised.
That's all quite reasonable, so is the theory that stealth was the counter. But the US isn't reasonable. Anything less than air dominance isn't acceptable, because from their point of view air dominance is what makes their extremely expensive carriers make sense, and also how they compensate perceived USSR/Russia ground force superiority. (of course I'm referencing the perception prior to this war)
Even a chance of USSR/Russia arcraft being able to outrange the US pre-stealth fleet and score a hit would make any Pentagon official sick. And it's not like there's secret technology involved - from what I've read the principle behind big missles with lots of fuel is behind the older retired generation of US long-range missles.
So my guess would be that indeed the AIM120 range is greater than advertized, and would have something close to parity with what the Russians are using. But I guess we'll see in a few months either way.
I also think the performance of our F16s is much greater than advertised honestly. Similar situation with the Patriot system. The question is whether the Ukrainians will get similar avionics, support aircraft, missiles, etc.
As far as I remember some of Toms analysis in the past, successful air to air combat isn't just about the range of the missiles, but also about the radar and target identification. US didn't just sit around for 40 years, they built the F-35 with IMHO still superior radar/electronics (and the AIM 120-D). However Russian R-37 are relatively new (start of service 2018), thus specifics were unknown before and it might be that Russia has now a superiority in this aspect. War is always speeding up development of new weapons and it is also always a competition to counter enemy superiority or getting some superiority by developping something new. You should never underestimate your enemy. That's a lesson the Russians learned against Ukraine and hopefully the US is learning now against Russia.
This "superiority" might be short lived as US is developing AIM-260 that is compatible with AIM-120 launch platforms in terms of size. For example F-22 internal bays tho F-22 will also receive stealth fuel tanks and pods from a separate upgrade program to extend it's range and capabilities. From Wiki:
The AIM-260 program began in 2017 in response to long-range missiles developed by potential adversaries, specifically the Chinese PL-15. FSAT testing for the JATM was confirmed to have started as early as April 2020, and testing in general for the missile is currently ongoing. It is yet to achieve initial operational capability (IOC). The AIM-260 production is expected to overtake AIM-120 production by 2026.
Of course i dont expect Ukraine to receive any AIM-260 unless US wants to test those under real war conditions...
I don't expect the US would do that, considering their reluctance to do pretty much anything lately. But if the AMRAAM inferiority is indeed a fact I wonder if the EU will give them some Meteors and try to help integrate them with the F16s. Of course it's a small chance at it may not be technically or politically possible but who knows.
Yes i agree. It's much more likely for Ukraine to get some Meteor's instead. I doubt the integration is a big issue. I mean they managed to somehow make western cruise and anti-radar missiles work with old soviet jets. Tho from what i understand these are programmed on ground and the pilot just launches these. Still it was a great achievement as many people thought it would be impossible. I just hope the F-16's Ukraine receives also have a newer AESA radar - at least some of them.
Speaking of F-16s, the old dream scenario of mercenary ("Flying Tiger") squadrons flying in from Poland was always impractical, right? For all the same reasons currently limiting the utility of any aircraft under direct PSU control. Plus the difficulty of operational integration with pilots and crews who don't speak Ukrainian and don't exist within the standard hierarchy, working on airbases outside PSU management. Plus the limiting effect on mission set when adding hundreds of kilometers of travel to each sortie.
I bet they tried. But Su-24 was designed to fly low, so possibly it comes undetected as close as possible at low altitude, launches the missiles and goes back at the same low altitude.
Not only the ZSU/GUR are not attacking Russian airbases with drones, they have greatly reduced the number of such attacks - the last was a hit on coal plant (even less strategic than a refinery). It seems that they still lack a production capacity to keep the pace of their attacks.
The West should supply much more Patriots and other air defense systems but …. Russia has started dropping 1500kg gliding bombs, introduced smaller bombs and if it continues with this pace, it might get even ahead of the West in terms of air systems innovation…
Amen to the Brother Volodymyr. Mike's little Johnson is far too limp to get anything done....especially when he has his permanently stuck in Trump's Fence.....
(Hint: think racially stereotypes for Irish, Scottish, and Spanish "Ranchers")
Thanks Tom, your knowledge often comes tinged with bitter realities but is much appreciated all the same. Is Ukraines’ best option to build on the success of the Patriot/AA ambushes? It seems that the current dribble of Western support is really hurting now that the Russians are maximising their air advantage
I wonder whether the F-16’s Western partners will give the required number of missiles and which ones, or whether they will give 10-20 and that’s it. Or it will be like with the Patriots, who lack missiles. In general, our partners help us as usual. There are not very high expectations for these F-16s, especially in terms of their numbers; this is just a ridiculous 6-12 units versus 100 Su-34. Although there is something to laugh about here. All hope lies in Russian air defense, which will shoot down its planes.
You - and everybody else thinking that way - is always free to teach me better. Especially about what a fantastic jets are 6 Ukrainian F-16s going to be.... sometimes in June or so...
Golly gee willikers Tom....you're all doom and gloom and BOOM!!!!!
"Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?"
"Always with the negative waves Moriarty (TOM), always with the negative waves."
How about something positive...something "Crazy... I mean like, so many positive waves... maybe we can't lose, you're on!"
......other than we are all positive that MAGA is trying to throw Ukraine and the Democratic world underneath PUT'LER's Fascist TANK of DEATH and potatoes...... "IS POTATO!!!" OH BORSCHT!!!!
...that we are all positive is happening.
Be well my friend and know that WE appreciate the $#@#$%^&$$% out of you and the great work you do.
Looking forward to another good news article - when the news is good, of course.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look that's gonna happen anytime soon...
Thanks for report. All hope on f 16 to shot down su 34 and 35 is nonsense for me , because they should be block 70+ to do something. I personally hope that they will counter VKS indirectly increasing a number of Kabs(Jdams) from Ukrainian side. It would not protect Ukrainian troops, but cause more Russian attrition. 12 strikes against 120 is worse than 25-40 against 120.
A few questions:
1. In your opinion, how many Patriot batteries do Ukraine need to reduce VKS front activity( only front not protect cities)?
2. Jas 39 Gripen is also an option. How would one escadrille influence the problem on at least one piece of front( like Bahmut) ?
3. Why don't Russian attacks Dnipro bridges? They would need a lot of missles, but Russia wanted much more on energetics, whereas bridges collapse would have bigger front effect?
Without long range missiles like the MBDA Meteor, it's not easy to gain air superiority over the skies of Ukraine. The Gripen can use that missile, but getting an export license from the USA (due to jet engine and other American parts used) may be a real problem
The F-16 hasn't been certified for use with the Meteor.
Thanks Tom, I consider yesterday's question answered . . .
Now, the hard data, taking into account the number of 120 UMPK deployed in a single day, we are talking about a minimum of 30 daily bomber sorties (4 UMPK x SU-34), a number that triples the number of f-16s available, in The best case
Funny, I was having a conversation about this tonight with another friend who is a big airplane specialist (he works civil aviation and spent 30 years as a Blackhawk Mechanic in the NG). We were talking about how could Ukraine maximize the F-16s. The best idea we came up with was holding them until they had enough numbers to make a difference, and then holding them until the UA was ready for a major operation and let them go then to maximize the surprise and effect. I have to wonder though about how well can the RU actually engage at max range. That rarely happens in real life, but it can be done. The issue though is that even if not at max range they still have enough range to outrange the UA stuff (at least what they have now). It would be nice to get some Gripens with Meteors in the mix, and again, holding them until everything is in place. I expect ideas are already in the works for countering these weapons or for getting the most out of things.
This makes a lot of sense even to a layman like me
I find it hard to believe that for the past 40 years, the USSR/Russia has had the ability to snipe US planes from long-rage, with the US airforce being unable to retaliate, and the Pentagon was somehow chill about it and didn't bother developing a countermeasure.
I'm far from the "US technology is the best" mindset, and the idea that 10 or so F-16 will turn the tide of the air war always sounded silly. But I just cannot imagine the Pentagon tolerating such air-to-air range inferiority against a major rival, for so long, it goes completely agains US doctrine. So there must be more to this story, maybe they're confident the AIM-120 has more range than it has demonstrated so far in practice?
That has been an interesting question for me as well, but you can also consider that from the Russian perspective, the inferiority of their own force at intermediate combat ranges is exactly what pushed them to invest in long-range AAM. The same dynamic must be at play in the historical Soviet investment, in long-range SAM, an advantage the US was seemingly always happy to allow the USSR to retain. Except in the anti-ballistic domain, which may have been perceived as the real threat to US assets.
I don't know USAF doctrine, but regarding the AAM gap they may have had an expectation that superior numbers, tactical integration/training, radar, and countermeasures would allow them to overwhelm Russian Mig-31 or Su-35 engaging at extreme range, with few losses. But I'm just speculating. The bottom line is that for over 30 years there just hasn't been a strong incentive to close any gaps on this variable. To the extent the US has been giving the issue more attention in recent years, such as with the JTAM, to my knowledge it's been more out of a focus on prospective South China Sea engagements than as a reaction to Russian technology.
As a tangent, I have heard that as a rule one should expect ranges on any American missile to be greater in practice than are advertised.
That's all quite reasonable, so is the theory that stealth was the counter. But the US isn't reasonable. Anything less than air dominance isn't acceptable, because from their point of view air dominance is what makes their extremely expensive carriers make sense, and also how they compensate perceived USSR/Russia ground force superiority. (of course I'm referencing the perception prior to this war)
Even a chance of USSR/Russia arcraft being able to outrange the US pre-stealth fleet and score a hit would make any Pentagon official sick. And it's not like there's secret technology involved - from what I've read the principle behind big missles with lots of fuel is behind the older retired generation of US long-range missles.
So my guess would be that indeed the AIM120 range is greater than advertized, and would have something close to parity with what the Russians are using. But I guess we'll see in a few months either way.
The problem for the Ucrainians is the integration of AIM120Ds with their old european F16s...
I also think the performance of our F16s is much greater than advertised honestly. Similar situation with the Patriot system. The question is whether the Ukrainians will get similar avionics, support aircraft, missiles, etc.
As far as I remember some of Toms analysis in the past, successful air to air combat isn't just about the range of the missiles, but also about the radar and target identification. US didn't just sit around for 40 years, they built the F-35 with IMHO still superior radar/electronics (and the AIM 120-D). However Russian R-37 are relatively new (start of service 2018), thus specifics were unknown before and it might be that Russia has now a superiority in this aspect. War is always speeding up development of new weapons and it is also always a competition to counter enemy superiority or getting some superiority by developping something new. You should never underestimate your enemy. That's a lesson the Russians learned against Ukraine and hopefully the US is learning now against Russia.
This "superiority" might be short lived as US is developing AIM-260 that is compatible with AIM-120 launch platforms in terms of size. For example F-22 internal bays tho F-22 will also receive stealth fuel tanks and pods from a separate upgrade program to extend it's range and capabilities. From Wiki:
The AIM-260 program began in 2017 in response to long-range missiles developed by potential adversaries, specifically the Chinese PL-15. FSAT testing for the JATM was confirmed to have started as early as April 2020, and testing in general for the missile is currently ongoing. It is yet to achieve initial operational capability (IOC). The AIM-260 production is expected to overtake AIM-120 production by 2026.
Of course i dont expect Ukraine to receive any AIM-260 unless US wants to test those under real war conditions...
I don't expect the US would do that, considering their reluctance to do pretty much anything lately. But if the AMRAAM inferiority is indeed a fact I wonder if the EU will give them some Meteors and try to help integrate them with the F16s. Of course it's a small chance at it may not be technically or politically possible but who knows.
Yes i agree. It's much more likely for Ukraine to get some Meteor's instead. I doubt the integration is a big issue. I mean they managed to somehow make western cruise and anti-radar missiles work with old soviet jets. Tho from what i understand these are programmed on ground and the pilot just launches these. Still it was a great achievement as many people thought it would be impossible. I just hope the F-16's Ukraine receives also have a newer AESA radar - at least some of them.
Regarding AIM-260: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4AZoYwXwI8
Speaking of F-16s, the old dream scenario of mercenary ("Flying Tiger") squadrons flying in from Poland was always impractical, right? For all the same reasons currently limiting the utility of any aircraft under direct PSU control. Plus the difficulty of operational integration with pilots and crews who don't speak Ukrainian and don't exist within the standard hierarchy, working on airbases outside PSU management. Plus the limiting effect on mission set when adding hundreds of kilometers of travel to each sortie.
Thanks Tom!
I don’t see F-16 shooting down S-34. I think they will be used at land targets from a longer range with more precise weapons.
Tom, why the Russians are not shooting down the SU-24 attacking Crimea with their long range missile?
I bet they tried. But Su-24 was designed to fly low, so possibly it comes undetected as close as possible at low altitude, launches the missiles and goes back at the same low altitude.
Not only the ZSU/GUR are not attacking Russian airbases with drones, they have greatly reduced the number of such attacks - the last was a hit on coal plant (even less strategic than a refinery). It seems that they still lack a production capacity to keep the pace of their attacks.
The West should supply much more Patriots and other air defense systems but …. Russia has started dropping 1500kg gliding bombs, introduced smaller bombs and if it continues with this pace, it might get even ahead of the West in terms of air systems innovation…
BTW, have I missed your comments on UMPB or are they coming in the future?
Спасибо
Thanks Tom "It’s really ‘no fun‘ to monitor developments in Ukraine of the last few days" this pretty much sums it up
It seems the value for money decision is destroy all their SU-35 on air bases by long range ATACAMS. But Mike Johnson is playing for another team.
Amen to the Brother Volodymyr. Mike's little Johnson is far too limp to get anything done....especially when he has his permanently stuck in Trump's Fence.....
(Hint: think racially stereotypes for Irish, Scottish, and Spanish "Ranchers")
Thanks Tom, your knowledge often comes tinged with bitter realities but is much appreciated all the same. Is Ukraines’ best option to build on the success of the Patriot/AA ambushes? It seems that the current dribble of Western support is really hurting now that the Russians are maximising their air advantage
I wonder whether the F-16’s Western partners will give the required number of missiles and which ones, or whether they will give 10-20 and that’s it. Or it will be like with the Patriots, who lack missiles. In general, our partners help us as usual. There are not very high expectations for these F-16s, especially in terms of their numbers; this is just a ridiculous 6-12 units versus 100 Su-34. Although there is something to laugh about here. All hope lies in Russian air defense, which will shoot down its planes.
The amount of effort invested into minimizing value of F-16 is remarkable
You - and everybody else thinking that way - is always free to teach me better. Especially about what a fantastic jets are 6 Ukrainian F-16s going to be.... sometimes in June or so...
Golly gee willikers Tom....you're all doom and gloom and BOOM!!!!!
"Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?"
"Always with the negative waves Moriarty (TOM), always with the negative waves."
How about something positive...something "Crazy... I mean like, so many positive waves... maybe we can't lose, you're on!"
......other than we are all positive that MAGA is trying to throw Ukraine and the Democratic world underneath PUT'LER's Fascist TANK of DEATH and potatoes...... "IS POTATO!!!" OH BORSCHT!!!!
...that we are all positive is happening.
Be well my friend and know that WE appreciate the $#@#$%^&$$% out of you and the great work you do.
Namaste Tom. :o)