Q&A regarding 'F-16 for Ukraine', Part 3

Hello everybody!

Today, I’ll try to conclude this ‘F-16 Q&A’-session.

6.) I’m already much longer into this topic than planned. Thus, let me end with analysis of another commentary I’m often asked about. Essentially, many commentators say that F-16 ‘can destroy Russian troops equipment, logistics, and command posts’, kind of ‘at will’.

Well…. The reality is that - always provided the PSU gets any Western fighters (where it’s most likely to get ex-NATO F-16AMs) - this is going to depend on lots of factors outside Ukrainian influence.

….which, as dramatically demonstrated, time and again over the last 18-19 months, is usually the worst imaginable situation: as ‘amazing’ as it is likely to sound-, and as ‘shocking’, even ‘unacceptable’ as this is likely to appear to some, fact is that Ukrainians still know the best about how to fight this war.

Perhaps the most important between these factors is the density of the Russian integrated air defence system (IADS) over the battlefield. This is so high that manned aircraft have very few chances of entering and surviving it - except they’re flying extremely low, and remaining within the combat zone for an absolute minmum of time.

That’s called something like ‘one pass, haul ass’.

This is why we, time and again, get to see videos of Ukrainian jets and helicopters flying at critically low altitudes. See: 15-20 metres. Literally ‘between hills, trees and man-made constructions’. While this method of flying is keeping aircraft (and helicopters) – relatively – ‘safe’, it’s also causing lots of problems. Air at low altitudes is dense (thus making aircraft slower than at higher speeds, while increasing their fuel consumption), and warm, and thus turbulent. Vibrations caused by that dense and warm air at low altitudes are causing fatigue to the pilot, the airframe, and avionics and weapons, too (indeed: they can get that strong that they’re breaking all of these). Moreover, launching guided missiles from low altitude is shortening their range: just like glide bombs, missiles can reach over much longer ranges if released from high altitudes. And from high speeds.

With this, we’re down to conclusion that the optimal solution for striking targets protected by such a dense IADS is to do so with help of aircraft that can approach the combat zone at high altitude and high speed. Alternativelly, by aircraft that can do so, and then release weapons, before entering the combat zone. I.e. from outside the reach of the enemy IADS.

(That’s, literally, like with two boxers, one of whom has longer arms: he/she can hit the other, while the other can’t punch back, at least must move well within the reach of the guy with longer arms in order to hit.)

This is imposing questions like, if F-16AMs are compatible with weapons like, for example, Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG. As far as I know: they are not. They are compatible with a comparable, but shorter-ranged weapon of US-origin: the AGM-154 JASSM.

….and that’s where you have the first of factors outside Ukrainian influence: the question is if Washington might be ready to deliver any JASSMs to Ukraine….

An F-16C of the USAF, with an AGM-154 JASSM under the centre underwing pylon (and an AIM-120 on its wing-tip pylon, in the centre of the photo).

….and even if: such weapons are expensive and made in relatively few numbers. Therefore, they’re deployed for striking ‘important’ targets: command nodes, supply depots, bridges, air defences, air bases etc. Sure, that would be a ‘perfect solution’, but be certain: nobody can afford manufacturing enough of such weapons at such low prices as to become capable to spend something as expensive and as ‘rare’ as a Storm Shadow or JASSM missile to strike, literally, ‘the next Russian trench’.

Which means: sorry, but old jets like F-16AMs are unlikely to become useful for providing close air support.

Alternatively, they can be deployed to supress enemy air defences (SEAD). See: striking enemy air defences with weapons like AGM-88 HARM, which is already in service in Ukraine.

However…. Deployment of AGM-88 from F-16 requires specially modified sub-variants, like F-16CJ, which is equipped with the AN/ASQ-213 HARM targeting system. AFAIK, F-16AMs are not equipped with anything similar. Which means that, yes, they still can deploy AGM-88s, but not in any better fashion than the currently-available Su-27s can.

Why is that important? Because the AGM-88 has some 40 working modes. I.e. it was made to be highly-flexible and adaptable to the circumstances on the battlefield, and that on short notice, while the jet is flying the mission. However, the only aircraft currently capable of deploying the AGM-88 in all of its working modes is the EF-18G Growler - which Ukraine is not going to get. Which in turn means that any F-16AMs Ukraine might get, will be limited in the ways they can deploy AGM-88s…

Of other weaponry that would enable it to target ‘equipment, logistics and command posts’ of the Russian armed forces: the F-16AM is ‘limited’ to GPS-guided bombs, like the GBU-62 which the PSU is already operating (albeit from Su-24s and, apparently, Su-27s). However, the F-16AM is slower than either, Su-24 and/or Su-27. This in turn means that it would be forced to release them from a much shorter range than currently available types can: probably from less than 30km, which in turn would regularly bring it within engagement envelope of the Russian SAMs.

….which is a major problem, because if it can’t release such weapons from sufficient range while remaining safe – or at least from a sufficient combination of speed and altitude (so to increase the range of the JDAM, while remaining safe, because ‘speed is life’ in air combat) – then the F-16AM would be much more likely to get shot down, whether by VKS interceptors or by the Russian SAMs, than, for example, currently available Su-24Ms.

Case closed, I would say.

Bottom line, and as explained in Points 2 to 6: in no way can the F-16AM ‘force Russian aviation to move far from Ukraine’ (as commented in some other Youtube-vide). Especially no 6 F-16AMs, no 12-18 F-16AMs, and no 24-30 F-16AMs as - provided it starts receiving them, first and foremost - Ukraine is likely to have in the next 6, 12, 16-18 months, respectively. For that, the PSU would need not only much more powerful weapons than are currently in arsenals of that F-16-variant, but also a ‘lot of much better combat aircraft’.

Obviously, I could go on like this, ‘forever’. Express and substantiate my critique, literally ‘dissect’ F-16 ‘to the bone’. And not only F-16, and not only – specifically – F-16AM, but any other aircraft type, and nearly all of their variants. However, that’s not my actual point. My actual point/s are two:

-          A) Replacing 40-years-old, worn out/tired Ukrainian Su-24s, Su-25s, and Su-27s with 40-years-old, worn out/tired NATO F-16AMs is no solution.

-          B) There are much better solutions.

After all, it’s not only so that F-16AM is something like ‘jack of all trades, master of none’, but: in the case of fighting a war as intensive and ferocious as this one in Ukraine, USA & NATO would be the first to keep their F-16AMs well away from the battlefield, and send something else into combat instead. At least ‘early during the war’, before enemy IADS is suppressed sufficiently enough to make the airspace safe for F-16AMs. And mind: NATO air forces are usually going to wars (against opponents far less dangerous than Russia) within frame of an air warfare system led by the US Air Force (or, sometimes, by US Navy). For that, F-16AMs are ‘good enough’.

For more, in the Year 2023, and over Ukraine: they’re not up to the task.

That is something like the essence of why am I considering both the delivery of F-16AMs to Ukraine for ‘wrong decision’ and why I find such videos as asked to discuss for ‘irrelevant’. I’m very sorry but, I find them for misinforming: at least of no use to help anybody understand the situation any better.

***

Yes, the PSU needs new combat jets. No doubt about this. And yes, NATO can deliver these. Indeed, NATO MUST deliver new jets to Ukraine. This is, meanwhile, an urgent issue. So much so that, actually it is nothing but shameful that this topic is still discussed for more than a year, already, and there are still no new Western jets in opperations in Ukraine.

(….and then it’s still, or foremost, the 40-years-old F-16AMs that are discussed…)

Like in the case of European part of NATO delivering its ’40-50 years old junk’ – in sense of Leopard 1A5s (which were obsolete already back in the 1980s), non-operational MIM-23 HAWK SAMs, thin-skinned M113 APCs, not to talk about different other stuff – delivering old F-16AMs is the wrong solution, driven by the ‘we must do something, for PR-points’-desires of our Western politicians. At most, this is indicating the lack of even the most basic understanding for modern warfare on part of decision-makers in question (plus entire armies of their ‘highly-qualified expert-advisors).

Especially considering how many ‘much better aircraft’ are around. For example:

-          There are lots of F-16C/Ds around, some 10, others 20 years old, and most of them better equipped than F-16A/Bs (no matter how much upgraded to ‘C/D-like AM-standard’).

-          There are Swedish JAS.39 Gripens. Sure, some are belittling their (relatively) short range and lack of diverse kinds of equipment but: are the same people asking if Ukrainians would actually need the ‘missing’ equipment at all? Right now, and for a while longer, the PSU needs a jet that’s ‘at least relatively new’, and – especially – easy to maintain and operate, while compatible with ‘right’ weapons. Indeed, Gripen is made with operations ‘under primitive conditions’ in mind: see, poor maintenance facilities, poor runways etc.. Furthermore, it is already compatible with AIM-120. Even better, it’s compatible with the Meteor: this is, right now, longest-ranged air-to-air missile of Western origin (theoretical max range around 200km, plus). This would clearly outmatch the Russian R-77, and could outmatch even R-37Ms. If provided in sufficient numbers (both Gripens and Meteors), that would ‘drive Russian air force away from Ukraine’. And, Gripen is also compatible with a huge arsenal of air-to-ground weaponry, or easy to make compatible with additional weapons. Problem: it was manufactured in very small numbers, and thus there are very few around. Indeed, Sweden would have to strip down ‘half its air force’ if deciding to deliver any significant numbers to Ukraine, ‘right away’.

However, the biggest ‘problem’ is: Gripen is a jet made in Europe. Washington does not like that.

-          Theoretically, one alternative would be to deliver either F/A-18 Hornets from surplus stocks of the USN, or those withdrawn from service in Australia, or Canada, or Spain. However, even if constructed more recently (foremost in the 1990s and 2000s; except for Australian, Canadian, and Spanish Horntes, which were made back in the 1980s) these jets are in an even poorer condition than F-16AMs. Reason: Hornet was much too short-ranged for most of wars fought by the USN over the last 20 years. Thus, most of aircraft spent much of their ‘combat operations’ flying as tankers, to stretch the range of other Hornets. As a consquence, the USN flew them, really, ‘to death’.

-          Then there is EF-2000 Typhoon. Top-notch jet, meanwhile. BTW, it’s compatible with both AIM-120 and Meteor, and Storm Shadow, right away, and between others. And, there are enough of them around to provide ‘dozen’ to Ukraine.

….tragically, the knees of at least as many of talking-heads in Berlin, London, Rome and Madrid (EF-2000s are manufactured in cooperation between Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK) - are shaking at the mere thought of delivering any to Ukraine… ‘that would provoke Putin, you know’….

-          It’s similar in regards of the French Rafale. Yes, it’s a wonderful jet: compatible with Meteor and SCALP-EG, and few other nice things. And, until a few years ago, avionics-wise, it was even more advanced than the contemporary F-35s. However, just like Paris ‘can’t come to the idea’ to deliver any of its (useless, at least while still parked in France) Leclerc main battle tanks and instead has sent ‘10 pieces of such rubbish’ like AMX-10RC to Ukraine: don’t worry, the bankers in Élysée aren’t going to come to such ideas. It’s far more opportune to keep on kicking, pushing, playing, and blaming Berlin, and far more profitable to babble nonsense about grandiose plans on the international scene, and then go selling yet more of Rafales to Qatar, Greece, or other of such ‘trusted, nice and fine allies’…

-          Theoretically, Washington could opt to deliver some of older F-15Es to Ukraine. Is not going to happen, of course: ‘reserved for most trusted customers only’. Like Saudi Arabia, eh?

….Not to forget about its ‘newest star’: F-35s. But, I think it’s obvious we need not even try to consider this: is not going to happen. Not even if the thesis about ‘Ukrainians can’t operate such advanced equipment’ has proven utterly wrong, and regardless if Lockheed-Martin (the manufacturer of the F-35) can’t stop bragging with how ‘cheap’ and versatile (and whatever other marvelous adjectives) is that jet…

Which means that alternatives to F-16AMs are really ‘narrowed down’ to something like F-16C/Ds and/or JAS.39s.

All that’s left to be done now is to find somebody courageous and far-sighted enough to bring that decision.

…or at least corrupt enough to find a way to profit from any such deal….

….at least somebody who can explain why would it be ‘not provoking Putin’ to deliver 40-years-old F-16AMs, but ‘very much provoking Putin’ to deliver 10-20 years old F-16C/Ds or JAS.39s…