Hello everybody! Today, I’m going to continuine answering different of questions related to the (possible/probable/likely) deliveries of F-16AMs to Ukraine, and their possible/probable utilisation in combat. 4.) One of most-often-asked question was something like
I think people are overthinking too much the F-16 coming to Ukraine.
After me is quite simple.
They need a plane to fill out he attrition due to war. (which happens either way you take it) .
Ukr is running out of older Mig-29 and Su-27. And they can't replenish their stocks. Cannibalization get you that much.
So, what you have the best candidate for replacement? What plane has a shit metric ton of spare part - they were plenty produced, could be armed with more modern weapons and could be provide in numbers to compensate the old-Soviet attritions?
F-16 in various forms and shapes.
No need to think as wunderwaffe, or magic plane, or War changer.
Yup. It's the same sensationalism and closed-mindedness that resulted in expectations that Ukrainians are going to easily slice through the Russian defence lines and drive to Tokmak, Melitopol, Mariupol, and Sevastopol in a matter of days...
Yes, I think the real benefit of the F-16s is going to be that they are able to natively operate more of the western supplied ground attack weapons to their maximum potential and provide more platforms that those weapons can be launched from. Instead of having to carefully hoard their few SU-24s that can launch Storm Shadows, they can be launched off any F-16. Instead of a MiG 29 using just the seeker head off the HARM for targeting Russian radars, the F-16 can use it's own systems to pick up targets and cue a HARM and also to launch from further away or with greater precision. That sort of flexibility and better weapons integration are worth their weight in gold.
Those factors are going to be more useful than A2A performance (although gifting a few AIM-120Ds to Ukraine wouldn't go astray, either). And the fact that these missions can be carried out by most/all of the F-16 force allows the mission load to be spread out across more pilots, giving them a chance to rest and recover from the stress of combat flying a bit more, making _them_ more effective as well.
Under standard circumstances you are correct, but during wartime things can surpass bureocracy. Remember that they integrate storm Shadow, jdam & harm very quickly on soviet airplanes (ok, with various limitations, but you do not have to re-program storm Shadows like you did with jdams for air support). In a Nato jet, with your engineers you can integrate quickly your storm Shadows of you want.
I think simply they do not need to do it. Storm Shadows are simply limited in stocks - f16s could do many other tasks like delivering jdams, defending against Cruise missiles, A2A combat, ecc...
What about SEAD capacity? You wrote that USA didn't give Ukraine electronic contr measure modules. Isn't f 16 better in this role, more protected by hindrances and with containers of radio electronic recoinassance
As always, a heartfelt thanks. I pointed your posts to some people, like me, not so versed in modern air warfare and they found it clear, concise and very formative; I wish you to know that.
Maybe I’m not “tainted” with “commercial advertising”, and may focus on the true capabilities of aircrafts in real combat situations, so all your updates are a gold’s mine to my knowledge of aerial combat. Hope other people found it as useful as me.
So if Ukraine has experienced pilots for MIG 29, wouldn't it be faster to upgrade MIG 29 to a newer radar with longer range and not waste time with F16 training?
Or modifying the MIG 29 to carry some of the Western longer range missiles?
It would be equally problematic to re-equip F-16AMs with more advanced radars and weapons, like trying to do so with available Ukrainian MiG-29s - and the results would be approximately the same: 40-years-old, worn-out jets, carrying modern avionics and weapons....
The solution is to deliver something else than F-16AMs. That's discussed in the Part 3.
Best choice would be the F-117. Not in active service, a dozen or so airframes still flying. Already compromised in 1999, but that doesnt mean they can counter it effectively anywhere and anytime. Designed to fly between Soviet SAMs and interceptors. No radar, ew, rwr, comms so easier to learn to fly and maintain than an F-16. Could come at night above the sea and pound Crimea and the bridge with two 1 ton LGBs or launch JDAM-ERs from long range, every night.
Upgrade and integration of a new radar is a very complicated business, development and testing alone takes several years. The ”small” nose diameter of the F-16 does not make things easier, the size of the radar antenna is limited
Integrating a new radar and combat system into an existing airframe would probably be at least as expensive and time consuming as _buying_ F-16s and training a new cadre of pilots and maintainers. It is not a matter of simply bolting a radar into an airframe. Integration of all the systems is where the bulk of development money goes in new aircraft development nowadays. The airframe itself, is a minor portion of the development effort. While it is a faaaar more sophisticated platform, it is instructive to look at the development efforts of the F-35. 90% of the costs over the last 5-6 years have been in creating and integrating the electronics. From software to electronics compatibility, this is where the effort goes. the airframe and engine have changed very little, primarily bug fixes. the avionics has gone through wholesale development cycles.
On a much smaller scale this is the sort of thing that would have to happen to integrate a Western radar into an existing MiG 29 airframe. Unless you stripped out every single Russian system and replaced them with the western equivalent, you'd need a mountain of electronics hacks to just get them to power up and another mountain of software written to get them to effectively work together (and they never would be totally effective) the costs of that and the testing needed to ensure that you actually had things working as you expected them to, would take years.
Modern aircraft (even 4th gen aircraft) are not Lego, you can't just pull out a brick and slide in another brick. They are highly integrated systems and if those systems are not properly working together, then it doesn't work at all and you are worse off.
UA stop requesting for Bulgarian`s mig-29 and i think the main reason is that they simply don`t have parts. F-16 will allow UA aviation to fly and still be a threat to RF and that will also take enemy resources and time. F-16 is still much better than mig-29 and the treat will make RF more cautious and less effective. The effectiveness of f-16 will depend on UA skills and the equipment provided, for instance electrical warfare pods could be of help. F-16 is just piece of the puzzle, there is no choice between f-16 and Patriot, simply because USA obviously is not planning to provide Partiots from their stocks and Europe don`t have AAD to give.
What we saw is during this war, is that RF equipment is overrated and don`t have the capabilities it`s claiming, for instance Russian weapon expert Maksim Klimov was talking the air force want to return the old radar from 80s to the su-34, because the new radar is just worse.
So, are we really sure su-35s radar is capable of detecting targets in such long ranges with EW systems interference?
If Russia fighters were able to hit targets from distance 150+ km, why is EU aviation still flying?
Is there any real prove they are shooting fighters from such long range and not from 60-80 km?
Could old f-16 be equipped with longer air to air missiles, like meteor or similar types?
So many questions and so little answers, of course no one will disclosure military equipment details.
Maybe because they are not using nuclear weapons intentionally? Obviously, is different logic, because RF try hard to remove VSU aviation, they are simply failing to do so. You are comparing apples with oranges.
Hi Tom! Very clear, as always. Why not give them the F-16 as a replacement fot the worn out fleet of MIGs and give them Tornados for replace the Su-24 (IDS) and the Su 27 (ADV)? Or some F-4G, they are lots of them in AMARG still in 2023. Asking about ir because it's obvious than F-35 is ruled out of question.
, all flyable ones were expended as QF-4 targets, that is why they started using QF-16 from 2016. It is illogical to spend time and money to introduce Tornado, when the Su-24 does the job just as well, especially considering the relatively reduced number of cruise missiles given to Ukraine. In plain languge, the Ukr Su-24 fleet will outlast the Storm Shadow/ Scalp inventory even if all were to be given to Ukraine (which wont happen)
I believe that receiving a F-16AM's is the first step in transitioning to NATO jets. Later they can be supplemented with some F-16C/D with more effective radars and AMRAAM versions. And probably some F-35 in a distant future.
Why NATO combat aircrafts do not have A/A missiles that can match the range of Russians one? Do they lack the technology? Obiously not. The reason is that they rely on stealth features and electronic counter-measures that render the Russian guiding/locking radars ineffective at their long range. F-16 are not stealth, but are the ones in service in the east flanck of NATO provided with such (not advertised) counter-measures? If yes (and it is probable) all the reasonings based on the longer engaging range of the A/A russian aircraft are moot. In the latter case, case not closed?
Hello Tom, I've been a dedicated reader of your work for quite a while now. I must say, your analyses and summaries of this war are among the most accurate available online. Your no-nonsense approach, presenting the facts directly and concisely, is truly appreciated. Keep up the excellent work!
There have been rumors for quite some time suggesting that Ukraine and France are in negotiations, and there is a potential consideration of providing Mirage 2000 fighters to Ukraine. In light of this, it raises the question of how the Mirage 2000 compares to the F16. Would delivery of Mirage make a significant difference? My impression is that the Mirage 2000 may not introduce any groundbreaking capabilities compared to the F16 that are planned to be delivered to Ukraine, as it belongs to the same era of aircraft as F16. Just would add additional stress to Ukraine on maintenance process.
Could the f16am that are to be send to Ukraine be use to launch the more advanced air launched ammunition? Air to ground or air to air? Would seem the planes would have the most influence on the war if used as a vehicle for those.
I think people are overthinking too much the F-16 coming to Ukraine.
After me is quite simple.
They need a plane to fill out he attrition due to war. (which happens either way you take it) .
Ukr is running out of older Mig-29 and Su-27. And they can't replenish their stocks. Cannibalization get you that much.
So, what you have the best candidate for replacement? What plane has a shit metric ton of spare part - they were plenty produced, could be armed with more modern weapons and could be provide in numbers to compensate the old-Soviet attritions?
F-16 in various forms and shapes.
No need to think as wunderwaffe, or magic plane, or War changer.
Yup. It's the same sensationalism and closed-mindedness that resulted in expectations that Ukrainians are going to easily slice through the Russian defence lines and drive to Tokmak, Melitopol, Mariupol, and Sevastopol in a matter of days...
Yes, I think the real benefit of the F-16s is going to be that they are able to natively operate more of the western supplied ground attack weapons to their maximum potential and provide more platforms that those weapons can be launched from. Instead of having to carefully hoard their few SU-24s that can launch Storm Shadows, they can be launched off any F-16. Instead of a MiG 29 using just the seeker head off the HARM for targeting Russian radars, the F-16 can use it's own systems to pick up targets and cue a HARM and also to launch from further away or with greater precision. That sort of flexibility and better weapons integration are worth their weight in gold.
Those factors are going to be more useful than A2A performance (although gifting a few AIM-120Ds to Ukraine wouldn't go astray, either). And the fact that these missions can be carried out by most/all of the F-16 force allows the mission load to be spread out across more pilots, giving them a chance to rest and recover from the stress of combat flying a bit more, making _them_ more effective as well.
if I remember correctly, the F-16 cannot carry the Storm Shadow and Taurus missiles. So, these will still need some suitable carrier
It is a big more complicated :)
As load, it can, but as pe weapon system is not certified / integrated. So, someone needs to pay that cost :)
Everything can be done with will and right amount of money and time.
Under standard circumstances you are correct, but during wartime things can surpass bureocracy. Remember that they integrate storm Shadow, jdam & harm very quickly on soviet airplanes (ok, with various limitations, but you do not have to re-program storm Shadows like you did with jdams for air support). In a Nato jet, with your engineers you can integrate quickly your storm Shadows of you want.
I think simply they do not need to do it. Storm Shadows are simply limited in stocks - f16s could do many other tasks like delivering jdams, defending against Cruise missiles, A2A combat, ecc...
The trickiest one is the HARM - need to get a radar signature , but it might also work as fly there and launch toward an area where a SAM is.
Storm Shadow and JDAM are programmed on the ground and you just launch in the general prepared launch area.
What about SEAD capacity? You wrote that USA didn't give Ukraine electronic contr measure modules. Isn't f 16 better in this role, more protected by hindrances and with containers of radio electronic recoinassance
F-16AM? Nope.
The best SEAD/DEAD-platform was the F-4G, which could deploy the AGM-88 in all the 40+ of its working modes.
Even the (heavily modified) F-16CJ Block 50 - the type that replaced the F-4G - still needs the
AN/ASQ-213 HARM Targeting System pod to deploy AGM-88s - and then in something like a quarter of available working modes.
...thus, without significant modifications and addition of the ASQ-213s, sorry: one can't expect much older F-16AMs to do any better in this regards.
...for very same reasons modified Ukrainian MiG-29s and Su-27s couldn't do that either....
As always, a heartfelt thanks. I pointed your posts to some people, like me, not so versed in modern air warfare and they found it clear, concise and very formative; I wish you to know that.
Maybe I’m not “tainted” with “commercial advertising”, and may focus on the true capabilities of aircrafts in real combat situations, so all your updates are a gold’s mine to my knowledge of aerial combat. Hope other people found it as useful as me.
Thank you, Tom.
Hello Tom!
So if Ukraine has experienced pilots for MIG 29, wouldn't it be faster to upgrade MIG 29 to a newer radar with longer range and not waste time with F16 training?
Or modifying the MIG 29 to carry some of the Western longer range missiles?
Yesno.
Such solutions are.... well: no solutions.
It would be equally problematic to re-equip F-16AMs with more advanced radars and weapons, like trying to do so with available Ukrainian MiG-29s - and the results would be approximately the same: 40-years-old, worn-out jets, carrying modern avionics and weapons....
The solution is to deliver something else than F-16AMs. That's discussed in the Part 3.
Thank you for the reply. I'm looking forward to Part 3.
Best choice would be the F-117. Not in active service, a dozen or so airframes still flying. Already compromised in 1999, but that doesnt mean they can counter it effectively anywhere and anytime. Designed to fly between Soviet SAMs and interceptors. No radar, ew, rwr, comms so easier to learn to fly and maintain than an F-16. Could come at night above the sea and pound Crimea and the bridge with two 1 ton LGBs or launch JDAM-ERs from long range, every night.
Upgrade and integration of a new radar is a very complicated business, development and testing alone takes several years. The ”small” nose diameter of the F-16 does not make things easier, the size of the radar antenna is limited
Integrating a new radar and combat system into an existing airframe would probably be at least as expensive and time consuming as _buying_ F-16s and training a new cadre of pilots and maintainers. It is not a matter of simply bolting a radar into an airframe. Integration of all the systems is where the bulk of development money goes in new aircraft development nowadays. The airframe itself, is a minor portion of the development effort. While it is a faaaar more sophisticated platform, it is instructive to look at the development efforts of the F-35. 90% of the costs over the last 5-6 years have been in creating and integrating the electronics. From software to electronics compatibility, this is where the effort goes. the airframe and engine have changed very little, primarily bug fixes. the avionics has gone through wholesale development cycles.
On a much smaller scale this is the sort of thing that would have to happen to integrate a Western radar into an existing MiG 29 airframe. Unless you stripped out every single Russian system and replaced them with the western equivalent, you'd need a mountain of electronics hacks to just get them to power up and another mountain of software written to get them to effectively work together (and they never would be totally effective) the costs of that and the testing needed to ensure that you actually had things working as you expected them to, would take years.
Modern aircraft (even 4th gen aircraft) are not Lego, you can't just pull out a brick and slide in another brick. They are highly integrated systems and if those systems are not properly working together, then it doesn't work at all and you are worse off.
Very informative thank you!
In this context: What do you think of the Saab JAS39C with Meteor missiles?
(There seems to be ongoing preparations for the possible release of such planes. Meteor have not been mentioned, but who knows?)
UA stop requesting for Bulgarian`s mig-29 and i think the main reason is that they simply don`t have parts. F-16 will allow UA aviation to fly and still be a threat to RF and that will also take enemy resources and time. F-16 is still much better than mig-29 and the treat will make RF more cautious and less effective. The effectiveness of f-16 will depend on UA skills and the equipment provided, for instance electrical warfare pods could be of help. F-16 is just piece of the puzzle, there is no choice between f-16 and Patriot, simply because USA obviously is not planning to provide Partiots from their stocks and Europe don`t have AAD to give.
What we saw is during this war, is that RF equipment is overrated and don`t have the capabilities it`s claiming, for instance Russian weapon expert Maksim Klimov was talking the air force want to return the old radar from 80s to the su-34, because the new radar is just worse.
So, are we really sure su-35s radar is capable of detecting targets in such long ranges with EW systems interference?
If Russia fighters were able to hit targets from distance 150+ km, why is EU aviation still flying?
Is there any real prove they are shooting fighters from such long range and not from 60-80 km?
Could old f-16 be equipped with longer air to air missiles, like meteor or similar types?
So many questions and so little answers, of course no one will disclosure military equipment details.
Your logic is so wrong. In your logic why world still exists if so many countries posses nuclear weapon...
Maybe because they are not using nuclear weapons intentionally? Obviously, is different logic, because RF try hard to remove VSU aviation, they are simply failing to do so. You are comparing apples with oranges.
My comment was regarding this line :If Russia fighters were able to hit targets from distance 150+ km, why is EU aviation still flying?:
Hi Tom! Very clear, as always. Why not give them the F-16 as a replacement fot the worn out fleet of MIGs and give them Tornados for replace the Su-24 (IDS) and the Su 27 (ADV)? Or some F-4G, they are lots of them in AMARG still in 2023. Asking about ir because it's obvious than F-35 is ruled out of question.
There are no usable F-4 left in the desert and no G versions, see:
http://www.amarcexperience.com/ui/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205&Itemid=274
, all flyable ones were expended as QF-4 targets, that is why they started using QF-16 from 2016. It is illogical to spend time and money to introduce Tornado, when the Su-24 does the job just as well, especially considering the relatively reduced number of cruise missiles given to Ukraine. In plain languge, the Ukr Su-24 fleet will outlast the Storm Shadow/ Scalp inventory even if all were to be given to Ukraine (which wont happen)
I believe that receiving a F-16AM's is the first step in transitioning to NATO jets. Later they can be supplemented with some F-16C/D with more effective radars and AMRAAM versions. And probably some F-35 in a distant future.
Ukraine is very inventive so if they do not get F16s they will find other ways to deplete Russian air.
Claimed today
NOELREPORTS 🇪🇺 🇺🇦@NOELreports
"At Chkalovsky Air Base on September 18, saboteurs blew up two planes and a helicopter," the GUR reports.
Explosives were placed on an AN-148 and IL-20 aircraft, as well as a MI-28N helicopter.
UNKNOWN saboteurs. It's important! :)
LOL!
Agreed. PSU is rebuilding not only to win the war but to keep the peace afterwards. Are F16s and Grippen the long term solutions? Seems logical.
Why NATO combat aircrafts do not have A/A missiles that can match the range of Russians one? Do they lack the technology? Obiously not. The reason is that they rely on stealth features and electronic counter-measures that render the Russian guiding/locking radars ineffective at their long range. F-16 are not stealth, but are the ones in service in the east flanck of NATO provided with such (not advertised) counter-measures? If yes (and it is probable) all the reasonings based on the longer engaging range of the A/A russian aircraft are moot. In the latter case, case not closed?
F-16 with AMRAAM will be much better than Mig-29 with R-27. Also F-16 with HARM will be much better than Mig-29 with crudely adapted HARM.
Oh, that's sure.
Just that a 40-years-old F-16 is nothing better than a 40-years-old MiG-29 or Su-27.
Both maintenance- and retail-wise.
Well, Su-27 (or Mig-27) seems to be in short supply in Western world (maybe a dozen Su-27 in Poland). F-16 are actually present.
Obviously, dozen Mig-29 in Poland.
Hello Tom, I've been a dedicated reader of your work for quite a while now. I must say, your analyses and summaries of this war are among the most accurate available online. Your no-nonsense approach, presenting the facts directly and concisely, is truly appreciated. Keep up the excellent work!
There have been rumors for quite some time suggesting that Ukraine and France are in negotiations, and there is a potential consideration of providing Mirage 2000 fighters to Ukraine. In light of this, it raises the question of how the Mirage 2000 compares to the F16. Would delivery of Mirage make a significant difference? My impression is that the Mirage 2000 may not introduce any groundbreaking capabilities compared to the F16 that are planned to be delivered to Ukraine, as it belongs to the same era of aircraft as F16. Just would add additional stress to Ukraine on maintenance process.
Could the f16am that are to be send to Ukraine be use to launch the more advanced air launched ammunition? Air to ground or air to air? Would seem the planes would have the most influence on the war if used as a vehicle for those.