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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.