I think the basic difference here is the F-16 is being viewed by many, as primarily an air-to-air platform, which it mostly isn't.
Whereas I view F-16s as what it really is, an air-to-ground and air-to-surface fast-strike platform that also has a secondary formidable A2A self-defence capability that removes the need for a supporting escor…
I think the basic difference here is the F-16 is being viewed by many, as primarily an air-to-air platform, which it mostly isn't.
Whereas I view F-16s as what it really is, an air-to-ground and air-to-surface fast-strike platform that also has a secondary formidable A2A self-defence capability that removes the need for a supporting escort flight.
The only support it needs is the AARGM and AMRAAM on its own wing, to deliver precise standoff bombs and missiles in volume, every day of the war.
That will be a highly-effective strike and IADS destruction platform for Ukraine.
And if you get shot at by a long-range SAMs, or Su35s, you've got the fuel and performance to break contact and afterburn back into Patriot coverage fast.
The idea of flying around unnecessarily near a front, after weapons release, makes no tactical sense to me. Fast in, and fast out.
That's what it was always designed to do, over a battlefield with S300s present. It's been redeveloped and optimised that way since the late 1980s.
Self escort multirole...is kinda a myth...and even those that practice the mission themselves kinda know it. Simple fact is unless you have stealth, your just too vulnerable. Don't let a couple of F/A-18s that shot down 2 MiG-21s, once make you believe otherwise, they had the deck stacked way in their favor that time. You simply don't have the kinematic performance to go toe to toe when loaded with two big sticks on each wing. What's worse is likely you don't have the sensors or systems to even know if your reliably getting targeted, by a dedicated air to air platform using R-37 until it too late. Simply fact is the air space needs to be secure and safe for effective SEAD and DEAD to be done, currently the F-16 wouldn't bring anything really different they what Ukraine is already doing now. Low to high quick. launch, turn and get low and fast in the other direction.
Note in my above replies I don't suggest or espouse F-16s engage in A2A. Perhaps they can kill missiles, but that is it. But they do have an A2A capability that is considerably better than a MiG29, Su24 or Su27, with an old R27.
The airspace will be sufficiently manageable to make such strikes as I've mentioned, and Ukraine already manages to pursue those successfully, with western weapons, and weapons of their own.
What will occur is Ukraine with F-16s will be able to better leverage what they already have. So yes, there will be a substantial and progressive improvement in their air control, and strike capabilities, as more F-16s and pilots are added.
I do agree that the F-16 will allow some flexibility and certainly a better ability to destroy drones and cruise missiles but as it doesn't have the long range missile capability to strike aircraft carrying R-37s. It's in this way pretty much in the same boat as the Su-27 and MiG-29 are for striking ground targets deep behind the line in terms of it's limited on how long it can remain exposed safely to deploy those weapons effectively, and that's the issue. isn't the point is that a lot of effort and political capital is being spent on giving a capability that is already pretty much being done but now you have to go through the entire process to get at best 15-20% increase in that same capability?
The current capability will be done with old Soviet planes wear out and no industrial capability at hand to make new ones of the same types. So, F-16s are just slightly better analogs to hold on for several additional years (actually maybe to the end of the war).
I'd agree, except the F-16s are also old NATO stock, not new ones off the production lines so the amount of extra wear in them isn't exactly great, but at least there are an abundance of parts for them.
New planes are necessary for the peace-time long life, to preserve cash. In war-time planes are consumables - about half will be destroyed or badly damaged in combat long before wearing out. That's why for war-time old frames are good enough, and new ones are better mostly because just their capabilities are better, not because they will endure more flight hours. See also Tom's notes about Soviet air doctrine (Soviet planes were desingned to endure no more then a year of high-intencity conflict; Western ones are more enduring).
" ... but as it doesn't have the long range missile capability to strike aircraft carrying R-37s."
There are other means to attack MiG31, and push those, we have all seen that occurring, and it's just beginning.
" ... but now you have to go through the entire process to get at best 15-20% increase in that same capability?"
Would you prefer to do nothing and attrite that capability 15% to 20%? Your argument is making no sense to me.
This is a war of attrition, a smaller-scale rerun of WWI in 2023/2024, and doing nothing or saying there will be losses, so don't do it, is not an argument or a reason to not do it. Figuring out how to make it effective and survivable, is all I am interested in, because leaving Ukraine without an air force is not an option.
It was written around the time F-16 was entering service - and thus explaining precisely what was the jet _originally_ designed to do.
The reason I'm recommending this is that you're all the time talking about 'add-ons' it has received ever since, and support equipment Ukraine is never going to get. Unsurprisingly, your starting point is 'off the mark', and, sorry, so is the mass of your conclusions.
I think the basic difference here is the F-16 is being viewed by many, as primarily an air-to-air platform, which it mostly isn't.
Whereas I view F-16s as what it really is, an air-to-ground and air-to-surface fast-strike platform that also has a secondary formidable A2A self-defence capability that removes the need for a supporting escort flight.
The only support it needs is the AARGM and AMRAAM on its own wing, to deliver precise standoff bombs and missiles in volume, every day of the war.
That will be a highly-effective strike and IADS destruction platform for Ukraine.
And if you get shot at by a long-range SAMs, or Su35s, you've got the fuel and performance to break contact and afterburn back into Patriot coverage fast.
The idea of flying around unnecessarily near a front, after weapons release, makes no tactical sense to me. Fast in, and fast out.
That's what it was always designed to do, over a battlefield with S300s present. It's been redeveloped and optimised that way since the late 1980s.
Self escort multirole...is kinda a myth...and even those that practice the mission themselves kinda know it. Simple fact is unless you have stealth, your just too vulnerable. Don't let a couple of F/A-18s that shot down 2 MiG-21s, once make you believe otherwise, they had the deck stacked way in their favor that time. You simply don't have the kinematic performance to go toe to toe when loaded with two big sticks on each wing. What's worse is likely you don't have the sensors or systems to even know if your reliably getting targeted, by a dedicated air to air platform using R-37 until it too late. Simply fact is the air space needs to be secure and safe for effective SEAD and DEAD to be done, currently the F-16 wouldn't bring anything really different they what Ukraine is already doing now. Low to high quick. launch, turn and get low and fast in the other direction.
Note in my above replies I don't suggest or espouse F-16s engage in A2A. Perhaps they can kill missiles, but that is it. But they do have an A2A capability that is considerably better than a MiG29, Su24 or Su27, with an old R27.
The airspace will be sufficiently manageable to make such strikes as I've mentioned, and Ukraine already manages to pursue those successfully, with western weapons, and weapons of their own.
What will occur is Ukraine with F-16s will be able to better leverage what they already have. So yes, there will be a substantial and progressive improvement in their air control, and strike capabilities, as more F-16s and pilots are added.
I do agree that the F-16 will allow some flexibility and certainly a better ability to destroy drones and cruise missiles but as it doesn't have the long range missile capability to strike aircraft carrying R-37s. It's in this way pretty much in the same boat as the Su-27 and MiG-29 are for striking ground targets deep behind the line in terms of it's limited on how long it can remain exposed safely to deploy those weapons effectively, and that's the issue. isn't the point is that a lot of effort and political capital is being spent on giving a capability that is already pretty much being done but now you have to go through the entire process to get at best 15-20% increase in that same capability?
The current capability will be done with old Soviet planes wear out and no industrial capability at hand to make new ones of the same types. So, F-16s are just slightly better analogs to hold on for several additional years (actually maybe to the end of the war).
I'd agree, except the F-16s are also old NATO stock, not new ones off the production lines so the amount of extra wear in them isn't exactly great, but at least there are an abundance of parts for them.
New planes are necessary for the peace-time long life, to preserve cash. In war-time planes are consumables - about half will be destroyed or badly damaged in combat long before wearing out. That's why for war-time old frames are good enough, and new ones are better mostly because just their capabilities are better, not because they will endure more flight hours. See also Tom's notes about Soviet air doctrine (Soviet planes were desingned to endure no more then a year of high-intencity conflict; Western ones are more enduring).
" ... but as it doesn't have the long range missile capability to strike aircraft carrying R-37s."
There are other means to attack MiG31, and push those, we have all seen that occurring, and it's just beginning.
" ... but now you have to go through the entire process to get at best 15-20% increase in that same capability?"
Would you prefer to do nothing and attrite that capability 15% to 20%? Your argument is making no sense to me.
This is a war of attrition, a smaller-scale rerun of WWI in 2023/2024, and doing nothing or saying there will be losses, so don't do it, is not an argument or a reason to not do it. Figuring out how to make it effective and survivable, is all I am interested in, because leaving Ukraine without an air force is not an option.
Markus,
a well-meant recommendation: please, buy yourself one of books like this one:
https://www.scalemates.com/de/books/f-16-aviation-fact-file-doug-richardson--110357
It was written around the time F-16 was entering service - and thus explaining precisely what was the jet _originally_ designed to do.
The reason I'm recommending this is that you're all the time talking about 'add-ons' it has received ever since, and support equipment Ukraine is never going to get. Unsurprisingly, your starting point is 'off the mark', and, sorry, so is the mass of your conclusions.