Hello everybody! On 14, 15, and 16 September, Su-34s of the VKS flew dozens of air strikes deploying MPK and UMPK glide bombs (colloquially known as ‘KABs’, in Ukraine, meanwhile). For a detailed description of their effects and what it is to be on the receiving end of them, (including photos), please
Probably only a big batch of F-35s could be a game changer if delivered to Ukraine. (Sure it's impossible or at least it cloud take 3 years). F-16s alone cannot be as useful now.
I always wonder what is ""easier"" for the ""collective west"" in terms of benefit/cost ratio:
a) to deliver a single "F16 launching platform" i.e. one plane with all related training, equipment, logistics
b) to deliver a single "Patriot launching platform" i.e. an amount of launchers, radars, command units corresponding to a single F16 and its related stuff.
Seems like previous "Patriot" deliveries were done quite quickly, and they've already been put to good use. Maybe I'm missing something, but how F16 is better, when you need a lot of time and investments for a limited gain?
Looks like politicians in Ukraine are trying to score "flashy wunderwaffe fighter jet" points for internal politics, instead of focusing on driving all the political pressure into what is mathematically most beneficial and optimal.
Hi Tom - thanks for the clarity of explanation. What are the approximate radar cross-sections of the main Russian aircraft and does this vary, depending on how they are flown?
Isn't the main reason for F-16 to keep the UAF flying at all? The West has delivered all Mig-29 they could find in their old arsenals and probably all spare parts too. Wear and tear attrition alone will at some point leave the UAF on the ground.
Resupply of F-16 / spare parts for those seems endless in comparison.
Very interesting, you really put things in perspective. So the biggest benefit by sending F-16 to Ukraine will basically be the uncertainty by the russians about what capabilities F-16 have. F-16 will then be a weapon to send similar bombs to occupied territory but not stop the russians from doing the same, interesting . But some people have stated that F-16 would be a good weapon to shoot down missiles and drones, is that a fact?
I guess this will be discussed in the follow-ups, but what is going to be the role of these aging F-16s within the framework of AD? I am expecting Russia to increase its attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructures once the cold seasons comes. And since we have not seen any dedicated anti-drone drones (seriously, where are these???) and with Russia continuously increasing its drone production (or so I have read) - the outlook in this particular regard is not all that rosy.
I don't understand. Are Odessa wheat terminals more important than army on the front. Like even one Patriot battery in 70 km from frontline near Robotyne could reduce an activity of Russian aviation and hit a few. Of course, it is a risk but one battery of Patriot and SAMP protect Kiev at least.
About f 16, I think they will be used like JDam carriers and more effective Harm launchers
There is also a task to take down ruzzian cruise missiles, and drones.
Also - F16 would be a good option to increase the minuscule number of platforms available that can launch cruise missiles such as JASSM, or radar seeking missiles like HARM.
Excellent stuff, would it be possible in your essays to explain the abbreviations of hardware etc. Some of us (I assume) are not experts and would like to be enlightened). Many thanks if possible.
F-16s are needed not to augment PSU's capabilities, but simply to replace all the MIG-29s that have been lost in this war. And PSU needs to be re-armed with NATO aircraft anyway, since the remaining Soviet-era aircraft are very old, worn out and spare parts for them are unavailable.
Probably only a big batch of F-35s could be a game changer if delivered to Ukraine. (Sure it's impossible or at least it cloud take 3 years). F-16s alone cannot be as useful now.
How about F-16 targeting Ka-52 hovering not more than 10 km from the frontline?
Thanks for the informative post.
I always wonder what is ""easier"" for the ""collective west"" in terms of benefit/cost ratio:
a) to deliver a single "F16 launching platform" i.e. one plane with all related training, equipment, logistics
b) to deliver a single "Patriot launching platform" i.e. an amount of launchers, radars, command units corresponding to a single F16 and its related stuff.
Seems like previous "Patriot" deliveries were done quite quickly, and they've already been put to good use. Maybe I'm missing something, but how F16 is better, when you need a lot of time and investments for a limited gain?
Looks like politicians in Ukraine are trying to score "flashy wunderwaffe fighter jet" points for internal politics, instead of focusing on driving all the political pressure into what is mathematically most beneficial and optimal.
Hi Tom - thanks for the clarity of explanation. What are the approximate radar cross-sections of the main Russian aircraft and does this vary, depending on how they are flown?
hmmm, i was under the impression that Holland f-16 were modernized with MLU and are using APG-68 radar, that is used by block 50-52.
Isn't the main reason for F-16 to keep the UAF flying at all? The West has delivered all Mig-29 they could find in their old arsenals and probably all spare parts too. Wear and tear attrition alone will at some point leave the UAF on the ground.
Resupply of F-16 / spare parts for those seems endless in comparison.
Very interesting, you really put things in perspective. So the biggest benefit by sending F-16 to Ukraine will basically be the uncertainty by the russians about what capabilities F-16 have. F-16 will then be a weapon to send similar bombs to occupied territory but not stop the russians from doing the same, interesting . But some people have stated that F-16 would be a good weapon to shoot down missiles and drones, is that a fact?
I guess this will be discussed in the follow-ups, but what is going to be the role of these aging F-16s within the framework of AD? I am expecting Russia to increase its attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructures once the cold seasons comes. And since we have not seen any dedicated anti-drone drones (seriously, where are these???) and with Russia continuously increasing its drone production (or so I have read) - the outlook in this particular regard is not all that rosy.
and what is your opinion about gripen? Could be a better option for ukraine scenario?
I don't understand. Are Odessa wheat terminals more important than army on the front. Like even one Patriot battery in 70 km from frontline near Robotyne could reduce an activity of Russian aviation and hit a few. Of course, it is a risk but one battery of Patriot and SAMP protect Kiev at least.
About f 16, I think they will be used like JDam carriers and more effective Harm launchers
Just my thoughts
Thank you Tom.
There is also a task to take down ruzzian cruise missiles, and drones.
Also - F16 would be a good option to increase the minuscule number of platforms available that can launch cruise missiles such as JASSM, or radar seeking missiles like HARM.
‘everybody is lying until proven otherwise’ 🫵👏
ein anderer nickname wäre wohl ebenfalls passend - SceptikusApriorius
🤜🤛 😊
Excellent stuff, would it be possible in your essays to explain the abbreviations of hardware etc. Some of us (I assume) are not experts and would like to be enlightened). Many thanks if possible.
F-16s are needed not to augment PSU's capabilities, but simply to replace all the MIG-29s that have been lost in this war. And PSU needs to be re-armed with NATO aircraft anyway, since the remaining Soviet-era aircraft are very old, worn out and spare parts for them are unavailable.
Great stuff at the end, but jeez, the beginning of this newsletter is a hot mess! Maybe throw it into GPT and have it clean it up for you?