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.
In order for ground based air defence to hit a helicopter hovering beyond manpads range it is required to put precious longer range systems close to the front line - in the range of russian artilery.
Manpads range is ~5km, k-52 shots from over 8km, so you need to ambush them to get a hit. That is the reason UA is unable to deal with k-52 effectively and they are not getting cheap AAS that could do the job. I really wonder what happened with Taiwan`s hawks
The UAV can be downed by EW or MANPAD, if it is large and carries missiles. A small kamikaze UAV is unlikely to be able to hit a quickly moving target.
For this, the F-16 would need the capability to 'remain within the combat zone' - read: survive well within the range of the Russian interceptors and SAMs - for extended periods of time.
Sorry, it hasn't got such a capability.
So, the best we can hope for is that, time and again, when there's activity of the VKS' Ka-52s, the PSU sends 1-2 low-flying F-16 to kill one (from, say, 10-15km), and then disappear before the Russians can kill it.
Yet we see S300s and S400s being picked off right now, by Ukraine, as tactically necessary.
F-16 was always intended to operate in this way, in combat, in order to make ground strikes. We saw that being their routine role during all the air/ground battles since 1990. And not merely flying around and constantly exposed to heavy SAMS, either.
Since the 1990s, long range precision standoff and passive targeting methods, like ESM, in support of of other ISR data, have greatly increased standoff strike effects.
It's also a fact that Russian heavy SAMS will not remain hidden or survive long within 60 km of the front line. But a high-altitude flying F-16s can deliver a weapon, and evade a SAM missile fired from that distance from behind the front. Their ability to strike is not impaired and their SA and ability to kill SAMS at the same time, is a boost to what Ukraine currently operates.
This was when the F-16s had local air superiorty, and did not have to worry about getting targeted at high altitude by a MiG 31 or a Su-35 launching a long range R-37 at it. The fact is the F-16 is very vunerable and within the weapons envelope of these systems way before it could be in effective position to launch it's own percision ordinance. It unfortunately is not as effective at launching heavy ordinance from high alt and high speed, you need a big aircraft and big wings for that, the F-16 is big engine, little wings, and with heavy ordinance that makes it more suited at medium-high alts, with the Su-24 still being really the only aircraft Ukraine has that has the kinematic peformance to launch weapons like storm shadow from a safe enough range to the avoid incoming R-37s
This is not the case, the R37M is a very heavy AAM, designed to fly out fast toward high-value C4ISR support aircraft, that lack agility and supersonic speed to run or evade. But that missile is too large and heavy to turn well and engage a very agile fast fighter that can pull it down on the the deck and trash it.
Indeed it's been quite ineffective when fired against Ukraine's existing fighters for this reason. It's more-or-less analogous to a Phoenix missile, a bomber, AWAC and logistics killer. It's not optimised for engaging fighters, and Ukraine has found them to be ineffective against defensive fighters.
F-16 has the fuel and performance to fast-climb to 40k feet and launch stand off weapons a known targets. It will be quite capable of taking apart the IADS and bombarding deeper targets with heavy weapons, plus prepping battlefield targets for ground forces.
Your kidding right? The R-37 has been quite effective at suppressing Ukrainian fighters and has destroyed serveral, even at very long ranged shots, and has forced them to stay down even lower to use availible terrain masking. A loaded F-16 with fuel bags, HARMs and the pods hanging off is going to be detected by over the horizon early warning radar way in advance and is going to be a sitting duck as it climbs to 40000 and then tries to get fast enough to strike deep targets. And only realizes it's in trouble when it's too late and gets hit by the R-37.
Ukraine has long range radar data also, in exactly the same ways, and the F-16 has datalink. As you say, R-37M merely suppresses fighters, *IF* it is present. And when it's not, it won't. And it can not always be present.
It's absolutely ridiculous to assert the F-16 won't be effective.
....and the S-200/SA-5 was designed in the late 1950s with targeting high-flying bombers of the SAC and the RAF Bomber Command before these could release their stand-off weapons.
And yet: in February 2018, an Israeli F-16I (a version far more advanced than any F-16AM Ukraine might ever get, and equipped with a towed decoy, too), was shot down by an Assadist-operated S-200/SA-5, and that while in the process of diving back to the low altitude.
Erm....according to what I've read, the F-16 was originally designed as a light-weight fighter armed with Sidewinders and a gun: a jet made to dogfight and outmanoeuvre MiG-17s and MiG-21s.
'They' began attaching bombs to it only once it entered service. So much so that, when the Israelis came to the idea to use F-16s to bomb the construction site of the two Iraqi nuclear reactors, in 1981, about a year after it entered service there, and two-three years after it entered service in the USA, they first had to flight-test the jet configured with different bombs - in order to find out its range with such a load, for example.
Re. 'ISR data': you're discussing this like if Ukraine would have the full ISR-arsenal of NATO.
It simply hasn't got that. Yes, it has a relatively effective IADS. Yes, the software linking that IADS is (meanwhile) largely of Western origin. But, that's not 'automatically' granting that IADS with capabilities comparable to those of any IADS the USA and/or NATO can deploy.
....which is why, for example, when they want to target 'heavy/long-range' Russian SAMs, Ukrainians have to do so with help of their special forces. Which in turn is making all such operations time-consuming.
Please understand one thing: the fact Ukraine might get F-16AMs, _does not_ 'automatically translate' into anything like 'Ukraine is getting all the Western capabilities'. It means just that it's getting F-16AMs.
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).
" ... 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 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.
No wonder you're wondering about decision-making in this case: I'm wondering too, because - and as explained in my discussion of costs of delivring fighter jets to Ukraine - when it comes to the 'factor costs': this decision is simply not making sense.
Yes, under the given circumstances, and especially how many MIM-104 launchers are stored around the USA (indeed: seems, some are waiting to get disassembled), I do not understand why is it 'impossible' to ship more of them to Ukraine. Pronto. There is an urgent requirement for them.
Moreover: fighter jets can remain in an area, and protect it, only as long as they have enough fuel to do so. Afterwards, they have to return to base.
SAMs can remain in the same area and protect it for as long as necessary.
So, yes, this is both:
- for Kyiv: 'flashy Wunderwaffe fighter jets', and
- for NATO: 'we've got to do something (but can't think of anything better than junk our worn-out F-16s upon Ukraine)'.
Sep 20, 2023·edited Sep 20, 2023Liked by Sarcastosaurus
I think the answer is blindingly obvious. We saw it again this week, air-launched Storm-shadow can destroy a sub in a protected dry-dock, in the heart of the air defence system. Storm shadow does not get launched by MIM-104s.
This takes a mix of capabilities, and we can not have Ukraine with no air force, and expect them to win such a war and take back their territory.
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?
Well, types like Su-34 have the 'radar cross section of a family home'.
Means: they are of the kind that's near-certain to be detected by the APG-66 from, say, 100km away. Even more so because the APG-66 and the RWR are 'integrated', so that the latter is going to detect their radar emissions long before the former can actually acquire them.
That's no problem. Problem is that Su-34s are never flying alone: there are always some Su-35s nearby... and these are free to fly high, and armed with R-37Ms, and R-37Ms are much longer-ranged than AIM-120s....
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.
From a longer view perspective, AFU got a long term support with F-16 platform because when worn-out F-16AMs are spent, they may be replaced by less worn-out F16s.
From a long-view perspective, it's the wrong idea to junk worn-out F-16AMs upon Ukraine, and let Ukrainians waste lives and money while trying to make something useful with these - if there are enough (much) more advanced F-16-variants on hand.
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
One of government core responsibilities is to protect its citizens from harm. That is more effective in a city with a million plus inhabitants than on a front line.
The Russian aviation drops guided bombs from 50 km behind the front line. And Robotyne is flanked by Russian army, which may send a long-range MLRS there to destroy the Patriot as soon as it is detected.
The Patriot system can be placed on a truck bed and made as mobile as HIMARS. It does not have to be left out in a field as a static target. This would be one of the options.
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.
I think your points are great, but your post doesn't really describe your starting points, unnecessarily making your argument harder. Throw the first half of your post into GPT and ask it to summarize it.
Your first half communicates emotion (which is cool), but the grammar and structure is just really bad, undercutting a very interesting and strong argument that the capability envelope of the F16 is overstated, and it's actually performance parameters will make it both vulnerable and ineffective.
Please understand that I really appreciate your point of view.
'Yesno': it's a factor determined by availability of support systems, the situational awareness these are providing, and quality of training.
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.
Exactly.
How about F-16 targeting Ka-52 hovering not more than 10 km from the frontline?
GBAD should be able to deal with that.
I'd much rather see F-16s used in DEAD, and firing cruise missiles at deep targets, as well as using JDAM-ER in support of ground objectives.
Which is what F-16C/D were optimised to do, as opposed to its original VFR A2A fighting role.
In order for ground based air defence to hit a helicopter hovering beyond manpads range it is required to put precious longer range systems close to the front line - in the range of russian artilery.
Nope, MANPAD is also GBAD. I don't know what makes you think it can also do much outside its own *effective* range.
Manpads range is ~5km, k-52 shots from over 8km, so you need to ambush them to get a hit. That is the reason UA is unable to deal with k-52 effectively and they are not getting cheap AAS that could do the job. I really wonder what happened with Taiwan`s hawks
A hunter-killer UAV is the logical solution if they're slow moving or hovering at 8 km range to target and fire.
The UAV can be downed by EW or MANPAD, if it is large and carries missiles. A small kamikaze UAV is unlikely to be able to hit a quickly moving target.
For this, the F-16 would need the capability to 'remain within the combat zone' - read: survive well within the range of the Russian interceptors and SAMs - for extended periods of time.
Sorry, it hasn't got such a capability.
So, the best we can hope for is that, time and again, when there's activity of the VKS' Ka-52s, the PSU sends 1-2 low-flying F-16 to kill one (from, say, 10-15km), and then disappear before the Russians can kill it.
Yet we see S300s and S400s being picked off right now, by Ukraine, as tactically necessary.
F-16 was always intended to operate in this way, in combat, in order to make ground strikes. We saw that being their routine role during all the air/ground battles since 1990. And not merely flying around and constantly exposed to heavy SAMS, either.
Since the 1990s, long range precision standoff and passive targeting methods, like ESM, in support of of other ISR data, have greatly increased standoff strike effects.
It's also a fact that Russian heavy SAMS will not remain hidden or survive long within 60 km of the front line. But a high-altitude flying F-16s can deliver a weapon, and evade a SAM missile fired from that distance from behind the front. Their ability to strike is not impaired and their SA and ability to kill SAMS at the same time, is a boost to what Ukraine currently operates.
This was when the F-16s had local air superiorty, and did not have to worry about getting targeted at high altitude by a MiG 31 or a Su-35 launching a long range R-37 at it. The fact is the F-16 is very vunerable and within the weapons envelope of these systems way before it could be in effective position to launch it's own percision ordinance. It unfortunately is not as effective at launching heavy ordinance from high alt and high speed, you need a big aircraft and big wings for that, the F-16 is big engine, little wings, and with heavy ordinance that makes it more suited at medium-high alts, with the Su-24 still being really the only aircraft Ukraine has that has the kinematic peformance to launch weapons like storm shadow from a safe enough range to the avoid incoming R-37s
This is not the case, the R37M is a very heavy AAM, designed to fly out fast toward high-value C4ISR support aircraft, that lack agility and supersonic speed to run or evade. But that missile is too large and heavy to turn well and engage a very agile fast fighter that can pull it down on the the deck and trash it.
Indeed it's been quite ineffective when fired against Ukraine's existing fighters for this reason. It's more-or-less analogous to a Phoenix missile, a bomber, AWAC and logistics killer. It's not optimised for engaging fighters, and Ukraine has found them to be ineffective against defensive fighters.
F-16 has the fuel and performance to fast-climb to 40k feet and launch stand off weapons a known targets. It will be quite capable of taking apart the IADS and bombarding deeper targets with heavy weapons, plus prepping battlefield targets for ground forces.
Your kidding right? The R-37 has been quite effective at suppressing Ukrainian fighters and has destroyed serveral, even at very long ranged shots, and has forced them to stay down even lower to use availible terrain masking. A loaded F-16 with fuel bags, HARMs and the pods hanging off is going to be detected by over the horizon early warning radar way in advance and is going to be a sitting duck as it climbs to 40000 and then tries to get fast enough to strike deep targets. And only realizes it's in trouble when it's too late and gets hit by the R-37.
Ukraine has long range radar data also, in exactly the same ways, and the F-16 has datalink. As you say, R-37M merely suppresses fighters, *IF* it is present. And when it's not, it won't. And it can not always be present.
It's absolutely ridiculous to assert the F-16 won't be effective.
....and the S-200/SA-5 was designed in the late 1950s with targeting high-flying bombers of the SAC and the RAF Bomber Command before these could release their stand-off weapons.
And yet: in February 2018, an Israeli F-16I (a version far more advanced than any F-16AM Ukraine might ever get, and equipped with a towed decoy, too), was shot down by an Assadist-operated S-200/SA-5, and that while in the process of diving back to the low altitude.
'Case closed'.
Erm....according to what I've read, the F-16 was originally designed as a light-weight fighter armed with Sidewinders and a gun: a jet made to dogfight and outmanoeuvre MiG-17s and MiG-21s.
'They' began attaching bombs to it only once it entered service. So much so that, when the Israelis came to the idea to use F-16s to bomb the construction site of the two Iraqi nuclear reactors, in 1981, about a year after it entered service there, and two-three years after it entered service in the USA, they first had to flight-test the jet configured with different bombs - in order to find out its range with such a load, for example.
Re. 'ISR data': you're discussing this like if Ukraine would have the full ISR-arsenal of NATO.
It simply hasn't got that. Yes, it has a relatively effective IADS. Yes, the software linking that IADS is (meanwhile) largely of Western origin. But, that's not 'automatically' granting that IADS with capabilities comparable to those of any IADS the USA and/or NATO can deploy.
....which is why, for example, when they want to target 'heavy/long-range' Russian SAMs, Ukrainians have to do so with help of their special forces. Which in turn is making all such operations time-consuming.
Please understand one thing: the fact Ukraine might get F-16AMs, _does not_ 'automatically translate' into anything like 'Ukraine is getting all the Western capabilities'. It means just that it's getting F-16AMs.
That was my thought - kill one Kamow, force other to keep further from front - beyond ATGM range
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).
" ... 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.
What about latest Grippens with PS-05 Mark 4 or Mark 5 radar and MBDA Meteor missiles?
Latest radars Mk4 at least have peak power output 10 kW, which is only 50% less than Russian N035 Irbis-E radar 20 KW.
In theory, it should be able to have much better chances against Su 35S than F-16.
Longest confirmed kill that I heard of by Su-35S with R-37M was 177 km (interview on UA side).
Do you think latest Gripens can push off Russian Su 35 and Su 34s to a distance that make usage of UMPK unsafe?
Or F-35 is the only option?
Sure. It's only going to take 2-3 years to manufacture enough of them....
What about F-16 C/D Block 50/52 upgraded to the 5th gen avionics?
US is upgrading right now 608 F-16s with 20+ point upgrade including AN/APG-83 radar and AN/ALQ-257 ECM.
Maybe ECMs + Link 16 + tactics can help pushing the needle?
Let's assume for a second that US would ship to Ukraine these newly upgraded F-16s + AIM-120 D-3.
Would that be sufficient to push off Russian Su-35S with R-37M ?
Some bad that I found were
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Estimated-detection-ranges-vs-scan-angle-th-against-a-target-of-1-m-RCS-for-the-radars_fig1_337985199
F-16 MLU could be upgraded to AN/APG-83, but I read that radars in a smaller compartment tend to overheat and thus radars can't be used at 100% power.
What should Ukraine ask for in order to
- push off Ka-52s
- push off Su-34 with UMPKs?
- Making JDAM-ER bombardment safer at longer range
- Does SEAD-capable F-16 CJ/DJ Block 50/52 adds a significant advantage against air defense reducing OODA loop compared to Mig-29 with AGM-88 HARM?
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.
No wonder you're wondering about decision-making in this case: I'm wondering too, because - and as explained in my discussion of costs of delivring fighter jets to Ukraine - when it comes to the 'factor costs': this decision is simply not making sense.
Yes, under the given circumstances, and especially how many MIM-104 launchers are stored around the USA (indeed: seems, some are waiting to get disassembled), I do not understand why is it 'impossible' to ship more of them to Ukraine. Pronto. There is an urgent requirement for them.
Moreover: fighter jets can remain in an area, and protect it, only as long as they have enough fuel to do so. Afterwards, they have to return to base.
SAMs can remain in the same area and protect it for as long as necessary.
So, yes, this is both:
- for Kyiv: 'flashy Wunderwaffe fighter jets', and
- for NATO: 'we've got to do something (but can't think of anything better than junk our worn-out F-16s upon Ukraine)'.
I think the answer is blindingly obvious. We saw it again this week, air-launched Storm-shadow can destroy a sub in a protected dry-dock, in the heart of the air defence system. Storm shadow does not get launched by MIM-104s.
This takes a mix of capabilities, and we can not have Ukraine with no air force, and expect them to win such a war and take back their territory.
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?
Well, types like Su-34 have the 'radar cross section of a family home'.
Means: they are of the kind that's near-certain to be detected by the APG-66 from, say, 100km away. Even more so because the APG-66 and the RWR are 'integrated', so that the latter is going to detect their radar emissions long before the former can actually acquire them.
That's no problem. Problem is that Su-34s are never flying alone: there are always some Su-35s nearby... and these are free to fly high, and armed with R-37Ms, and R-37Ms are much longer-ranged than AIM-120s....
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.
I am far from claiming any kind of authoritativeness regarding NATO-equipment, but: no word of APG-68 here: https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article3.html
The Block 50/52 also carries the Westinghouse AN/APG-68 V(5) radar, which offers longer range
Block 50 have 66, Block 52 have 68…..
Holland looks to have the 66 versjon. Sorry…
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.
Theoretically: yes. Unless barely flyable MiG-29s are replaced by worn-out F-16AMs....
From a longer view perspective, AFU got a long term support with F-16 platform because when worn-out F-16AMs are spent, they may be replaced by less worn-out F16s.
From a long-view perspective, it's the wrong idea to junk worn-out F-16AMs upon Ukraine, and let Ukrainians waste lives and money while trying to make something useful with these - if there are enough (much) more advanced F-16-variants on hand.
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?
That's discussed in the Part 2. ;-)
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?
That's discussed in the Part 3.
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
One of government core responsibilities is to protect its citizens from harm. That is more effective in a city with a million plus inhabitants than on a front line.
The Russian aviation drops guided bombs from 50 km behind the front line. And Robotyne is flanked by Russian army, which may send a long-range MLRS there to destroy the Patriot as soon as it is detected.
The Patriot system can be placed on a truck bed and made as mobile as HIMARS. It does not have to be left out in a field as a static target. This would be one of the options.
The importance of terminals in Odesa- and Izmail is as follows:
- the government is responsible for protecting 'people' of Ukraine;
- what the government needs to provide that protection is money;
- money is obtained through exports of Ukrainian produce.
- if the produce is destroyed by the Russians, the government must protect it - in order to remain capable of protecting civilians.
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.
That's discussed in the Parts 2 and 3.
‘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.
Trying to do so all the time, just like I'm trying to avoid using of too many abbreviations. Sorry if I've missed anything.
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.
Yes, that's perfectly fine. I just do not see a point in replacing barely flyable MiG-29s with worn-out F-16AMs.
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?
It might be a 'mess', but then:
a) nobody is forcing anybody to read that 'mess', and
b) if I do not define my starting points, you cannot understand why am I drawing conclusions which I'm drawing, nor what is my qualification to do so.
I think your points are great, but your post doesn't really describe your starting points, unnecessarily making your argument harder. Throw the first half of your post into GPT and ask it to summarize it.
Your first half communicates emotion (which is cool), but the grammar and structure is just really bad, undercutting a very interesting and strong argument that the capability envelope of the F16 is overstated, and it's actually performance parameters will make it both vulnerable and ineffective.
Please understand that I really appreciate your point of view.