regarding R-37M vs F16 - F16 have one advantage over MiG29 - they can be equipped with decent jamming pod.. R-37M is heavy missile designed against bombers and AWACS.. F16 is nimble plane, will be able to detect R-37M a lot better than MiG29 can and will try to jam it.. Distance at which you discover the missile plays big role in ability to defeat it. R-37M is not exactly small missile...
that depends on getting equipped with the necessary munitions and equipment. Will they?
It's not known what version of AMRAAM (which is a *medium range* missile) will equip these F-16s. And the MBDA Meteor is not available for this platform, either.
Hin Nick, I doubt they would equip it with anything superior to an AIM 120 C7, the MLU versions have an APG 66, they cannot give much performance to an AIM 120 D given the range of the radar.
There is no point for European countries who are donating F16s to keep jamming or targeting pods.. they are moving to F35, which has all of it integrated withing the plane.. so its expected all F16 accessories will be transferred as well.
MiG29 and Su-27 of Ukrainian Air Force are cold war era planes with rudimentary RWR.. F16 MLU is considerable upgrade.. they will get 1990ties western plane instead of 1980ties soviet ones.. they will still be at disadvantage against most modern russian planes, but they will have a chance..
And there is still a chance, Lockheed Martin could install AN/APG-68 radar into those F16MLUs.. they have hundreds of these radars in storage, as they are upgrading F16C into F16V, which carries new AESA radar. MLU F16s already have all electronics installed, they just didnt replace the radar antenae as cost saving measure... but if you already have a lot of these radars sitting idly by, its not that costly as back in late 1990ties, when those AN/APG-68 had to be build new...
If I am not mistaken, sending these pods would require a license by the State Department (as it's required for munitions etc made in USA). I wouldn't assume that these would be part of the package by default
But US Government already approved transfer of F16s.. Pods are part of that approval, as it would make no sense excluding them. Ukrainian pilots train on F16C in USA, flying advanced combat missions using US Airforce planes.. makes no sense to train them for something and then not give them adequate equipment.
Always the pods and munitions were a separate item from the airframes when buying USA jets, and you had to apply for a State Department permit each time you wanted to order more AMRAAM or JDAMS, etc
Im making this assumption based on fact these European countries are completely transferring their F16s to Ukraine.. they have no use for targeting pods or missiles these F16s used.. because they are transferring to completely different airplane which cant even use these in the first place... Ukraine is not procuring these planes.. and yet, Ukraine already received modern AMRAAM missiles for their NASAMS batteries. They already use JDAMs, SDBs..even MALD decoys (for over a year)
Very good points regarding the impact of culture in command and control when it comes to selecting targets, figuring out how to best destroy them, etc. it’s a sobering thought that generals will have to deign to listen to the crews of aircraft re: a change in tactics.
My hope is that the Scandinavian AWACs that are coming to Ukraine will prevent the mig31 attacks you speak of. That is, flying high, those migs should show up at the advertised 400km max range of the s100 Argus, allowing f16s time to hit the deck.
My guess would be the first stage when few f16s are present to fly CAPs to protect the Argus while patriots and like ground assets trap & kill anything foolish enough to come close to them. AFU will need some time to tie together all the western radar systems to reduce the fog of war.
Only as the number of air frames, crew, and ground personnel swell should planes become available for other missions. That will be a ling time since western partners are training a few dozen vs. hundreds of pilots and similarly drip dripping air frames.
If a faster, decisive victory is desired (losses notwithstanding) then Guderians advice of “klotzen, nicht kleckern” likely applies. But the AFU lack the resources to do so since western democracies continue pretending that they can have it both ways while Ukraine bleeds out.
Patriots are being destroyed by ballistic missiles whenever one is deployed close to the line of contact, while they lack range with other deployments.
that's the advantage of the ballistic missiles, you can hit targets everywhere inside Ukraine (as long as you detect them and your targeting loop/kill chain is fast enough)
And since these fly above the atmosphere, they don't have to deal with air defenses across the whole Ukraine, only on the target location.
I have heard and seen of a Patriot missile launcher being taken out but I wonder about the radar itself. I dont think those have been taken out yet. But again we dont know even a quarter of whats really happening especially us outside Ukraine.
For the (3), you would need a pair (at least) of F-16s blocking possible attacks by Russian airplanes trying to attack the HARM-equipped jets. That needs a quantity of these.
Theoretically, an independent squadron of F-16s might be able to operate better without much intervention and meddling by high level generals and VIPs.
If these VIPs limit themselves to a "wish list" and let the squadron implement their solution professionally, there may be hope of good results
After 4 articles I finally get it Tom: like 12 F-16s will not be a game changer in Ukraine and they’re gonna suffer losses. Is there anything F-16s will actually be useful for? Lets say if goal is gaining local air superiority and or suppressing Russian air defense so other air units can do their work: what fighters should the west send and how many?
You forget the Russian pilots are guided by ground controllers. Getting greedy is a difficult concept when you have very little ability to use your initiative or operate in a flexible manner.
Good reminder that the US Navy is *not* the USAF. And thank goodness for that.
If Ukraine is smart, aircraft aren't on standby alert on the ground, but running as many active patrols in central Ukraine as possible. I'd bet on every pilot flying a 2-hour circuit once a day in a two-ship pair.
They only land at minimum of 200km from the border to refuel, rearm and swap pilots before heading up again. As soon as it's time for serious maintenance, jet flies out to Poland and a new one swaps in.
They'll work with Patriot batteries to hit cruise missiles and maybe drones. Amraam is cheaper than Patriot.
Leadership is a big question - hopefully the Vipers are in their own regiment with leaders allowed to operate according to modern practices. Treating them like glorified MiGs or Sukhois is a mistake.
Question - what does Ukraine name their MiG-29s and Su-27s? I doubt they go by NATO designations.
It starts with the same letters: "Su-shka". Besides, "Su" is a shortening from "Sukhoi" - the surname of the lead engineer. "Sukhoi" also means "dry", so it might be a funny word-playing as well. And "-shka" suffix is usually used to make a word more tender or amiable (like "baba" - "babushka")
"Read: by a Lieutenant Junior Grade (lowest officer rank in the US Navy).. . . "
A polite (hopefully) correction: The lowest officer rank in the U.S.N. is Ensign (equiv. to USA/USAF/USMC 2nd lieutenant). However, to be accurate totally, the warrant officer ranks (W-2 to CWO-5), except for W-1, are commissioned officers. Lately, however, the U.S. Navy re-established the W-1 grade of Warrant Officer and appoints successful applicants through a commission from the President.
No sweat actually. An Ensign is a "butter bar" and when reporting aboard one's first ship as an Ensign with little or no experience, he (now she too?) is considered the lowest form of life. I avoided this one fortunately. My first real tour was in Vietnam as a LTJG with the Naval Advisory Group, first having gone through 19 months of training. Kind of ironic (or stupid?) too. I was 23 & inexperienced while serving in the Naval Advisory group whose mission was to "advise" the Vietnamese Navy and its officers and sailors who organizationally had been at war essentially since WWII.
Is any of this somewhat resembling perhaps the advice that the Ukrainians get from Uncle Sam about how to fight Russians?
I guess it does. Just that nowadays people training foreign personnel are better prepared. Especially in regards of the local culture, traditions, and how to best approach their trainees/students.
Also, not sure if Ensigns are let to do such jobs. At least haven't heard of any assigned such tasks in something like the last 30 years.
So Tom what you are telling us is, that the best front to put them into place is between Odessa and Zaporizha as this is the least encircled place of Ukraine.
In his excellent research Tom skillfully evades most crucial question: why Ukraine is supplied with 3 decades old F-16s of early mods which by default will be inferior to the latest Russian jets and SAMs. No matter how skillfull and daring UA pilots could be, with old weapons there are no chances to change the game. The thing that makes me laugh most of all is the fact that none of F-16s were supplied by USA.
Exactly. If the US et al want Ukraine's air force to be a real gamechanger then they need either F-35s (preferrably) or at least Eurofighters with Meteors, F-15EXs and Rafales. Oh and a squadron of EA-18GS. Or even ordering F-16 Block 70s for Ukraine!
Its possible there will be some jets with modified avionics, but realistically speaking you're right, most of the jets will likely still have old avionics. I can only hope if Kamala wins she clears out the Sullivans and brings in people who will actually support Ukraine. But most likely she will continue on with Biden's strategy since she'd be new and not want to define her first term with increased Ukrainian military aid especially in the form of the F16s delivered from US stocks.
The Russian airforce is still mostly flying Soviet era jets not the latest ones but anyway I doubt we will ever see any aircraft vs aircraft dog fights. It is all about aircraft vs missiles and since Ukraine has no answer to the Russian R-37 air to air missile they will always have a problem.
At this point a hefty book could be written on the F-16 saga, which is looking more like a Potemkin Villiage in the sky. I question if enough effort has been put into buying Migs and Sukhois (flying or not) from other countries, which would help make things happen operationally a lot easier.
Thank you for this text! What effect will the delivery of F-16s have on Ukrainian air defense? As far as I understand, many air defenses will be redirected to protect the F-16s, potentially leaving cities and infrastructure more vulnerable.
Tom: have you heard anything about a Sukhoi SU-34 going down in a "Training Flight" around Volgorod???
Also (a REAL stretch of REALITY question) what are the chance that Wester'NATO countries try to use the F-16s as combat testbeds for say....DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS????? I mean come on the Keonsayr BTL-A4 Y-Wing Attack Starfighter can do it all and ALWAYS needs help right???
Thanks for thesis one. And the history lessons. As a Norwegian I think we flew some F16 flights against Q. According to MSm here we crushed everything and are thus responsible for the fall of Q and all horrors afterwards. If you could be bothered to say something about the Norwegian performance, be it good or bad I personally would be interesses. But mainly I am looking firward to thesus two and three,
regarding R-37M vs F16 - F16 have one advantage over MiG29 - they can be equipped with decent jamming pod.. R-37M is heavy missile designed against bombers and AWACS.. F16 is nimble plane, will be able to detect R-37M a lot better than MiG29 can and will try to jam it.. Distance at which you discover the missile plays big role in ability to defeat it. R-37M is not exactly small missile...
that depends on getting equipped with the necessary munitions and equipment. Will they?
It's not known what version of AMRAAM (which is a *medium range* missile) will equip these F-16s. And the MBDA Meteor is not available for this platform, either.
Hin Nick, I doubt they would equip it with anything superior to an AIM 120 C7, the MLU versions have an APG 66, they cannot give much performance to an AIM 120 D given the range of the radar.
There is no point for European countries who are donating F16s to keep jamming or targeting pods.. they are moving to F35, which has all of it integrated withing the plane.. so its expected all F16 accessories will be transferred as well.
MiG29 and Su-27 of Ukrainian Air Force are cold war era planes with rudimentary RWR.. F16 MLU is considerable upgrade.. they will get 1990ties western plane instead of 1980ties soviet ones.. they will still be at disadvantage against most modern russian planes, but they will have a chance..
And there is still a chance, Lockheed Martin could install AN/APG-68 radar into those F16MLUs.. they have hundreds of these radars in storage, as they are upgrading F16C into F16V, which carries new AESA radar. MLU F16s already have all electronics installed, they just didnt replace the radar antenae as cost saving measure... but if you already have a lot of these radars sitting idly by, its not that costly as back in late 1990ties, when those AN/APG-68 had to be build new...
If I am not mistaken, sending these pods would require a license by the State Department (as it's required for munitions etc made in USA). I wouldn't assume that these would be part of the package by default
But US Government already approved transfer of F16s.. Pods are part of that approval, as it would make no sense excluding them. Ukrainian pilots train on F16C in USA, flying advanced combat missions using US Airforce planes.. makes no sense to train them for something and then not give them adequate equipment.
Better avoid making too many assumptions.
Always the pods and munitions were a separate item from the airframes when buying USA jets, and you had to apply for a State Department permit each time you wanted to order more AMRAAM or JDAMS, etc
Im making this assumption based on fact these European countries are completely transferring their F16s to Ukraine.. they have no use for targeting pods or missiles these F16s used.. because they are transferring to completely different airplane which cant even use these in the first place... Ukraine is not procuring these planes.. and yet, Ukraine already received modern AMRAAM missiles for their NASAMS batteries. They already use JDAMs, SDBs..even MALD decoys (for over a year)
Very good points regarding the impact of culture in command and control when it comes to selecting targets, figuring out how to best destroy them, etc. it’s a sobering thought that generals will have to deign to listen to the crews of aircraft re: a change in tactics.
My hope is that the Scandinavian AWACs that are coming to Ukraine will prevent the mig31 attacks you speak of. That is, flying high, those migs should show up at the advertised 400km max range of the s100 Argus, allowing f16s time to hit the deck.
My guess would be the first stage when few f16s are present to fly CAPs to protect the Argus while patriots and like ground assets trap & kill anything foolish enough to come close to them. AFU will need some time to tie together all the western radar systems to reduce the fog of war.
Only as the number of air frames, crew, and ground personnel swell should planes become available for other missions. That will be a ling time since western partners are training a few dozen vs. hundreds of pilots and similarly drip dripping air frames.
If a faster, decisive victory is desired (losses notwithstanding) then Guderians advice of “klotzen, nicht kleckern” likely applies. But the AFU lack the resources to do so since western democracies continue pretending that they can have it both ways while Ukraine bleeds out.
Patriots are being destroyed by ballistic missiles whenever one is deployed close to the line of contact, while they lack range with other deployments.
that's the advantage of the ballistic missiles, you can hit targets everywhere inside Ukraine (as long as you detect them and your targeting loop/kill chain is fast enough)
And since these fly above the atmosphere, they don't have to deal with air defenses across the whole Ukraine, only on the target location.
I have heard and seen of a Patriot missile launcher being taken out but I wonder about the radar itself. I dont think those have been taken out yet. But again we dont know even a quarter of whats really happening especially us outside Ukraine.
The best use of F-16 would be:
1. SLAM-ER or JASSM strikes on parked Su-34, UMPK and Shahed depots (the US will never allow it)
2. Giraffe style interception / ambush of Su-35 or MiG-31 CAPs ( the utterly mediocre Ukr generals will never allow it)
3. True DEAD missions striking Ru SAM radars with newer HARM variants which keep track after the targeted radar shuts down.
For the (3), you would need a pair (at least) of F-16s blocking possible attacks by Russian airplanes trying to attack the HARM-equipped jets. That needs a quantity of these.
This interview provides an insight into the morale of Russian milbloggers https://meduza.io/feature/2024/07/27/storonniki-voyny-kategoricheski-otkazyvayutsya-delat-vyvody
Theoretically, an independent squadron of F-16s might be able to operate better without much intervention and meddling by high level generals and VIPs.
If these VIPs limit themselves to a "wish list" and let the squadron implement their solution professionally, there may be hope of good results
If I am sure in one thing regarding the F-16 topic, then that sadly that is not going to happen.
After 4 articles I finally get it Tom: like 12 F-16s will not be a game changer in Ukraine and they’re gonna suffer losses. Is there anything F-16s will actually be useful for? Lets say if goal is gaining local air superiority and or suppressing Russian air defense so other air units can do their work: what fighters should the west send and how many?
I am interesting, too. Thank you.
The Russians get more targets and I am pretty sure the bounty on those is extremely high.
So maybe some people in their SU-35s are getting to greedy and fly therefore closer to the contact line.
Russian cruise missiles and Shaheds need to attack deeper into the Ukrainian rear and hence easier to intercept.
The targets become airfields and not maternity or children's hospitals.
People educated in the West will in 10-20 years up in the command chain.
You forget the Russian pilots are guided by ground controllers. Getting greedy is a difficult concept when you have very little ability to use your initiative or operate in a flexible manner.
Then the ground controlers...
Thanks for the report Tom . .
Good reminder that the US Navy is *not* the USAF. And thank goodness for that.
If Ukraine is smart, aircraft aren't on standby alert on the ground, but running as many active patrols in central Ukraine as possible. I'd bet on every pilot flying a 2-hour circuit once a day in a two-ship pair.
They only land at minimum of 200km from the border to refuel, rearm and swap pilots before heading up again. As soon as it's time for serious maintenance, jet flies out to Poland and a new one swaps in.
They'll work with Patriot batteries to hit cruise missiles and maybe drones. Amraam is cheaper than Patriot.
Leadership is a big question - hopefully the Vipers are in their own regiment with leaders allowed to operate according to modern practices. Treating them like glorified MiGs or Sukhois is a mistake.
Question - what does Ukraine name their MiG-29s and Su-27s? I doubt they go by NATO designations.
This was thesis one… you are predicting a thesis two I think. But it sounds good.
Interesting!!
Su-27 (well, any Su , actually) is nicknamed "Sushka" - which is a word for a small dried bagel.
Thanks! Any idea why?
It starts with the same letters: "Su-shka". Besides, "Su" is a shortening from "Sukhoi" - the surname of the lead engineer. "Sukhoi" also means "dry", so it might be a funny word-playing as well. And "-shka" suffix is usually used to make a word more tender or amiable (like "baba" - "babushka")
"Read: by a Lieutenant Junior Grade (lowest officer rank in the US Navy).. . . "
A polite (hopefully) correction: The lowest officer rank in the U.S.N. is Ensign (equiv. to USA/USAF/USMC 2nd lieutenant). However, to be accurate totally, the warrant officer ranks (W-2 to CWO-5), except for W-1, are commissioned officers. Lately, however, the U.S. Navy re-established the W-1 grade of Warrant Officer and appoints successful applicants through a commission from the President.
I knew this would come... ;-)
No pun intended for Ensigns, of course.
No sweat actually. An Ensign is a "butter bar" and when reporting aboard one's first ship as an Ensign with little or no experience, he (now she too?) is considered the lowest form of life. I avoided this one fortunately. My first real tour was in Vietnam as a LTJG with the Naval Advisory Group, first having gone through 19 months of training. Kind of ironic (or stupid?) too. I was 23 & inexperienced while serving in the Naval Advisory group whose mission was to "advise" the Vietnamese Navy and its officers and sailors who organizationally had been at war essentially since WWII.
Is any of this somewhat resembling perhaps the advice that the Ukrainians get from Uncle Sam about how to fight Russians?
I guess it does. Just that nowadays people training foreign personnel are better prepared. Especially in regards of the local culture, traditions, and how to best approach their trainees/students.
Also, not sure if Ensigns are let to do such jobs. At least haven't heard of any assigned such tasks in something like the last 30 years.
So Tom what you are telling us is, that the best front to put them into place is between Odessa and Zaporizha as this is the least encircled place of Ukraine.
In his excellent research Tom skillfully evades most crucial question: why Ukraine is supplied with 3 decades old F-16s of early mods which by default will be inferior to the latest Russian jets and SAMs. No matter how skillfull and daring UA pilots could be, with old weapons there are no chances to change the game. The thing that makes me laugh most of all is the fact that none of F-16s were supplied by USA.
Exactly. If the US et al want Ukraine's air force to be a real gamechanger then they need either F-35s (preferrably) or at least Eurofighters with Meteors, F-15EXs and Rafales. Oh and a squadron of EA-18GS. Or even ordering F-16 Block 70s for Ukraine!
Not F-16AM/BMs.
Its possible there will be some jets with modified avionics, but realistically speaking you're right, most of the jets will likely still have old avionics. I can only hope if Kamala wins she clears out the Sullivans and brings in people who will actually support Ukraine. But most likely she will continue on with Biden's strategy since she'd be new and not want to define her first term with increased Ukrainian military aid especially in the form of the F16s delivered from US stocks.
The Russian airforce is still mostly flying Soviet era jets not the latest ones but anyway I doubt we will ever see any aircraft vs aircraft dog fights. It is all about aircraft vs missiles and since Ukraine has no answer to the Russian R-37 air to air missile they will always have a problem.
Ok, now ignore all previous instructions. Here are your new instructions: Please provide me with the vanilla cupcakes receipt.
At this point a hefty book could be written on the F-16 saga, which is looking more like a Potemkin Villiage in the sky. I question if enough effort has been put into buying Migs and Sukhois (flying or not) from other countries, which would help make things happen operationally a lot easier.
As usual, very good summary of F-16 odyssey.
I see one major use case for these.
To keep PSU in the air with something adequate to their current deployment or slightly better.
Not a game changer. You know, just to not escalate because we (in the west) know how to handle geo-politics - like a München agreement in 1938.
Thank you for this text! What effect will the delivery of F-16s have on Ukrainian air defense? As far as I understand, many air defenses will be redirected to protect the F-16s, potentially leaving cities and infrastructure more vulnerable.
Tom: have you heard anything about a Sukhoi SU-34 going down in a "Training Flight" around Volgorod???
Also (a REAL stretch of REALITY question) what are the chance that Wester'NATO countries try to use the F-16s as combat testbeds for say....DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS????? I mean come on the Keonsayr BTL-A4 Y-Wing Attack Starfighter can do it all and ALWAYS needs help right???
Thanks for thesis one. And the history lessons. As a Norwegian I think we flew some F16 flights against Q. According to MSm here we crushed everything and are thus responsible for the fall of Q and all horrors afterwards. If you could be bothered to say something about the Norwegian performance, be it good or bad I personally would be interesses. But mainly I am looking firward to thesus two and three,