Last I heard was not earlier than March. Allegedly they can shoot down Russian planes, because their targeting systems have longer range.
Russian air superiority is said to be a huge problem for Ukraine, and the main reason their spring offensive last year failed.
this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
74 points (97.4% liked)
Ukraine
8216 readers
1260 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The reverse is probably going to be true, unfortunately. The F16s weaponry is still based on 70s/80s engagement envelopes, more modern Russian a/c use missiles/radar that have much further range. The F16s will be most effective where UKR has additional anti-air assets to keep the more modern a/c away.
A very good breakdown of this by someone who's studied military aircraft for a living...
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/its-the-range-stupid-part-1
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/its-the-range-stupid-part-2
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/q-and-a-regarding-f-16s-for-ukraine
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/q-and-a-regarding-f-16s-for-ukraine-51d
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/q-and-a-regarding-f-16-for-ukraine
There's quite a few problems with the analysis being done by "Sarcastosaurus" and I've a mind to go at him about them. However a fundamental problem is his assumption that the F-16 is headed to Ukraine to engage in dogfights with Russian Fighters. It's not.
The F-16 is headed to Ukraine to be used as a missile truck, specifically a NATO missile truck. This is important because NATO countries can supply parts and armaments for the airframes, something they cannot do with Ukraine's current selection of former USSR airframes. Additionally the NATO armaments are integrated with the platform and are able to use their full capability.
A good example of this is the AGM-88 HARM. Ukraine is currently using them but because they're being jury rigged onto MiGs instead of a NATO aircraft they only have access to the "Pre Briefed" mode, which drastically curtails their capability. On a NATO plane the TOO and SP modes are unlocked which will be an absolute game changer for dealing with ground based radar threats.
If / when those are dealt with then the F-16 can stop flying SEAD missions and start putting warheads on foreheads by dropping JDAMs, which will have an immediate impact on the ground war. Those F-16s will likely be flying inside the envelope of Ukraine's own air defense systems and absolutely NONE of Russia's planes are safe from those. Add on some CAP flights by Ukraine's remaining MiGs and those F-16s will be flying in relative safety and comfort.
Only time will tell how the Ukrainian's choose to use their F-16s and how well they perform in the role(s) they are tasked with but the presumption that they're going to be used for Dog Fighting is unfounded.
You had said "Allegedly they can shoot down Russian planes, because their targeting systems have longer range."
My post was to share information to indicate that is not so - F16 does not have longer range.
The rest, you and Tom are in agreement.
You had said “Allegedly they can shoot down Russian planes, because their targeting systems have longer range.”
You have me confused with someone else. I didn't say that. :)
Sorry I only read part of the first part because it's very very very long, it seems it's about the longer range of planes Russia doesn't really have.
You may be right, but I believe it was Anders Puck Nielsen https://www.youtube.com/@anderspuck that claimed the F16 has better targeting range than the fighter jets Russia actually have.
Targeting range really isn't going to matter as it's doubtful the F-16's primary role will be to engage in air to air combat with Russian fighters. It's much better suited to SEAD / DEAD missions and dropping precision munitions on Russian armor and defended positions.
You are probably right, I reviewed an older video by Puk Nielsen, and he states that the number of planes are far from enough to make air dominance possible.
wroom wroom whoosh whoosh pew pew pew
I wonder. The western tanks didn't apparently do much, and fighter jets aren't exactly easier to operate.
Land superiority is easier to match with improvisation, weather conditions and expendable soldiers. Air superiority is pretty much guaranteed with superior technology (which F16 might be) and well trained pilots. Also air superiority can shit the balance for land superiority
I’m not sure a handful of old jets will be enough for proper air superiority, seed is hard and all that. I think the primary benefit is being able to much more effectively use a large part of the nato arsenal, which is much heavily foucoused around air launched munitions.
You might be right. F16 are close to 50 years old after all. Maybe they will just boost land superiority using the more available nato missiles. Still it's obvious that Russia is scared of them, threathening escalation if F16 were to be supplied to Ukraine
The delay gave Russia time to create more defensive barriers against tanks. Jets provide additional air defense and longe range strike capabilities. Breaking Russian supply lines will make ground forces more effective.
The F-16s are capable of raining JDAMs on Russian Armor and defensive positions and this will likely be their primary role after they are done running SEAD / DEAD missions against Russian Air Defenses...another thing they're quite good at.