I didn't watch the whole video. In the news piece I saw it was stated that the Ukranians wanted the F-16s because the fighter planes they had were very old and had trouble intercepting Russian...
I didn't watch the whole video. In the news piece I saw it was stated that the Ukranians wanted the F-16s because the fighter planes they had were very old and had trouble intercepting Russian jets that were launching missile attacks on civilians. Hopefully that will be stopped/reduced.
My combat experience stops at being knocked out by a punching bag so please correct me if I assume wrong. But listening to talks like this and from veteran commentators about the aid going to...
My combat experience stops at being knocked out by a punching bag so please correct me if I assume wrong. But listening to talks like this and from veteran commentators about the aid going to Ukraine, it sounds like the US is bundling its strategic requirements with the hardware.
Based on this analysis, it's an amazing aircraft that is not suited for high altitude, long range interception or deep strikes because it's vulnerable to ground defences. There's also the considerable training,manpower and maintenance/consumables issue. So I assume it'll be kept close to home as a deterrent and missle intercept. Maybe a ground force multiplier if pushed to the front line if they solve the Intel and ground defence issue.
And that seems to be in line with the US position that Ukraine should reclaim and hold their territories without pushing too close to Moscow.
As much as I'd love to blame the Military Industrial Complex but an advance into Russia would probably unleash a he'll we do not need. Its probably the same with Tiwan, South Korea and what was intended for Israel; because they are stable, combat ready bulwarks against covert and overt threats to the US that does not strain military resources. (and they're convenient customers to US goods and arms).
Yes, generally. The F-15 is the air-to-air superiority fighter, but some versions have an emphasis on ground strike capabilities. For the F-16, some countries are also allegedly providing HARM and...
it's an amazing aircraft that is not suited for high altitude, long range interception or deep strikes because it's vulnerable to ground defences.
Yes, generally. The F-15 is the air-to-air superiority fighter, but some versions have an emphasis on ground strike capabilities. For the F-16, some countries are also allegedly providing HARM and related missiles that are specifically meant to target [ground-based] radar. The Russians mount some of their expensive radar equipment on vehicles, so HARM is meant to go after exactly those kinds of targets that would be projecting radar capabilities as far into Ukrainian territory as possible so that Russian aircraft can use this knowledge to avoid being shot down. In theory, eliminating this visibility would reduce the effective range of Russian airspace, which would make the situation on the ground that much safer for Ukraine.
After Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD/DEAD) operations, F-16s will be able to mount both NATO-supplied and indigenous weapons systems. Someone with some knowledge of how that works suggested that the next strategic steps after SEAD would be:
Strategic bombing of longer ranged targets
Bombing to support offensives
Bombing to support defenders / Close air support
The video also mentions that intercepting incoming cruise missiles and similar weapons would be within F-16 capabilities, but would be challenging.
As far as strategic requirements, it is both predicated on the hardware supplied/available and the hardware determines what's capable of being done strategically because they are integrally linked. The US designed the F-16 for specific roles and those roles had limited overlap with F-15s. The US also had different design and military philosophies than the Soviet Union, so there may not be immediate analogs for pilots coming from Soviet-era aircraft to The Gripen or F-16. That's also a complication for pilots who might be changing over to NATO aircraft.
A memoir of an F-16 pilot that I read suggested that his role actually complimented both F-15 operations (SEAD operations in advance of heavier airstrikes) as well as provided close air support with timing or quantity that attack helicopters couldn't deliver (delivering laser-guided bombs, for instance). At the same time, if F-16s can open up more airspace, that makes Ukraine's Soviet-era aircraft safer and hopefully improves their effectiveness. So the F-16 has a very specific set of roles that the US intended and the F-16 kinda has to be used in those ways because it's not designed to do a lot outside of that. But war is the playground of innovation and so tactics will make use of the new hardware as they're able to.
Notably, I read that the F-16 can only maintain Mach speeds for about 5 minutes, 10 minutes if you're planning on replacing the engine immediately after. Not sure how accurate that is, but it should emphasize the role of the F-16 is different than the visions of supersonic, high-altitude strikes that some people might have. As the video OP posted mentions, F-16 is meant to be tasked with lower-altitude operations, but it's likely that the F-16 will also be used, like Russia has been doing with their own aircraft, as a launch platform for glidebombs in order to hit long-range targets. The F-16 is capable of utilizing several varieties and Ukraine is already an operator of the GBU-39.
As the video points out, right now there are more aircraft committed than there are trained pilots, so that limits the strategic ability of F-16s in the short term but hopefully that changes soon. The other thing to note is that there is a long logistical supply chain that is required to support F-16s and the ratio of time spent on maintenance of F-16s exceeds the amount of time in the air you can expect to get out of it. I've heard that it can be as little as 4 hours of maintenance per 1 hour of flight time, but older information says it's up to 17 hours per 1 hour of flight time (presumably combat time).
The F-16s have been delivered and have been sighted in the air over Ukraine.
Yes, this is a discussion on how they might be used and the competing defence priorities on that use.
I didn't watch the whole video. In the news piece I saw it was stated that the Ukranians wanted the F-16s because the fighter planes they had were very old and had trouble intercepting Russian jets that were launching missile attacks on civilians. Hopefully that will be stopped/reduced.
A reasonably nerdy talk about the implications of giving fighters to Ukraine
My combat experience stops at being knocked out by a punching bag so please correct me if I assume wrong. But listening to talks like this and from veteran commentators about the aid going to Ukraine, it sounds like the US is bundling its strategic requirements with the hardware.
Based on this analysis, it's an amazing aircraft that is not suited for high altitude, long range interception or deep strikes because it's vulnerable to ground defences. There's also the considerable training,manpower and maintenance/consumables issue. So I assume it'll be kept close to home as a deterrent and missle intercept. Maybe a ground force multiplier if pushed to the front line if they solve the Intel and ground defence issue.
And that seems to be in line with the US position that Ukraine should reclaim and hold their territories without pushing too close to Moscow.
As much as I'd love to blame the Military Industrial Complex but an advance into Russia would probably unleash a he'll we do not need. Its probably the same with Tiwan, South Korea and what was intended for Israel; because they are stable, combat ready bulwarks against covert and overt threats to the US that does not strain military resources. (and they're convenient customers to US goods and arms).
Yes, generally. The F-15 is the air-to-air superiority fighter, but some versions have an emphasis on ground strike capabilities. For the F-16, some countries are also allegedly providing HARM and related missiles that are specifically meant to target [ground-based] radar. The Russians mount some of their expensive radar equipment on vehicles, so HARM is meant to go after exactly those kinds of targets that would be projecting radar capabilities as far into Ukrainian territory as possible so that Russian aircraft can use this knowledge to avoid being shot down. In theory, eliminating this visibility would reduce the effective range of Russian airspace, which would make the situation on the ground that much safer for Ukraine.
After Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD/DEAD) operations, F-16s will be able to mount both NATO-supplied and indigenous weapons systems. Someone with some knowledge of how that works suggested that the next strategic steps after SEAD would be:
The video also mentions that intercepting incoming cruise missiles and similar weapons would be within F-16 capabilities, but would be challenging.
As far as strategic requirements, it is both predicated on the hardware supplied/available and the hardware determines what's capable of being done strategically because they are integrally linked. The US designed the F-16 for specific roles and those roles had limited overlap with F-15s. The US also had different design and military philosophies than the Soviet Union, so there may not be immediate analogs for pilots coming from Soviet-era aircraft to The Gripen or F-16. That's also a complication for pilots who might be changing over to NATO aircraft.
A memoir of an F-16 pilot that I read suggested that his role actually complimented both F-15 operations (SEAD operations in advance of heavier airstrikes) as well as provided close air support with timing or quantity that attack helicopters couldn't deliver (delivering laser-guided bombs, for instance). At the same time, if F-16s can open up more airspace, that makes Ukraine's Soviet-era aircraft safer and hopefully improves their effectiveness. So the F-16 has a very specific set of roles that the US intended and the F-16 kinda has to be used in those ways because it's not designed to do a lot outside of that. But war is the playground of innovation and so tactics will make use of the new hardware as they're able to.
Notably, I read that the F-16 can only maintain Mach speeds for about 5 minutes, 10 minutes if you're planning on replacing the engine immediately after. Not sure how accurate that is, but it should emphasize the role of the F-16 is different than the visions of supersonic, high-altitude strikes that some people might have. As the video OP posted mentions, F-16 is meant to be tasked with lower-altitude operations, but it's likely that the F-16 will also be used, like Russia has been doing with their own aircraft, as a launch platform for glidebombs in order to hit long-range targets. The F-16 is capable of utilizing several varieties and Ukraine is already an operator of the GBU-39.
As the video points out, right now there are more aircraft committed than there are trained pilots, so that limits the strategic ability of F-16s in the short term but hopefully that changes soon. The other thing to note is that there is a long logistical supply chain that is required to support F-16s and the ratio of time spent on maintenance of F-16s exceeds the amount of time in the air you can expect to get out of it. I've heard that it can be as little as 4 hours of maintenance per 1 hour of flight time, but older information says it's up to 17 hours per 1 hour of flight time (presumably combat time).