ArmouredTopHat

I think we need to bear in mind something pretty important, in that we are suffering from an acute reporting bias when it comes to FPV usage on tanks, and tank losses overall. (This notion extends to drone footage and use in general really)

For FPV drones, we typically only see successful strikes posted, we dont tend to see the many many many misses, poor angled attacks, EWAR casualties or simply hits that fail to inflict major damage. We have a few videos of tanks shrugging off numerous FPV hits its true but the majority of footage we see is usually pretty spectacular. The point is we tend to get the footage of the 'good stuff' when in reality both sides admit that a large percentage of drones will never reach a target due to the various factors involved. 

Secondly, often we see FPV strikes on vehicles already disabled, typically by mines or other means. FPVs make an excellent 'finisher' method together with drone dropped grenades to deprive knocked out but potentially recoverable vehicles and render them a complete loss. FPV strikes do happen on functioning vehicles too of course, but the point is we probably want some actual hard data when it comes to things like what FPVs mostly strike and what percentage are lost along the way. Honestly a breakdown of what is knocking out tanks would be very interesting. I suspect most are knocked out by more traditional methods such as mines and ATGM / RPG / shoulder launchers.

There is also the issue of 'latency'. FPV drones typically have a 'call in time' for the drone unit to be alerted, drone prepared and launched and then led to its target. All of this takes precious time, enough time for vehicles to potentially make an assault or for a target to escape. This is one thing that more traditional anti tank methods have an advantage with in comparison. Your NLAW operator can fight a tank straight away from his trench, FPV support like any external support is not guaranteed nor is it likely to be timely all the time.

Furthermore, we have clear evidence that adaptions can and will be made against FPV drones. Drone cages have proven effective both against FPV and heavier drones such as lancet, and are a minimal cost modification that do not compromise the effectiveness of tanks. ERA has also proven effective (Ill try and dig up that notable photo of a UA tank that survived a lancet hit which set off a Kontact-1 block on the turret) Obviously future tanks will have to be designed to deal with the changing battlefield dynamic, but its telling that tanks made in the cold war can put up reasonable well with things despite the myriad of threats. The overwhelming consensus regarding heavy Russian tank losses has always been poor tactical use / doctrine instead of something inheritably wrong with the tanks themselves (With some exceptions)

I am not attempting to disparage FPV drones in the slightest, they are and will be a most effective tool and are likely a hallmark of things to come. They have not however, rendered other battlefield options obsolete but merely given a potent supplement to a force that is otherwise outmatched in more traditional aspects such as artillery tubes or vehicle density. The Ukrainians themselves have admitted that artillery is typically more effective at breaking up attacks than mass FPV strikes (presumably due to the host of potential mitigations drones can suffer from) and that they rely on FPV's so much due to the lack of said artillery systems. We have seen numerous supposed ends to tanks before from technological developments (ATGM becoming more prevalent is probably the most notable one to mind) yet like many weapon systems, there is simply adaptation to the threat and continued use because the base value of a tank remains the same.

At the end of the day, nothing beats being able to pull up a stabilised 120/125mm gun rapidly to a position, destroy a target and make off while the majority of threats on the battlefield (shrapnel, small arms and lighter AT systems) are less of a threat to you in turn. I do not see that changing anytime soon. 

*Edit*

Here are just a couple of good examples of such. Tanks can survive a lot more than what people perhaps realise.

Noted a bit of dissatisfaction with UA crews regarding anti-personal capability, which makes senses as most of the Western MBTs are firing HEAT rounds (HESH in the case of Chally 2)

I wonder if this is more to do with the fact that the Ukrainians are probably used to the Soviet tanks that usually come with both HEAT and Fragmentation rounds, the latter being a little better against personnel, at least from a few comments made by UA tankers. 

I do remember that Chally interview where they praised the HESH rounds demolition ability, even if it came at the cost of less trench clearing ability. Its a shame the AMP round has taken so long to come into service really. 

I would argue that no tank really offers sufficient protection from drones currently, certainly not without reducing the effectiveness in the tank in its primary mission role. (Looking at you turtle tanks)

I think we need to bear in mind something pretty important, in that we are suffering from an acute reporting bias when it comes to FPV usage on tanks, and tank losses overall. (This notion extends to drone footage and use in general really)

For FPV drones, we typically only see successful strikes posted, we dont tend to see the many many many misses, poor angled attacks, EWAR casualties or simply hits that fail to inflict major damage. We have a few videos of tanks shrugging off numerous FPV hits its true but the majority of footage we see is usually pretty spectacular. The point is we tend to get the footage of the 'good stuff' when in reality both sides admit that a large percentage of drones will never reach a target due to the various factors involved. 

Secondly, often we see FPV strikes on vehicles already disabled, typically by mines or other means. FPVs make an excellent 'finisher' method together with drone dropped grenades to deprive knocked out but potentially recoverable vehicles and render them a complete loss. FPV strikes do happen on functioning vehicles too of course, but the point is we probably want some actual hard data when it comes to things like what FPVs mostly strike and what percentage are lost along the way. Honestly a breakdown of what is knocking out tanks would be very interesting. I suspect most are knocked out by more traditional methods such as mines and ATGM / RPG / shoulder launchers.

There is also the issue of 'latency'. FPV drones typically have a 'call in time' for the drone unit to be alerted, drone prepared and launched and then led to its target. All of this takes precious time, enough time for vehicles to potentially make an assault or for a target to escape. This is one thing that more traditional anti tank methods have an advantage with in comparison. Your NLAW operator can fight a tank straight away from his trench, FPV support like any external support is not guaranteed nor is it likely to be timely all the time.

Furthermore, we have clear evidence that adaptions can and will be made against FPV drones. Drone cages have proven effective both against FPV and heavier drones such as lancet, and are a minimal cost modification that do not compromise the effectiveness of tanks. ERA has also proven effective (Ill try and dig up that notable photo of a UA tank that survived a lancet hit which set off a Kontact-1 block on the turret) Obviously future tanks will have to be designed to deal with the changing battlefield dynamic, but its telling that tanks made in the cold war can put up reasonable well with things despite the myriad of threats. The overwhelming consensus regarding heavy Russian tank losses has always been poor tactical use / doctrine instead of something inheritably wrong with the tanks themselves (With some exceptions)

I am not attempting to disparage FPV drones in the slightest, they are and will be a most effective tool and are likely a hallmark of things to come. They have not however, rendered other battlefield options obsolete but merely given a potent supplement to a force that is otherwise outmatched in more traditional aspects such as artillery tubes or vehicle density. The Ukrainians themselves have admitted that artillery is typically more effective at breaking up attacks than mass FPV strikes (presumably due to the host of potential mitigations drones can suffer from) and that they rely on FPV's so much due to the lack of said artillery systems. We have seen numerous supposed ends to tanks before from technological developments (ATGM becoming more prevalent is probably the most notable one to mind) yet like many weapon systems, there is simply adaptation to the threat and continued use because the base value of a tank remains the same.

At the end of the day, nothing beats being able to pull up a stabilised 120/125mm gun rapidly to a position, destroy a target and make off while the majority of threats on the battlefield (shrapnel, small arms and lighter AT systems) are less of a threat to you in turn. I do not see that changing anytime soon. 

*Edit*

Here are just a couple of good examples of such. Tanks can survive a lot more than what people perhaps realise.

I think we need to bear in mind something pretty important, in that we are suffering from an acute reporting bias when it comes to FPV usage on tanks, and tank losses overall. (This notion extends to drone footage and use in general really)

For FPV drones, we typically only see successful strikes posted, we dont tend to see the many many many misses, poor angled attacks, EWAR casualties or simply hits that fail to inflict major damage. We have a few videos of tanks shrugging off numerous FPV hits its true but the majority of footage we see is usually pretty spectacular. The point is we tend to get the footage of the 'good stuff' when in reality both sides admit that a large percentage of drones will never reach a target due to the various factors involved. 

Secondly, often we see FPV strikes on vehicles already disabled, typically by mines or other means. FPVs make an excellent 'finisher' method together with drone dropped grenades to deprive knocked out but potentially recoverable vehicles and render them a complete loss. FPV strikes do happen on functioning vehicles too of course, but the point is we probably want some actual hard data when it comes to things like what FPVs mostly strike and what percentage are lost along the way. Honestly a breakdown of what is knocking out tanks would be very interesting. I suspect most are knocked out by more traditional methods such as mines and ATGM / RPG / shoulder launchers.

There is also the issue of 'latency'. FPV drones typically have a 'call in time' for the drone unit to be alerted, drone prepared and launched and then led to its target. All of this takes precious time, enough time for vehicles to potentially make an assault or for a target to escape. This is one thing that more traditional anti tank methods have an advantage with in comparison. Your NLAW operator can fight a tank straight away from his trench, FPV support like any external support is not guaranteed nor is it likely to be timely all the time.

Furthermore, we have clear evidence that adaptions can and will be made against FPV drones. Drone cages have proven effective both against FPV and heavier drones such as lancet, and are a minimal cost modification that do not compromise the effectiveness of tanks. ERA has also proven effective (Ill try and dig up that notable photo of a UA tank that survived a lancet hit which set off a Kontact-1 block on the turret) Obviously future tanks will have to be designed to deal with the changing battlefield dynamic, but its telling that tanks made in the cold war can put up reasonable well with things despite the myriad of threats. The overwhelming consensus regarding heavy Russian tank losses has always been poor tactical use / doctrine instead of something inheritably wrong with the tanks themselves (With some exceptions)

I am not attempting to disparage FPV drones in the slightest, they are and will be a most effective tool and are likely a hallmark of things to come. They have not however, rendered other battlefield options obsolete but merely given a potent supplement to a force that is otherwise outmatched in more traditional aspects such as artillery tubes or vehicle density. The Ukrainians themselves have admitted that artillery is typically more effective at breaking up attacks than mass FPV strikes (presumably due to the host of potential mitigations drones can suffer from) and that they rely on FPV's so much due to the lack of said artillery systems. We have seen numerous supposed ends to tanks before from technological developments (ATGM becoming more prevalent is probably the most notable one to mind) yet like many weapon systems, there is simply adaptation to the threat and continued use because the base value of a tank remains the same.

At the end of the day, nothing beats being able to pull up a stabilised 120/125mm gun rapidly to a position, destroy a target and make off while the majority of threats on the battlefield (shrapnel, small arms and lighter AT systems) are less of a threat to you in turn. I do not see that changing anytime soon. 

*Edit*

Here are just a couple of good examples of such. Tanks can survive a lot more than what people perhaps realise.

I think we need to bear in mind something pretty important, in that we are suffering from an acute reporting bias when it comes to FPV usage on tanks, and tank losses overall. (This notion extends to drone footage and use in general really)

For FPV drones, we typically only see successful strikes posted, we dont tend to see the many many many misses, poor angled attacks, EWAR casualties or simply hits that fail to inflict major damage. We have a few videos of tanks shrugging off numerous FPV hits its true but the majority of footage we see is usually pretty spectacular. The point is we tend to get the footage of the 'good stuff' when in reality both sides admit that a large percentage of drones will never reach a target due to the various factors involved. 

Secondly, often we see FPV strikes on vehicles already disabled, typically by mines or other means. FPVs make an excellent 'finisher' method together with drone dropped grenades to deprive knocked out but potentially recoverable vehicles and render them a complete loss. FPV strikes do happen on functioning vehicles too of course, but the point is we probably want some actual hard data when it comes to things like what FPVs mostly strike and what percentage are lost along the way. Honestly a breakdown of what is knocking out tanks would be very interesting. I suspect most are knocked out by more traditional methods such as mines and ATGM / RPG / shoulder launchers.

There is also the issue of 'latency'. FPV drones typically have a 'call in time' for the drone unit to be alerted, drone prepared and launched and then led to its target. All of this takes precious time, enough time for vehicles to potentially make an assault or for a target to escape. This is one thing that more traditional anti tank methods have an advantage with in comparison. Your NLAW operator can fight a tank straight away from his trench, FPV support like any external support is not guaranteed nor is it likely to be timely all the time.

Furthermore, we have clear evidence that adaptions can and will be made against FPV drones. Drone cages have proven effective both against FPV and heavier drones such as lancet, and are a minimal cost modification that do not compromise the effectiveness of tanks. ERA has also proven effective (Ill try and dig up that notable photo of a UA tank that survived a lancet hit which set off a Kontact-1 block on the turret) Obviously future tanks will have to be designed to deal with the changing battlefield dynamic, but its telling that tanks made in the cold war can put up reasonable well with things despite the myriad of threats. The overwhelming consensus regarding heavy Russian tank losses has always been poor tactical use / doctrine instead of something inheritably wrong with the tanks themselves (With some exceptions)

I am not attempting to disparage FPV drones in the slightest, they are and will be a most effective tool and are likely a hallmark of things to come. They have not however, rendered other battlefield options obsolete but merely given a potent supplement to a force that is otherwise outmatched in more traditional aspects such as artillery tubes or vehicle density. The Ukrainians themselves have admitted that artillery is typically more effective at breaking up attacks than mass FPV strikes (presumably due to the host of potential mitigations drones can suffer from) and that they rely on FPV's so much due to the lack of said artillery systems. We have seen numerous supposed ends to tanks before from technological developments (ATGM becoming more prevalent is probably the most notable one to mind) yet like many weapon systems, there is simply adaptation to the threat and continued use because the base value of a tank remains the same.

At the end of the day, nothing beats being able to pull up a stabilised 120/125mm gun rapidly to a position, destroy a target and make off while the majority of threats on the battlefield (shrapnel, small arms and lighter AT systems) are less of a threat to you in turn. I do not see that changing anytime soon. 

*Edit*

Here are just a couple of good examples of such. Tanks can survive a lot more than what people perhaps realise.

wow, now that is a proper post.  Going against the grain but backing it up with some interesting facts (assuming the facts are correct).  I suspect this will stir up some excellent discussion.

I think we need to bear in mind something pretty important, in that we are suffering from an acute reporting bias when it comes to FPV usage on tanks, and tank losses overall. (This notion extends to drone footage and use in general really)

For FPV drones, we typically only see successful strikes posted, we dont tend to see the many many many misses, poor angled attacks, EWAR casualties or simply hits that fail to inflict major damage. We have a few videos of tanks shrugging off numerous FPV hits its true but the majority of footage we see is usually pretty spectacular. The point is we tend to get the footage of the 'good stuff' when in reality both sides admit that a large percentage of drones will never reach a target due to the various factors involved. 

Secondly, often we see FPV strikes on vehicles already disabled, typically by mines or other means. FPVs make an excellent 'finisher' method together with drone dropped grenades to deprive knocked out but potentially recoverable vehicles and render them a complete loss. FPV strikes do happen on functioning vehicles too of course, but the point is we probably want some actual hard data when it comes to things like what FPVs mostly strike and what percentage are lost along the way. Honestly a breakdown of what is knocking out tanks would be very interesting. I suspect most are knocked out by more traditional methods such as mines and ATGM / RPG / shoulder launchers.

There is also the issue of 'latency'. FPV drones typically have a 'call in time' for the drone unit to be alerted, drone prepared and launched and then led to its target. All of this takes precious time, enough time for vehicles to potentially make an assault or for a target to escape. This is one thing that more traditional anti tank methods have an advantage with in comparison. Your NLAW operator can fight a tank straight away from his trench, FPV support like any external support is not guaranteed nor is it likely to be timely all the time.

Furthermore, we have clear evidence that adaptions can and will be made against FPV drones. Drone cages have proven effective both against FPV and heavier drones such as lancet, and are a minimal cost modification that do not compromise the effectiveness of tanks. ERA has also proven effective (Ill try and dig up that notable photo of a UA tank that survived a lancet hit which set off a Kontact-1 block on the turret) Obviously future tanks will have to be designed to deal with the changing battlefield dynamic, but its telling that tanks made in the cold war can put up reasonable well with things despite the myriad of threats. The overwhelming consensus regarding heavy Russian tank losses has always been poor tactical use / doctrine instead of something inheritably wrong with the tanks themselves (With some exceptions)

I am not attempting to disparage FPV drones in the slightest, they are and will be a most effective tool and are likely a hallmark of things to come. They have not however, rendered other battlefield options obsolete but merely given a potent supplement to a force that is otherwise outmatched in more traditional aspects such as artillery tubes or vehicle density. The Ukrainians themselves have admitted that artillery is typically more effective at breaking up attacks than mass FPV strikes (presumably due to the host of potential mitigations drones can suffer from) and that they rely on FPV's so much due to the lack of said artillery systems. We have seen numerous supposed ends to tanks before from technological developments (ATGM becoming more prevalent is probably the most notable one to mind) yet like many weapon systems, there is simply adaptation to the threat and continued use because the base value of a tank remains the same.

At the end of the day, nothing beats being able to pull up a stabilised 120/125mm gun rapidly to a position, destroy a target and make off while the majority of threats on the battlefield (shrapnel, small arms and lighter AT systems) are less of a threat to you in turn. I do not see that changing anytime soon. 

*Edit*

Here are just a couple of good examples of such. Tanks can survive a lot more than what people perhaps realise.

I think we need to bear in mind something pretty important, in that we are suffering from an acute reporting bias when it comes to FPV usage on tanks, and tank losses overall. (This notion extends to drone footage and use in general really)

For FPV drones, we typically only see successful strikes posted, we dont tend to see the many many many misses, poor angled attacks, EWAR casualties or simply hits that fail to inflict major damage. We have a few videos of tanks shrugging off numerous FPV hits its true but the majority of footage we see is usually pretty spectacular. The point is we tend to get the footage of the 'good stuff' when in reality both sides admit that a large percentage of drones will never reach a target due to the various factors involved. 

Secondly, often we see FPV strikes on vehicles already disabled, typically by mines or other means. FPVs make an excellent 'finisher' method together with drone dropped grenades to deprive knocked out but potentially recoverable vehicles and render them a complete loss. FPV strikes do happen on functioning vehicles too of course, but the point is we probably want some actual hard data when it comes to things like what FPVs mostly strike and what percentage are lost along the way. Honestly a breakdown of what is knocking out tanks would be very interesting. I suspect most are knocked out by more traditional methods such as mines and ATGM / RPG / shoulder launchers.

There is also the issue of 'latency'. FPV drones typically have a 'call in time' for the drone unit to be alerted, drone prepared and launched and then led to its target. All of this takes precious time, enough time for vehicles to potentially make an assault or for a target to escape. This is one thing that more traditional anti tank methods have an advantage with in comparison. Your NLAW operator can fight a tank straight away from his trench, FPV support like any external support is not guaranteed nor is it likely to be timely all the time.

Furthermore, we have clear evidence that adaptions can and will be made against FPV drones. Drone cages have proven effective both against FPV and heavier drones such as lancet, and are a minimal cost modification that do not compromise the effectiveness of tanks. ERA has also proven effective (Ill try and dig up that notable photo of a UA tank that survived a lancet hit which set off a Kontact-1 block on the turret) Obviously future tanks will have to be designed to deal with the changing battlefield dynamic, but its telling that tanks made in the cold war can put up reasonable well with things despite the myriad of threats. The overwhelming consensus regarding heavy Russian tank losses has always been poor tactical use / doctrine instead of something inheritably wrong with the tanks themselves (With some exceptions)

I am not attempting to disparage FPV drones in the slightest, they are and will be a most effective tool and are likely a hallmark of things to come. They have not however, rendered other battlefield options obsolete but merely given a potent supplement to a force that is otherwise outmatched in more traditional aspects such as artillery tubes or vehicle density. The Ukrainians themselves have admitted that artillery is typically more effective at breaking up attacks than mass FPV strikes (presumably due to the host of potential mitigations drones can suffer from) and that they rely on FPV's so much due to the lack of said artillery systems. We have seen numerous supposed ends to tanks before from technological developments (ATGM becoming more prevalent is probably the most notable one to mind) yet like many weapon systems, there is simply adaptation to the threat and continued use because the base value of a tank remains the same.

At the end of the day, nothing beats being able to pull up a stabilised 120/125mm gun rapidly to a position, destroy a target and make off while the majority of threats on the battlefield (shrapnel, small arms and lighter AT systems) are less of a threat to you in turn. I do not see that changing anytime soon. 

*Edit*

Here are just a couple of good examples of such. Tanks can survive a lot more than what people perhaps realise.

I think we need to bear in mind something pretty important, in that we are suffering from an acute reporting bias when it comes to FPV usage on tanks, and tank losses overall. (This notion extends to drone footage and use in general really)

For FPV drones, we typically only see successful strikes posted, we dont tend to see the many many many misses, poor angled attacks, EWAR casualties or simply hits that fail to inflict major damage. We have a few videos of tanks shrugging off numerous FPV hits its true but the majority of footage we see is usually pretty spectacular. The point is we tend to get the footage of the 'good stuff' when in reality both sides admit that a large percentage of drones will never reach a target due to the various factors involved. 

Secondly, often we see FPV strikes on vehicles already disabled, typically by mines or other means. FPVs make an excellent 'finisher' method together with drone dropped grenades to deprive knocked out but potentially recoverable vehicles and render them a complete loss. FPV strikes do happen on functioning vehicles too of course, but the point is we probably want some actual hard data when it comes to things like what FPVs mostly strike and what percentage are lost along the way. Honestly a breakdown of what is knocking out tanks would be very interesting. I suspect most are knocked out by more traditional methods such as mines and ATGM / RPG / shoulder launchers.

There is also the issue of 'latency'. FPV drones typically have a 'call in time' for the drone unit to be alerted, drone prepared and launched and then led to its target. All of this takes precious time, enough time for vehicles to potentially make an assault or for a target to escape. This is one thing that more traditional anti tank methods have an advantage with in comparison. Your NLAW operator can fight a tank straight away from his trench, FPV support like any external support is not guaranteed nor is it likely to be timely all the time.

Furthermore, we have clear evidence that adaptions can and will be made against FPV drones. Drone cages have proven effective both against FPV and heavier drones such as lancet, and are a minimal cost modification that do not compromise the effectiveness of tanks. ERA has also proven effective (Ill try and dig up that notable photo of a UA tank that survived a lancet hit which set off a Kontact-1 block on the turret) Obviously future tanks will have to be designed to deal with the changing battlefield dynamic, but its telling that tanks made in the cold war can put up reasonable well with things despite the myriad of threats. The overwhelming consensus regarding heavy Russian tank losses has always been poor tactical use / doctrine instead of something inheritably wrong with the tanks themselves (With some exceptions)

I am not attempting to disparage FPV drones in the slightest, they are and will be a most effective tool and are likely a hallmark of things to come. They have not however, rendered other battlefield options obsolete but merely given a potent supplement to a force that is otherwise outmatched in more traditional aspects such as artillery tubes or vehicle density. The Ukrainians themselves have admitted that artillery is typically more effective at breaking up attacks than mass FPV strikes (presumably due to the host of potential mitigations drones can suffer from) and that they rely on FPV's so much due to the lack of said artillery systems. We have seen numerous supposed ends to tanks before from technological developments (ATGM becoming more prevalent is probably the most notable one to mind) yet like many weapon systems, there is simply adaptation to the threat and continued use because the base value of a tank remains the same.

At the end of the day, nothing beats being able to pull up a stabilised 120/125mm gun rapidly to a position, destroy a target and make off while the majority of threats on the battlefield (shrapnel, small arms and lighter AT systems) are less of a threat to you in turn. I do not see that changing anytime soon. 

*Edit*

Here are just a couple of good examples of such. Tanks can survive a lot more than what people perhaps realise.

This is sadly an inevitable potential outcome if AD is used against Russian aircraft, who seldom cross the lines to perform strikes. It should be viewed as an acceptable risk. 
This is honestly a very good point. Ukraine has had to go from an entirely soviet modelled force into something between that and NATO lines in the last ten years. Its not been easy and plenty of sources refer to the issue that the older generation of officers and certain elements of the force are still very much stuck in the soviet ethos of doing things. Even with the younger generation of officers thinking differently, these sorts of structural changes can take a long time to push through.

Reforming an army on such a scale is not easy in the slightest, especially when fighting a war of survival. Despite all this Ukraine has shown a truly flexible and innovative approach to in cooperating advanced NATO technology into their force.  We have already seen such craziness such as HARMs being launched from Mig-29s and BUKs carrying sparrows. There is clearly the skill and willingness for clever improvisation and I dont see going anywhere soon. 
BVR missiles are going to surely be the focus given the current nature of air combat over Ukraine. From what I remember reading up from Ukrainian pilot sources, Russian pilots learned very quickly not to get within short range missile range and instead stand off with their BVR capability advantage together with superior avionics. Stand off seems to be the current name of the game and its one where the VKS currently enjoys a major advantage. UA pilots cannot do much else than attempt to lure VKS pilots closer and otherwise fly low and cautiously. Its a testament to the skill and tenacity of the Ukrainians that they even have airframes flying at this point given the disparity. 

What they need more than anything is a capability equaliser on that front so presumably the best AMRAAMs possible will be desired. Its a shame that the Ukrainians are unlikely to get a platform that can launch Meteor though, for that would truly have the VKS soiling itself given its hilariously dangerous capabilities. Not to say the latest AMRAAMs are not dangerous of course.  They may not have the range of some Russian BVR missiles in service, but I suspect their lethality is significantly higher when packaged with something like F-16 with its fantastic avionics suite.

This is probably right on the money, but I would put a fair bit of value on breaking up bombing runs. Even if the bombs themselves are cheap, disrupting the currently more or less unimpeded bombing runs would be far more useful to the Ukrainians on the ground. Kills are not likely as you say unless the Ukrainians are able to 'ambush' targets. We have seen some pretty ingenious work from the Ukrainians so far on this front so who knows. 

Simply painting the offending jets with radar would probably be enough, no one is going to stick around to be shot at. I suspect that simply the presence of F-16s in combat will have value for that reason alone. 

We have seen stranger integration efforts so far in this war, so you never know...

I personally just wish the Meteor to be able to hunt. From all accounts the platform is truly terrifying. A constantly accelerating missile that can constantly pull high Gs at insane range that even if it misses -can turn and reacquire you- coupled with the biggest no escape zone I think to date on a missile. It is legitimatly terrifying. 

Fantastic news from Sweden as well, AEW&C capability is something Ukraine has been lacking and would really help with the coordination of F-16s as well as their AD network in general. (It amazes me that the VKS has been struggling so much against a country which lacks some pretty important fundamentals of air coordination / combat. Makes you think how badly they would do against the might of NATO airpower with all its toys)

The later generation AMRAAMs from my knowledge have a range measured in at least a hundred miles or so. Obviously effective range might be shorter but that should in theory place VKS glide bombing runs within a reasonable engagement window, granted at a potential risk.

My knowledge on BVR air combat is limited, but I understand that you have to fire high up in order to get the upper end of effective ranges on long range missiles. Which means F-16s flying high which will be a considerable risk. It is perhaps no coincidence that we are seeing a renewed Ukrainian focus on Russian AD, especially their high end search radars, A-50 control planes and of course S-400s. 

I would point out however that in theory the Russian jets are also pretty exposed on their glide bombing runs, for they also need to fly quite high in order to drop them at sufficient distance. I figured there is a reasonable chance that F-16s will be able to achieve intercepts without having to get suicidally close to the lines. (We should not underestimate Russian AD despite their proclivity to shoot their own planes down and be hilariously incompetent)

What might be more of a guarantee is that VKS pilots will have to bear in mind the threat potential of F-16s intercepting them, adding another layer of complication to their already considerable list of potentially potent Ukrainian AD and their own AD shooting them.  In theory, simply the presence of F-16 flying near the front might encourage a lot of cancelled bomb runs, which is something that will certainly have a tangible effect on the strike rate at the very least. 

This is sadly an inevitable potential outcome if AD is used against Russian aircraft, who seldom cross the lines to perform strikes. It should be viewed as an acceptable risk. 
This is honestly a very good point. Ukraine has had to go from an entirely soviet modelled force into something between that and NATO lines in the last ten years. Its not been easy and plenty of sources refer to the issue that the older generation of officers and certain elements of the force are still very much stuck in the soviet ethos of doing things. Even with the younger generation of officers thinking differently, these sorts of structural changes can take a long time to push through.

Reforming an army on such a scale is not easy in the slightest, especially when fighting a war of survival. Despite all this Ukraine has shown a truly flexible and innovative approach to in cooperating advanced NATO technology into their force.  We have already seen such craziness such as HARMs being launched from Mig-29s and BUKs carrying sparrows. There is clearly the skill and willingness for clever improvisation and I dont see going anywhere soon. 
BVR missiles are going to surely be the focus given the current nature of air combat over Ukraine. From what I remember reading up from Ukrainian pilot sources, Russian pilots learned very quickly not to get within short range missile range and instead stand off with their BVR capability advantage together with superior avionics. Stand off seems to be the current name of the game and its one where the VKS currently enjoys a major advantage. UA pilots cannot do much else than attempt to lure VKS pilots closer and otherwise fly low and cautiously. Its a testament to the skill and tenacity of the Ukrainians that they even have airframes flying at this point given the disparity. 

What they need more than anything is a capability equaliser on that front so presumably the best AMRAAMs possible will be desired. Its a shame that the Ukrainians are unlikely to get a platform that can launch Meteor though, for that would truly have the VKS soiling itself given its hilariously dangerous capabilities. Not to say the latest AMRAAMs are not dangerous of course.  They may not have the range of some Russian BVR missiles in service, but I suspect their lethality is significantly higher when packaged with something like F-16 with its fantastic avionics suite.

387 exited, 1223 'curtailed', 2173 remain
https://www.ft.com/content/88b047e9-8cad-426a-b649-265ff6582db0
Here is a neat website to check what product is from a company staying, can use barcode:
https://leave-russia.org/staying-companies

This is probably right on the money, but I would put a fair bit of value on breaking up bombing runs. Even if the bombs themselves are cheap, disrupting the currently more or less unimpeded bombing runs would be far more useful to the Ukrainians on the ground. Kills are not likely as you say unless the Ukrainians are able to 'ambush' targets. We have seen some pretty ingenious work from the Ukrainians so far on this front so who knows. 

Simply painting the offending jets with radar would probably be enough, no one is going to stick around to be shot at. I suspect that simply the presence of F-16s in combat will have value for that reason alone. 

I will admit I have often wondered how this war might have been different if Ukraine had been able to complete the An-71 "Madcap" program on its own after the breakup of the USSR (admittedly an implausible scenario, since it had a Russian radar)...

Exactly. If an Su-34 has to break off its attack run and jettison its payload, it's still a "mission kill," even if the aircraft is unharmed.

This is probably right on the money, but I would put a fair bit of value on breaking up bombing runs. Even if the bombs themselves are cheap, disrupting the currently more or less unimpeded bombing runs would be far more useful to the Ukrainians on the ground. Kills are not likely as you say unless the Ukrainians are able to 'ambush' targets. We have seen some pretty ingenious work from the Ukrainians so far on this front so who knows. 

Simply painting the offending jets with radar would probably be enough, no one is going to stick around to be shot at. I suspect that simply the presence of F-16s in combat will have value for that reason alone. 

We have seen stranger integration efforts so far in this war, so you never know...

I personally just wish the Meteor to be able to hunt. From all accounts the platform is truly terrifying. A constantly accelerating missile that can constantly pull high Gs at insane range that even if it misses -can turn and reacquire you- coupled with the biggest no escape zone I think to date on a missile. It is legitimatly terrifying. 

Fantastic news from Sweden as well, AEW&C capability is something Ukraine has been lacking and would really help with the coordination of F-16s as well as their AD network in general. (It amazes me that the VKS has been struggling so much against a country which lacks some pretty important fundamentals of air coordination / combat. Makes you think how badly they would do against the might of NATO airpower with all its toys)

This is probably right on the money, but I would put a fair bit of value on breaking up bombing runs. Even if the bombs themselves are cheap, disrupting the currently more or less unimpeded bombing runs would be far more useful to the Ukrainians on the ground. Kills are not likely as you say unless the Ukrainians are able to 'ambush' targets. We have seen some pretty ingenious work from the Ukrainians so far on this front so who knows. 

Simply painting the offending jets with radar would probably be enough, no one is going to stick around to be shot at. I suspect that simply the presence of F-16s in combat will have value for that reason alone. 

This is sadly an inevitable potential outcome if AD is used against Russian aircraft, who seldom cross the lines to perform strikes. It should be viewed as an acceptable risk. 
This is honestly a very good point. Ukraine has had to go from an entirely soviet modelled force into something between that and NATO lines in the last ten years. Its not been easy and plenty of sources refer to the issue that the older generation of officers and certain elements of the force are still very much stuck in the soviet ethos of doing things. Even with the younger generation of officers thinking differently, these sorts of structural changes can take a long time to push through.

Reforming an army on such a scale is not easy in the slightest, especially when fighting a war of survival. Despite all this Ukraine has shown a truly flexible and innovative approach to in cooperating advanced NATO technology into their force.  We have already seen such craziness such as HARMs being launched from Mig-29s and BUKs carrying sparrows. There is clearly the skill and willingness for clever improvisation and I dont see going anywhere soon. 
BVR missiles are going to surely be the focus given the current nature of air combat over Ukraine. From what I remember reading up from Ukrainian pilot sources, Russian pilots learned very quickly not to get within short range missile range and instead stand off with their BVR capability advantage together with superior avionics. Stand off seems to be the current name of the game and its one where the VKS currently enjoys a major advantage. UA pilots cannot do much else than attempt to lure VKS pilots closer and otherwise fly low and cautiously. Its a testament to the skill and tenacity of the Ukrainians that they even have airframes flying at this point given the disparity. 

What they need more than anything is a capability equaliser on that front so presumably the best AMRAAMs possible will be desired. Its a shame that the Ukrainians are unlikely to get a platform that can launch Meteor though, for that would truly have the VKS soiling itself given its hilariously dangerous capabilities. Not to say the latest AMRAAMs are not dangerous of course.  They may not have the range of some Russian BVR missiles in service, but I suspect their lethality is significantly higher when packaged with something like F-16 with its fantastic avionics suite.

The later generation AMRAAMs from my knowledge have a range measured in at least a hundred miles or so. Obviously effective range might be shorter but that should in theory place VKS glide bombing runs within a reasonable engagement window, granted at a potential risk.

My knowledge on BVR air combat is limited, but I understand that you have to fire high up in order to get the upper end of effective ranges on long range missiles. Which means F-16s flying high which will be a considerable risk. It is perhaps no coincidence that we are seeing a renewed Ukrainian focus on Russian AD, especially their high end search radars, A-50 control planes and of course S-400s. 

I would point out however that in theory the Russian jets are also pretty exposed on their glide bombing runs, for they also need to fly quite high in order to drop them at sufficient distance. I figured there is a reasonable chance that F-16s will be able to achieve intercepts without having to get suicidally close to the lines. (We should not underestimate Russian AD despite their proclivity to shoot their own planes down and be hilariously incompetent)

What might be more of a guarantee is that VKS pilots will have to bear in mind the threat potential of F-16s intercepting them, adding another layer of complication to their already considerable list of potentially potent Ukrainian AD and their own AD shooting them.  In theory, simply the presence of F-16 flying near the front might encourage a lot of cancelled bomb runs, which is something that will certainly have a tangible effect on the strike rate at the very least. 

This is sadly an inevitable potential outcome if AD is used against Russian aircraft, who seldom cross the lines to perform strikes. It should be viewed as an acceptable risk. 
This is honestly a very good point. Ukraine has had to go from an entirely soviet modelled force into something between that and NATO lines in the last ten years. Its not been easy and plenty of sources refer to the issue that the older generation of officers and certain elements of the force are still very much stuck in the soviet ethos of doing things. Even with the younger generation of officers thinking differently, these sorts of structural changes can take a long time to push through.

Reforming an army on such a scale is not easy in the slightest, especially when fighting a war of survival. Despite all this Ukraine has shown a truly flexible and innovative approach to in cooperating advanced NATO technology into their force.  We have already seen such craziness such as HARMs being launched from Mig-29s and BUKs carrying sparrows. There is clearly the skill and willingness for clever improvisation and I dont see going anywhere soon. 
BVR missiles are going to surely be the focus given the current nature of air combat over Ukraine. From what I remember reading up from Ukrainian pilot sources, Russian pilots learned very quickly not to get within short range missile range and instead stand off with their BVR capability advantage together with superior avionics. Stand off seems to be the current name of the game and its one where the VKS currently enjoys a major advantage. UA pilots cannot do much else than attempt to lure VKS pilots closer and otherwise fly low and cautiously. Its a testament to the skill and tenacity of the Ukrainians that they even have airframes flying at this point given the disparity. 

What they need more than anything is a capability equaliser on that front so presumably the best AMRAAMs possible will be desired. Its a shame that the Ukrainians are unlikely to get a platform that can launch Meteor though, for that would truly have the VKS soiling itself given its hilariously dangerous capabilities. Not to say the latest AMRAAMs are not dangerous of course.  They may not have the range of some Russian BVR missiles in service, but I suspect their lethality is significantly higher when packaged with something like F-16 with its fantastic avionics suite.

A good point about the dissipation effect. Though I would also argue in turn that the gradual acquisition of NATO standard kit into the UA arsenal might produce a similar if less pronounced effect as the use of various kit culminates together in use. 

Think of what Ukraine had in 2022 vs what they have now. They have been provided capabilities in areas that simply did not exist or were extremely limited for them at the outbreak of war. This in effect has only made Russia's advantages more difficult to leverage, all while Russia suffers a steady and keen attrition of what makes its own strengths so potentially powerful.

As I mentioned before, the key is inflicting enough strain on pressure on key points of the Russian system that the whole apparatus begins to fail. Examples include wearing down Russian artillery which is a major strength and relied upon factor for Russia to leverage results with.