How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[G.I. Joe]

2 hours ago, Letter from Prague said:

While no magic bullet, 85 F-16s is actually of a lot of planes. Sweden for which it was said "they will greatly expand NATO air capabilities with their powerful air force" has 71 Gripen. My country has 12. Finland has 50 F-18s and Germany has 140 Eurofighters. Poland has 36 F-16s.

That makes me think 85 new planes can do a lot of work. Of course the other question is how many missiles and bombs do they come with.

Very good point, Canada is planning to buy 88 CF-35s and last time I checked that puts us on track to be the fourth-largest F-35 operator after the U.S., Japan and Italy. A fast jet fleet anywhere close to triple digits looks like the Mighty 8th in today's world.

Definitely not a silver bullet, but a useful asset for Ukraine to have.

[NamEndedAllen]

10 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Now that is something.  85 F-16s would put Ukraine's inventory at about 1/10th of Russia's fighters of various capabilities. 

For the love of…WHEN? 

[G.I. Joe]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

I have no idea what air superiority even looks like anymore.

I'm inclined to think that as with the recent discussion of holding ground, air superiority is starting to look like a somewhat dated concept in the current environment. The shift to a denial paradigm seems to apply across the board (subsurface might not be going through as much of a paradigm shift, but submarines were a denial asset to begin with).

[danfrodo]

58 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Concur with this except that should Putin prevail in Ukraine, things won't get much better for Russia or his political prospects. Yes, for a year or two he will bask in triumphalism but the fundamental demographic and strategic weaknesses of Russia will not go away and Putin will have merely whetted the appetite of the extremists in his own camp. 

Attacking NATO would be suicidal...in fact, attacking Poland and Finland alone would be pretty suicidal...but that doesn't mean a sclerotic Putin attempting to retain a grip on power won't do it. This isn't the Cold War and to the Kremlin this isn't a cold war. Sober calculation doesn't rule.

BillBinDC talking sense, once again.  While I agree it's would be insane for Putin to attack NATO, anywhere, I am also the guy early in this thread who said things like "Putin won't attack, attacking would be insane".  

Lots of folks are saying how unprepared NATO is, but look at what we're facing!  A ground force that's closer to WW2 than to CMBS. Where is Putin gonna get a force to attack anybody right now?  If he pulls out enough forces to threaten the baltics then UKR would be in Mariupol pretty quickly.  

[danfrodo]

2 minutes ago, G.I. Joe said:

I'm inclined to think that as with the recent discussion of holding ground, air superiority is starting to look like a somewhat dated concept in the current environment. The shift to a denial paradigm seems to apply across the board (subsurface might not be going through as much of a paradigm shift, but submarines were a denial asset to begin with).

I was thinking the F16s would help degrade RU AD so that drones & missiles would be ever more effective.  But we'll see I suppose.

[G.I. Joe]

5 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

I was thinking the F16s would help degrade RU AD so that drones & missiles would be ever more effective.  But we'll see I suppose.

I think that's highly probable. But they can also contribute standoff PGM capabilities for CAS/BAI and deeper interdiction. And even if conventional notions of air superiority seen outmoded at this point, I definitely think there will be an important counter-air (to use the old Soviet term) role for the F-16s reducing the Russian glide bomb threat.

[ArmouredTopHat]

16 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

I was thinking the F16s would help degrade RU AD so that drones & missiles would be ever more effective.  But we'll see I suppose.

I think the main potential benefit is making the VKS have a much rougher time with their glide bombing operations, which seem to be a growing headache for the AFU as Russian artillery declines in both accuracy and lethality as older / reactivated systems replace more modern ones.

Ground based air defence is excellent, but well managed air interceptions offer critical mobility against striking craft on a large conflict front while making hostile strikes more complex to plan and execute. With F-16s unlocking a truly incredible suite of lethal and dangerous NATO air launched options (Will be curious to see what they are given) its certainly a far better deal than what the incredibly brave Ukrainian pilots have been dealing with so far flying old jets with old missiles. Not to mention a quite literally near bottomless supply of F-16 airframes for the future, at least compared to Mig-29 supplies. At the very least with some actual BVR capability the Ukrainians can at least sling missiles back at Russian craft who have until this point been largely standing off and taking potshots at Ukrainian craft. 

In short, it hopefully provides another pressure point which could help contribute to at the very least growing difficulties in the Russian military (VKS especially) if not outright act as a game changer. We can only hope. 

Edited May 29 by ArmouredTopHat

[billbindc]

17 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

BillBinDC talking sense, once again.  While I agree it's would be insane for Putin to attack NATO, anywhere, I am also the guy early in this thread who said things like "Putin won't attack, attacking would be insane".  

Lots of folks are saying how unprepared NATO is, but look at what we're facing!  A ground force that's closer to WW2 than to CMBS. Where is Putin gonna get a force to attack anybody right now?  If he pulls out enough forces to threaten the baltics then UKR would be in Mariupol pretty quickly.  

I would say that 'winning' in Ukraine is a precondition to Putin doing anything else. Russia's holding up better than we expected but it's still under immense strain and sovietizing its economy to stay in the fight (and also, let's face it, because somewhere in their hearts they were yearning to all this time). Russia cannot take the next step without force feeding coopted Ukrainians into the maelstrom in turn. 

[NamEndedAllen]

3 hours ago, danfrodo said:

actually my post was bait for the learned air force-types to explain how the F16s would be used and make a diff.  I used to think 'so what' on F16s but there's been talk here before of them doing some nice things.  Was hoping to draw out some comments on that.

So y'all, what do you think the F16s will do?

The specific block versions supplied to Ukraine, their avionics capabilities, and the strike weapons supplied will determine an awfully lot of their effectiveness. Those who fly Falcon BMS should have a fair idea of the extensive variety of mission profiles and the families of strike weapons the various blocks of Vipers can employ. The GBU class and especially the GPS enabled versions are excellent standoff threat. When accompanied by Shoot The Archers” HARM carrying Vipers I would expect more Russian air defenses go boom. I’m not clear on what Russian platforms have been delivering those glide bombs (Russian GBU version kits?), but if they are fighters they should need greater and greater separation from their targets, and therefore greater and greater altitudes for launch. Meaning higher radar visibility and interception risks. The AIM-120B and Cs on their native platform should make the ATA quite interesting considering historical matchups in air combat seen elsewhere.

Regarding “silver bullets”, I don’t believe there are any. It’s the combination of the full array of newer, modern Western platforms, sensors, munitions, and training that could have and still might have a more powerful impact when employed together. Dribbling in small numbers of each platform periodically and consecutively over the years dissipates much of the advantages of each. The enemy focuses on and adjusts to each one in isolation, with plenty of time before the next platform arrives. Reasons why it happened this way have been discussed here over the years of the war. But the dissipation effect is what is.

[ArmouredTopHat]

20 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

The specific block versions supplied to Ukraine, their avionics capabilities, and the strike weapons supplied will determine an awfully lot of their effectiveness. Those who fly Falcon BMS should have a fair idea of the extensive variety of mission profiles and the families of strike weapons the various blocks of Vipers can employ. The GBU class and especially the GPS enabled versions are excellent standoff threat. When accompanied by Shoot The Archers” HARM carrying Vipers I would expect more Russian air defenses go boom. I’m not clear on what Russian platforms have been delivering those glide bombs (Russian GBU version kits?), but if they are fighters they should need greater and greater separation from their targets, and therefore greater and greater altitudes for launch. Meaning higher radar visibility and interception risks. The AIM-120B and Cs on their native platform should make the ATA quite interesting considering historical matchups in air combat seen elsewhere.

Regarding “silver bullets”, I don’t believe there are any. It’s the combination of the full array of newer, modern Western platforms, sensors, munitions, and training that could have and still might have a more powerful impact when employed together. Dribbling in small numbers of each platform periodically and consecutively over the years dissipates much of the advantages of each. The enemy focuses on and adjusts to each one in isolation, with plenty of time before the next platform arrives. Reasons why it happened this way have been discussed here over the years of the war. But the dissipation effect is what is.

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. 

[FancyCat]

Quote

Not one but TWO rare Mi-24RKhR helicopters (originally an NBC recce variant of the Mi-24V) in one video! In the couple of years leading up to the full-scale invasion, no RKhR remained active with UkrAA @Chebik2

@Osinttechnical

Relatively low pass by a pair of Ukrainian Army Aviation Mi-24 Hind gunships just behind the front, Donetsk Oblast.

 

[Carolus]

6 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Sentiments like this make we wonder why we are bankrolling this whole thing.  FFS we could have saved ourselves a couple hundred billion and dropped a new Iron Curtain if this is what we can expect from partners.

I respect the right of my elders to be grumpy curmudgeons, but if a statement about how the Western refusal to allow Ukrain to act according to international law makes other people doubt how many other terms of international contracts some Western nations would adhere to makes you want to sit idly by and watch an invasion with genocidal or at least culturally genocidal intent, then it crosses the line into "boomer tantrum".

Here are my reasons of why we support Ukraine.

a) it supports the UN charta, which has practical legal benefits

b) the ethical and moral arguments fall more in favor of it than against it

c) in a Machiavellian sense we are destroying the military capacity of an enemy that has been actively working on destroying the West for at least 15 years (albeit with non-conventional means), which support international terrorism and would be a potential ally / supporter / provider of military goods to another active enemy of the West in another war, like China, and it is done at the minimum cost imaginable

d) it allows to massively improve our own military potential via observation and remote learning as well as investments in production facilities, which have been woefully neglected despite active enemies building up their own potential and messaging their clear intent of careless murder on a global scale

That's why we are bankrolling it. 

And yes, the AD ambushed across the border were the best thing since sliced bread for Ukraine and Western politicians throwing a tantrum over it is neither legally not militarily nor politically rational.

 

[Fenris]

8 hours ago, danfrodo said:

So y'all, what do you think the F16s will do?

My main hope for supplying western fighters is they'll give UKR the ability to deliver a plentiful and relatively cheap precision strike weapon.  At the same time, I hope they can chase the VVS out of the air, denying them this kind of strike.  I think glide bombs are a given but I do wonder what sort of other weapons are going to be supplied with the aircraft, hopefully AIM-120's

 

Edited May 29 by Fenris

[holoween]

42 minutes ago, Carolus said:

And yes, the AD ambushed across the border were the best thing since sliced bread for Ukraine and Western politicians throwing a tantrum over it is neither legally not militarily nor politically rational.

 

To play devils advocate there is at least one good reason to limit the use.

If a failed missile that gets into russian hands could lead to a significant reduction of those missiles by tailoring countermeasures it can make sense to not risk it.

[JonS]

6 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Regarding “silver bullets”, I don’t believe there are any. It’s the combination of the full array of newer, modern Western platforms, sensors, munitions, and training that could have and still might have a more powerful impact when employed together. Dribbling in small numbers of each platform periodically and consecutively over the years dissipates much of the advantages of each. The enemy focuses on and adjusts to each one in isolation, with plenty of time before the next platform arrives. Reasons why it happened this way have been discussed here over the years of the war. But the dissipation effect is what is.

Never forget that one of the constraints on adoption of new equipment is the Ukrainian military itself.

It is undeniably true that deploying the full suite of goodies that marks out advanced Western militaries, from soup to nuts, logistics to BDA, would make the Ukrainian armed forces incomparably more fearsome than they already are.

It is ALSO undeniably true that wholesale adoption of the full suite of goodies that marks out advanced Western militaries etc etc in one fell swoop would utterly break the force, indeed any force, that tried it. It would break them if they tried it in peacetime, let alone attempting it in the middle of an existential war. It is mildly implausible that Putin would step back, saying "oh, fair play, we won't do anything for the next 18-24 months while you figure out how to use, employ, and maintain all this new stuff. Give us a call when you're ready to go again?"

Keep in mind that every time you argue for comprehensive and sudden re-equipping. Either you're arguing for a fantasy, or you're arguing for a Russian victory along the lines of Arthur C. Clarke's short story Superiority.

There is, of course, a middle path - upgrading as fast as practical whilst maintaining a credible and capable force. And there always is, and always will be, debate about whether the process is proceeding too quickly or to slowly. However the answer is never at either end of the spectrum.

 

Edited May 29 by JonS

[G.I. Joe]

1 hour ago, Fenris said:

My main hope for supplying western fighters is they'll give UKR the ability to deliver a plentiful and relatively cheap precision strike weapon.  At the same time, I hope they can chase the VVS out of the air, denying them this kind of strike.  I think glide bombs are a given but I do wonder what sort of other weapons are going to be supplied with the aircraft, hopefully AIM-120's

 

I think AIM-120s are practically a given, the big question is which version. The F-16s being supplied are all F-16A Block 15 MLU versions, roughly equivalent to a current U.S. Block 50/52 C/D model in capabilities and AMRAAM capable. AMRAAMs for Ukraine have also been confirmed:

Defense News: Ukraine to get AMRAAM weapons under $1 billion deal with RTX

Air and Space Forces Magazine: As Ukraine Prepares to Get F-16s, US Provides AMRAAM Missiles

Which version is unconfirmed, but the second article mentions hints from Ukrainian officials that the advanced AIM-120D variant with a 160 km or greater range may be in the works. Relatively few air forces (Canada among them) have received the D model to date, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. Hopefully OPSEC will be good about the exact air to air weapons provided and the timing of the F-16s' arrival in country...let it be a surprise for the VKS.

Edited May 29 by G.I. Joe

[cesmonkey]

https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2024/05/militart-stodpaket-16-till-ukraina--ny-formaga-som-starker-ukrainas-luftforsvar-och-stod-som-moter-ukrainas-prioriterade-behov/

 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

8 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

I think the main potential benefit is making the VKS have a much rougher time with their glide bombing operations, which seem to be a growing headache for the AFU as Russian artillery declines in both accuracy and lethality as older / reactivated systems replace more modern ones.

I do not think that is a possibility.

The problem with Russian glide bombings is that the bombing run ends 50-70 km before the front line, and only the bomb continues to fly from that moment on. Trying to intrecept the bombs is futile, they are a difficult target, relatively cheap and very numerous. However, in order to even try and intercept the bombers, Ukrainian aircraft would have to fly on the front line or even over on the Russian side of it - the range of available AA missiles limits them. Assuming the Ukrainians can degrade RUS GBAD sufficiently to allow this, there is still the issue of RUS air-to-air capability. Russians have much longer range missiles (R37),  as the development of such seems to have been neglected in the west (under the mistaken assumption, that long range AAMs must be by definition lumbering monsters, incapable of shooting down anything but big bombers - either that, or the Western Air Forces' more important concern was that changing their role to drivers of long range missile trucks will deprive them of the "Top Gun" mystique and easy chat up lines). RUS air force is actually optimised for AA. Therefore  I don't think that the Ukrainians will be able to Freie Jagd their F16 over the front  in a way necessary to affect the glide bombings, ever or at least until RUS situations deterioriates overall. I hope I am wrong, of course.

On the other hand, I think that the Ukrainians are trying to do the second best thing, i.e. acquire the capability of making long range glide bombing runs themselves. There was information a couple of days ago abt GBU 39 being integrated with MiGs. The recent evidence of ATACMS attacks on RUS SAM batteries also suggests, that degradation of RUS GBAD is  now a priority for UKR fire planners, so they probably expect UKR aircraft to start flying soon

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

3 hours ago, holoween said:

To play devils advocate there is at least one good reason to limit the use.

If a failed missile that gets into russian hands could lead to a significant reduction of those missiles by tailoring countermeasures it can make sense to not risk it.

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. 

2 hours ago, JonS said:

Never forget that one of the constraints on adoption of new equipment is the Ukrainian military itself.

It is undeniably true that deploying the full suite of goodies that marks out advanced Western militaries, from soup to nuts, logistics to BDA, would make the Ukrainian armed forces incomparably more fearsome than they already are.

It is ALSO undeniably true that wholesale adoption of the full suite of goodies that marks out advanced Western militaries etc etc in one fell swoop would utterly break the force, indeed any force, that tried it. It would break them if they tried it in peacetime, let alone attempting it in the middle of an existential war. It is mildly implausible that Putin would step back, saying "oh, fair play, we won't do anything for the next 18-24 months while you figure out how to use, employ, and maintain all this new stuff. Give us a call when you're ready to go again?"

Keep in mind that every time you argue for comprehensive and sudden re-equipping. Either you're arguing for a fantasy, or you're arguing for a Russian victory along the lines of Arthur C. Clarke's short story Superiority.

There is, of course, a middle path - upgrading as fast as practical whilst maintaining a credible and capable force. And there always is, and always will be, debate about whether the process is proceeding too quickly or to slowly. However the answer is never at either end of the spectrum.

 

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. 

2 hours ago, G.I. Joe said:

I think AIM-120s are practically a given, the big question is which version. The F-16s being supplied are all F-16A Block 15 MLU versions, roughly equivalent to a current U.S. Block 50/52 C/D model in capabilities and AMRAAM capable. AMRAAMs for Ukraine have also been confirmed:

Defense News: Ukraine to get AMRAAM weapons under $1 billion deal with RTX

Air and Space Forces Magazine: As Ukraine Prepares to Get F-16s, US Provides AMRAAM Missiles

Which version is unconfirmed, but the second article mentions hints from Ukrainian officials that the advanced AIM-120D variant with a 160 km or greater range may be in the works. Relatively few air forces (Canada among them) have received the D model to date, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. Hopefully OPSEC will be good about the exact air to air weapons provided and the timing of the F-16s' arrival in country...let it be a surprise for the VKS.

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.

[ArmouredTopHat]

4 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

I do not think that is a possibility.

The problem with Russian glide bombings is that the bombing run ends 50-70 km before the front line, and only the bomb continues to fly from that moment on. Trying to intrecept the bombs is futile, they are a difficult target, relatively cheap and very numerous. However, in order to even try and intercept the bombers, Ukrainian aircraft would have to fly on the front line or even over on the Russian side of it - the range of available AA missiles limits them. Assuming the Ukrainians can degrade RUS GBAD sufficiently to allow this, there is still the issue of RUS air-to-air capability. Russians have much longer range missiles (R37),  as the development of such seems to have been neglected in the west (under the mistaken assumption, that long range AAMs must be by definition lumbering monsters, incapable of shooting down anything but big bombers - either that, or the Western Air Forces' more important concern was that changing their role to drivers of long range missile trucks will deprive them of the "Top Gun" mystique and easy chat up lines). RUS air force is actually optimised for AA. Therefore  I don't think that the Ukrainians will be able to Freie Jagd their F16 over the front  in a way necessary to affect the glide bombings, ever or at least until RUS situations deterioriates overall. I hope I am wrong, of course.

On the other hand, I think that the Ukrainians are trying to do the second best thing, i.e. acquire the capability of making long range glide bombing runs themselves. There was information a couple of days ago abt GBU 39 being integrated with MiGs. The recent evidence of ATACMS attacks on RUS SAM batteries also suggests, that degradation of RUS GBAD is  now a priority for UKR fire planners, so they probably expect UKR aircraft to start flying soon

 

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. 

[G.I. Joe]

48 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2024/05/militart-stodpaket-16-till-ukraina--ny-formaga-som-starker-ukrainas-luftforsvar-och-stod-som-moter-ukrainas-prioriterade-behov/

 

This is good news! AEW&C platforms could be a big factor, especially if they arrive fairly soon.

14 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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.

I keep hoping against hope that part of the delay was someone quietly completing integration of the Meteor on the F-16A MLU (if I'm not mistaken, the original intent was that the MLU would include Meteor capability, but I may well be wrong). Highly unlikely, but it would make things interesting...

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 minute ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

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. 

I don't know much about BVR either, but my understanding suggests that if you are shooting a misssile of 120 km range while at 50 km separation the Russian aircraft are free to change direction, altitude and speed at will and start running to safety on the course optimised for missile evasion, you are probably shooting from outside the no escape zone and the Pk is going to be low. I would be happy to be proven wrong by someone more inclined to mathematics and physics, as I lay no claim to proficiency in either.

By shooting AMRAMS towards Russians on the ingress you can of course break up the bombing run, but is that cost-effective? At worst, they could drop the bombs early but they are cheap...

[ArmouredTopHat]

2 minutes ago, G.I. Joe said:

This is good news! AEW&C platforms could be a big factor, especially if they arrive fairly soon.

I keep hoping against hope that part of the delay was someone quietly completing integration of the Meteor on the F-16A MLU (if I'm not mistaken, the original intent was that the MLU would include Meteor capability, but I may well be wrong). Highly unlikely, but it would make things interesting...

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)

[NamEndedAllen]

3 hours ago, JonS said:

Keep in mind that every time you argue for comprehensive and sudden re-equipping. Either you're arguing for a fantasy, or you're arguing for a Russian victory

Indeed! Except “sudden” was never a credible possibility and certainly not my point. 

3 hours ago, JonS said:

there always is, and always will be, debate about whether the process is proceeding too quickly or to slowly. However the answer is never at either end of the spectrum.

I think everyone serious here agrees with your conclusion - the feasible and effective pace wasn’t at either extreme. I’m not aware anyone is arguing that the pace has been too fast over the past two years. But there are reasonable arguments that politics have slowed the process more than military realities.

The point I made is that I don’t believe there are or were any singular “silver bullets”. Or wooden stakes. The F-16 will help Ukraine. A version equivalent to the Block 50/52 Viper is a damn fine strike fighter! (I wouldn’t expect much ATA engagements in the current environment). But as capable and plentiful as the F-16 is, I’m pretty sure most here aren’t expecting it to single-handedly freeze the Russian force in Ukraine. Let alone win the war. If there were a decisive advantage permitting Ukraine to push the invaders back at least to their starting lines, it surely would have been that combination of integrated Western systems we have seen to be so deadly in other conflicts. Not any one of them, alone.  But even that time may have passed, and who knows what political realities the USA elections will bring. The newer systems employed by Russia and Ukraine - omnipresent drones, improved ISR, etc  have significantly strengthened the defense over the offense.  Pages and pages of posts here argue strongly that the new battlefield reality is making most countries’ war-fighting apparatus and methods obsolete or nearly so. That, who is wearing down faster, and what this all means for Ukraine’s future is much of the discussion on the forum these days.

[ArmouredTopHat]

9 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

I don't know much about BVR either, but my understanding suggests that if you are shooting a misssile of 120 km range while at 50 km separation the Russian aircraft are free to change direction, altitude and speed at will and start running to safety on the course optimised for missile evasion, you are probably shooting from outside the no escape zone and the Pk is going to be low. I would be happy to be proven wrong by someone more inclined to mathematics and physics, as I lay no claim to proficiency in either.

By shooting AMRAMS towards Russians on the ingress you can of course break up the bombing run, but is that cost-effective? At worst, they could drop the bombs early but they are cheap...

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. 

Edited May 29 by ArmouredTopHat