Is Ukraine about to have a war?
OK I'll go back to square one for you. The F-16 is unsuited for Ukraine as things stand currently because it has comparatively weak landing gear and lacks anything that could be called STOL takeoff ability; another undesirable feature it has is the intake duct for the engine is mounted low - close to the ground. That intake has a lot of suction associated with it when the engine is at full throttle.
The USAF has had a lot of problems with FOD (foreign object damage) about everywhere it has flown outside of US airbases. Host countries have needed a lot of training and new equipment to keep runways clear of foreign objects. Currently Ukraine has no runways long enough for an F-16 to operate from, that means that they would have to extend something they already have, which will stick out like a sore thumb to Russian satellites; thus the Russians will know exactly where to target their ballistic or cruise missiles.
The USAF has had a lot of problems with FOD (foreign object damage) about everywhere it has flown outside of US airbases. Host countries have needed a lot of training and new equipment to keep runways clear of foreign objects. Currently Ukraine has no runways long enough for an F-16 to operate from, that means that they would have to extend something they already have, which will stick out like a sore thumb to Russian satellites; thus the Russians will know exactly where to target their ballistic or cruise missiles.
Maybe the research on Ground Vortex, GV, and Foreign Object Ingestion FOI, is worth spending time reviewing before making assertions on the merits or not for one particular aircraft predicated on their colour or flavour may be.
Turns out, surprise, that the GV formation is dependent substantially on yaw angles relative to the intake itself... hardly a surprise for anyone who is involved in separated flow research. Also turns out that the strength of the GV is proportional to the height of the intake, h.sub.1, divided by the diameter of the intake. D.sub.i... h1/Di (as in h1 di ho... ) the last piece of the puzzle is of course the forcing function... and that is obvious, it is the velocity ratio, U*.
Given that, the mitigation to a Viper's ops to avoid FOI should be obvious, if not PM me... What is also obvious is that the F-18 is not necessarily the better choice for avoiding FOI, however, the Navy having a fair number of staff readily on hand, have a chance to keep debris to a minimum, a fringe benefit of having no space to dump debris. As far as main landing gear goes, the F-16 design is a fairly conventional design incorporating drag and side braces, and a main oleo mounted off a main frame bearing & forging. The C has had a recurring issue related directly to a mandatory replacement of Main Landing Gear Downlock Actuators and Support Brackets and Hardware on all USAF F-16C/D Blocks 40/42/50/52 Aircraft; mandating the removal of the actuator and replacement with new hardware, by March 2, 2022.
The F-18 has a great design, unless you bottom out the gear which admittedly is at least 20% higher loads than the F-18 design load, however, hit the stop and the dismantlement will occur due to the lever arm that occurs with a bottomed trailing link design.
The F-16 is a true multi role aircraft, it can be operated without folding the blender with a modicum of care, and it's NLG doesn't fire debris up into the intakes, whereas the F-18 and various others can do that. Blow a tyre however, and stuff goes everywhere, including into the big gulp with any bad luck.
Reference:
MacManus, D., & Slaby, cranfield ac uk M. (n.d.). Intake ground vortex and computational modelling of foreign object ingestion.
Brix, S., Neuwerth, G. and Jacob, d. The inlet-vortex system of jet engines operating near the ground, August 2000, AIAA Paper 2000-3998.
De Siervi, F., Viguier, H., Greitzer, E. and Tan, C. Mechanisms of inlet vortex formation, J Fluid
Mechanics, 1982, 124, pp 173-207.
Mishra, N., MacManus, D. and Murphy, J. Intake ground vortex characteristics, J Aerospace Eng,
2012, 226, pp 1387-1400, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G.
Best practices for the mitigation and control of foreign object damage-induced high cycle fatigue in gas turbine engine compression system airfoils, 2005, NATO Science and Technology Organization, Report
RTO-TR-AVT-094.
Last edited by fdr; 27th Feb 2023 at 08:01.
The following 3 users liked this post by fdr:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,025
Received 2,902 Likes
on
1,243 Posts
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Sigh…
The F-16 requires an MOS of 1500-4000ft with a standard load, Ukraine has at least 30 airfields, some with multiple runways and parallel taxiways, from which they can operate. Their CAS has already stated they’ve selected those they want as a network for F-16 ops and are installing the logistics support (fuel, weapon storage, hydrazine etc) to operate them. Obviously they’re not saying which.
The FOD issue is vastly over-hyped as a red herring. If you can keep a runway clear to operate a 737 you can do so for an F-16 or other FJ. Standard airfield sweepers will do - or even, as the RAF used to do, airmen doing a FOD sweep). You can even tow the aircraft to and from the runway if you want to reduce the area needing to be swept.
The Ukrainians aren’t really after fighters for air-to-air, which is wh6 they’re diffident about the Typhoon except as an ice-breaker. They have a great SAM network which the Russians and the Russian jets don’t come near it as far as possible - see the number of jets shot down when the do - and their attacks are by stand- off cruise missiles. What they want are multi-role fighter-bombers capable of carrying the full range of stand-off PGMs available, such as SLAM-ER, to extend their strike capability deeper beyond the FLOT and being capable of being launched either in conjunction with a HARM escort of using toss attacks from low level. The F-16 being the perfect example.
Yes, they’d take F-18s, but the US isn’t offering but there are multiple European F-16 operators who seem happy to provide them.
Regarding pilot training, the AM previously in charge of FJ training has stated that, if unnecessary items are stripped out, an experienced Ukrainian pilot could be converted in 6-8 weeks. Ground crew training for turn-rounds shouldn’t take more. For more technical support there are more than enough experienced retired ground crew in Europe who could be recruited to provide on-site support and training.
Russia has been using as much of its air force as it can, just as it has its army. If they had hundreds of aircraft available during the last year the6 have used them. They haven’t. They’ve probably stripped the rest of the air force of men, spares and weapons to support the current squadrons they have near the front and they’re probably now running out of hours and parts.
The F-16 requires an MOS of 1500-4000ft with a standard load, Ukraine has at least 30 airfields, some with multiple runways and parallel taxiways, from which they can operate. Their CAS has already stated they’ve selected those they want as a network for F-16 ops and are installing the logistics support (fuel, weapon storage, hydrazine etc) to operate them. Obviously they’re not saying which.
The FOD issue is vastly over-hyped as a red herring. If you can keep a runway clear to operate a 737 you can do so for an F-16 or other FJ. Standard airfield sweepers will do - or even, as the RAF used to do, airmen doing a FOD sweep). You can even tow the aircraft to and from the runway if you want to reduce the area needing to be swept.
The Ukrainians aren’t really after fighters for air-to-air, which is wh6 they’re diffident about the Typhoon except as an ice-breaker. They have a great SAM network which the Russians and the Russian jets don’t come near it as far as possible - see the number of jets shot down when the do - and their attacks are by stand- off cruise missiles. What they want are multi-role fighter-bombers capable of carrying the full range of stand-off PGMs available, such as SLAM-ER, to extend their strike capability deeper beyond the FLOT and being capable of being launched either in conjunction with a HARM escort of using toss attacks from low level. The F-16 being the perfect example.
Yes, they’d take F-18s, but the US isn’t offering but there are multiple European F-16 operators who seem happy to provide them.
Regarding pilot training, the AM previously in charge of FJ training has stated that, if unnecessary items are stripped out, an experienced Ukrainian pilot could be converted in 6-8 weeks. Ground crew training for turn-rounds shouldn’t take more. For more technical support there are more than enough experienced retired ground crew in Europe who could be recruited to provide on-site support and training.
Russia has been using as much of its air force as it can, just as it has its army. If they had hundreds of aircraft available during the last year the6 have used them. They haven’t. They’ve probably stripped the rest of the air force of men, spares and weapons to support the current squadrons they have near the front and they’re probably now running out of hours and parts.
Last edited by ORAC; 27th Feb 2023 at 10:54.
The following 5 users liked this post by ORAC:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Leaked documents have shed new light on the relationship between the Russian Ministry of Defence and the Wagner Group. The MOD is reportedly blaming Wagner for a shortage of shells that may have contributed to Russia's recent disaster at Vuhledar. ⬇️
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...119585794.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...119585794.html
According to World Air Forces 2020". Flightglobal Insight. 2020.18 May 2020. they have some 850 Aircraft which could be considered Fighter/Interceptor. Thereof ~250 which would be considered 'modern', i.e. Gen 4(+)
Repeating inaccurate claims doesn't make them more accurate/correct. Unless you consider the Russians chasing F-16s with their SU-24 or Su-25.
According to World Air Forces 2020". Flightglobal Insight. 2020.18 May 2020. they have some 850 Aircraft which could be considered Fighter/Interceptor. Thereof ~250 which would be considered 'modern', i.e. Gen 4(+)
According to World Air Forces 2020". Flightglobal Insight. 2020.18 May 2020. they have some 850 Aircraft which could be considered Fighter/Interceptor. Thereof ~250 which would be considered 'modern', i.e. Gen 4(+)
MiG-31 132
Su-24 274
Su-25 194
Su-27/30/35 429
Su-34 123
I don't find the sentence you are quoting, but my math from the above list shows 1,403 aircraft. If you only want to count only 4th gen aircraft, then Russia's 250 (your number) right now compares to zero for Ukraine; if Sweden gives them a squadron of Grippens, that would make the score 250 to 16.
The reality is that Ukraine is not going to be able to go head to head against the Russian air force anytime soon.
MiG-29/35 251
MiG-31 132
Su-24 274
Su-25 194
Su-27/30/35 429
Su-34 123
I don't find the sentence you are quoting, but my math from the above list shows 1,403 aircraft. If you only want to count only 4th gen aircraft, then Russia's 250 (your number) right now compares to zero for Ukraine; if Sweden gives them a squadron of Grippens, that would make the score 250 to 16.
The reality is that Ukraine is not going to be able to go head to head against the Russian air force anytime soon.
MiG-31 132
Su-24 274
Su-25 194
Su-27/30/35 429
Su-34 123
I don't find the sentence you are quoting, but my math from the above list shows 1,403 aircraft. If you only want to count only 4th gen aircraft, then Russia's 250 (your number) right now compares to zero for Ukraine; if Sweden gives them a squadron of Grippens, that would make the score 250 to 16.
The reality is that Ukraine is not going to be able to go head to head against the Russian air force anytime soon.
The following users liked this post:
Sigh
The F-16 requires an MOS of 1500-4000ft with a standard load, Ukraine has at least airfields, some with multiple runways and parallel taxiways, from which they can operate. Their CAS has already stated theyve selected those they want as a network for F-16 ops and are installing the logistics support (fuel, weapon storage, hydrazine etc) to operate them. Obviously theyre not saying which.
The F-16 requires an MOS of 1500-4000ft with a standard load, Ukraine has at least airfields, some with multiple runways and parallel taxiways, from which they can operate. Their CAS has already stated theyve selected those they want as a network for F-16 ops and are installing the logistics support (fuel, weapon storage, hydrazine etc) to operate them. Obviously theyre not saying which.
The FOD issue is vastly over-hyped as a red herring. If you can keep a runway clear to operate a 737 you can do so for an F-16 or other FJ. Standard airfield sweepers will do - or even, as the RAF used to do, airmen doing a FOD sweep). You can even tow the aircraft to and from the runway if you want to reduce the area needing to be swept.
The Ukrainians arent really after fighters for air-to-air, which is wh6 theyre diffident about the Typhoon except as an ice-breaker. They have a great SAM network which the Russians and the Russian jets dont come near it as far as possible - see the number of jets shot down when the do - and their attacks are by stand- off cruise missiles. What they want are multi-role fighter-bombers capable of carrying the full range of stand-off PGMs available, such as SLAM-ER, to extend their strike capability deeper beyond the FLOT and being capable of being launched either in conjunction with a HARM escort of using toss attacks from low level. The F-16 being the perfect example.
Regarding pilot training, the AM previously in charge of FJ training has stated that, if unnecessary items are stripped out, an experienced Ukrainian pilot could be converted in 6-8 weeks. Ground crew training for turn-rounds shouldnt take more. For more technical support there are more than enough experienced retired ground crew in Europe who could be recruited to provide on-site support and training.
Russia has been using as much of its air force as it can, just as it has its army. If they had hundreds of aircraft available during the last year the6 have used them. They havent. Theyve probably stripped the rest of the air force of men, spares and weapons to support the current squadrons they have near the front and theyre probably now running out of hours and parts.
Thank you for responding with actual arguments.
The SU-34 can be used as such.
But you have a point with the SU25s and 24s. So subtract 468 and that makes the score 935 to whatever Ukraine can field.
We can use these numbers, I'm not going to quibble about this.
The Russian Air force is much larger than anything Ukraine can field.
And they have S400 and S-300 systems that can cover the entire front line. Ukraine at best can deny Russia the ability to provide ground support on the front lines. But then that's not nothing.
But you have a point with the SU25s and 24s. So subtract 468 and that makes the score 935 to whatever Ukraine can field.
We can use these numbers, I'm not going to quibble about this.
The Russian Air force is much larger than anything Ukraine can field.
And they have S400 and S-300 systems that can cover the entire front line. Ukraine at best can deny Russia the ability to provide ground support on the front lines. But then that's not nothing.
Theoretically they can but they are used as a replacement for the SU-24. They are a 45to behemoth and the most sophisticated Ground Attack aircraft in theater. The Russians won't be stupid enough to waste these rare high - value A2G assets to be shot down by F-16 in attempted 1vs1 where they will be in many scenarios rather at a disadvantage against a nimble 15t dedicated Fighter.
Russian Airforce so far have rather proven to be over- cautious rather than stupid - in stark contrast to the Ground Forces where rather the opposite appears to be the case.
Russian Airforce so far have rather proven to be over- cautious rather than stupid - in stark contrast to the Ground Forces where rather the opposite appears to be the case.
Last edited by henra; 27th Feb 2023 at 11:35.
The SU-34 can be used as such.
But you have a point with the SU25s and 24s. So subtract 468 and that makes the score 935 to whatever Ukraine can field.
We can use these numbers, I'm not going to quibble about this.
The Russian Air force is much larger than anything Ukraine can field.
And they have S400 and S-300 systems that can cover the entire front line. Ukraine at best can deny Russia the ability to provide ground support on the front lines. But then that's not nothing.
But you have a point with the SU25s and 24s. So subtract 468 and that makes the score 935 to whatever Ukraine can field.
We can use these numbers, I'm not going to quibble about this.
The Russian Air force is much larger than anything Ukraine can field.
And they have S400 and S-300 systems that can cover the entire front line. Ukraine at best can deny Russia the ability to provide ground support on the front lines. But then that's not nothing.
The war in Ukraine is not an existential threat to Russia and despite his ranting V. V. Putin knows it. They are not going to leave the rest of the country undefended for Ukraine.
Kaliningrad alone is a defensive nightmare requiring especially aircrafts due to its isolated position.
Let me ask it this way: how many "fighter jets" (pls use your own definition here, from F16's to F22's if you like and adding the odd F117's held in stocks)) does the US have and what would be the circumstances in which all of those would be sent to a single area in the world, say for arguments sake Canada leaving its sides open for Chinese, Russians, Venezuelans or any red team of your choice?
Surely Russian Air Force has substantial amount of kit, but as they are lacking aerial refueling capabilities and Ukraine has disputed airfields up to 500km in depth within Russia and temporarily occupied Crimea, there is no way they would have more than up to 20% of their total numbers available to be used in Ukraine. And Ukrainians are harvesting those numbers rather efficiently.
Ukraine never had more than 200ish aircraft in total within their air force but they've done sterling job preserving them while still in action and combining the air defenses. Russia does not have air superiority and the future seems even worse for a Russian air crews as patriots, S300's, gepards etc are pouring in.
To sum it up a bit, even a small number of western aircrafts would help Ukrainians a lot. At least it would act as a deterrent, the russkies are already hesitant to fly there, let them fear the Vipers on top of it.
Theoretically they can but they are used as a replacement for the SU-24. They are a 45to behemoth and the most sophisticated Ground Attack aircraft in theater. The Russians won't be stupid enough to waste these rare high - value A2G assets to be shot down by F-16 in attempted 1vs1 where they will be in many scenarios rather at a disadvantage against a nimble 15t dedicated Fighter.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Most of that Russian or at only exists on thin paper. Take the 250 Mig-29s as an example.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...ig-29-goodbye/
p.s. the 737 engine intake is just 17 inches above the ground, far lower than the F-16’s - and the F-16 nose gear is positioned behind the intake….
Given my penny’s worth and will leave it to others to decide.
As I’ve said previously, the Ukrainians have looked at all the factors and are begging for F-16s. It’s not for retired armchair warriors t9 gainsay them. They’ll get them eventually, when all other options have been exhausted, but in the meantime thousands of men are dying to provide the breathing space for them to arrive.
Give them what they ask for and stop arguing.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...ig-29-goodbye/
p.s. the 737 engine intake is just 17 inches above the ground, far lower than the F-16’s - and the F-16 nose gear is positioned behind the intake….
A 737 has its engines higher off the ground than an F-16's air intake and those engines don't sit directly behind a front landing gear. FOD is not a red herring.
As I’ve said previously, the Ukrainians have looked at all the factors and are begging for F-16s. It’s not for retired armchair warriors t9 gainsay them. They’ll get them eventually, when all other options have been exhausted, but in the meantime thousands of men are dying to provide the breathing space for them to arrive.
Give them what they ask for and stop arguing.
The first thing you note on walking up to any F-16 is that the NLG is under and behind the air intake... be it an NSI/PW or a MCID/GE, wheel is behind and under the intake.
(You should try this thing called "google", enter your search term and... voilą... you can see lots of stuff n' pictures n' ev'rythang).
Last edited by fdr; 27th Feb 2023 at 13:55.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: May 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to be a lot of discussion about whether F16 is operable from Ukraine airfields. I posted a link a few pages ago to an interview with Oleksii Reznikov. He actually stated that they had already taken steps to remove that as an issue, of course not being specific at all. And why not - they had 6 months to think about and action it. They can easily have half a dozen immaculate runways now while our governments tut tut and ponder the 'escalation' ( or perhaps just said no while the runways are prepared)
Whilst western aid is essential there seems to a lack of credit to Ukraine for doing things on their own, as an example the S22 155mm Bodhana SPG (think caesar) just went into serial production at a factory in Kramatorsk. Do we think Ukraine would start producing a weapon that they cannot produce the ammo for? No , maybe they are not producing much 155mm ammo, but I would bet they are making some already (ammo production generally is discussed in the article too, and ofc he is not happy with the quantity but seems to have a clear idea of the pipeline)
Whilst western aid is essential there seems to a lack of credit to Ukraine for doing things on their own, as an example the S22 155mm Bodhana SPG (think caesar) just went into serial production at a factory in Kramatorsk. Do we think Ukraine would start producing a weapon that they cannot produce the ammo for? No , maybe they are not producing much 155mm ammo, but I would bet they are making some already (ammo production generally is discussed in the article too, and ofc he is not happy with the quantity but seems to have a clear idea of the pipeline)
Administrator
MiG-29/35 251
MiG-31 132
Su-24 274
Su-25 194
Su-27/30/35 429
Su-34 123
I don't find the sentence you are quoting, but my math from the above list shows 1,403 aircraft. If you only want to count only 4th gen aircraft, then Russia's 250 (your number) right now compares to zero for Ukraine; if Sweden gives them a squadron of Grippens, that would make the score 250 to 16.
MiG-31 132
Su-24 274
Su-25 194
Su-27/30/35 429
Su-34 123
I don't find the sentence you are quoting, but my math from the above list shows 1,403 aircraft. If you only want to count only 4th gen aircraft, then Russia's 250 (your number) right now compares to zero for Ukraine; if Sweden gives them a squadron of Grippens, that would make the score 250 to 16.
The reality is that Ukraine is not going to be able to go head to head against the Russian air force anytime soon.
FOD is not a red herring.
I will ask you to spend less time castigating other posters for their writing style, and focus on what you can contribute.
(Please read what it says under my username, over there on the left).
That you are a disciple of Ward Carroll and Justin Bronk is fine; they both have a great deal to offer in terms of insights.
Neither of them, I suspect, would be arrogant enough to assert that (1) they only speak Truth with a capital T nor (2) that theirs is the only worthwhile perspective.
For general info regarding this discussion:
I have cleaned out some of the noise that this discussion has generated, and ask all of you to keep the discourse professional in tone.
Carry on.
The following 13 users liked this post by T28B:
To me, it looks like the US would accept F-16s being delivered to Ukraine, but not from their own stocks. There are plenty of F-35 receivers with good surplus F-16 fleets or their receivers freeing their other older types or versions. If F-16s can be operated in Poland, they will work above Ukraine as well, including during Winter or mud season.
However, like the delayed US main battle tanks, more modern fighters might be a political step nobody in the West wants to take now to avoid escalation at this time, denying Russia the "we are under attack" claim that would only hold back "productive" internal rivalries and uprisings within their power elite like Wagner vs. MOD of Russia.
However, like the delayed US main battle tanks, more modern fighters might be a political step nobody in the West wants to take now to avoid escalation at this time, denying Russia the "we are under attack" claim that would only hold back "productive" internal rivalries and uprisings within their power elite like Wagner vs. MOD of Russia.
Last edited by Less Hair; 27th Feb 2023 at 14:58.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,025
Received 2,902 Likes
on
1,243 Posts
Various airliners have an air tapping blown into the lower intake to disturb and break up any vortices formed thus reducing FOD.