Is Ukraine about to have a war?

[GlobalNav]

Originally Posted by Sfojimbo

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.

Whether UKR could go head-to-head with the Russian AF is not the only issue. They can't now. But they could do much better if equipped and trained to use F16s.

They could support their ground forces, attack Russian ground forces and perhaps other significant (non-air) military targets to thwart the Russian offensive. Furthermore, with F16s, UKR can provide significantly more air defense and defense of civilian targets being criminally attacked by Russia. It may not be a complete solution, it may not defeat Russia by itself, but it can provide UKR a better means to defend themselves and hasten their victory over the aggressor.

Every day that passes without sufficient means to conduct the defensive effort, UKR loses lives they would not otherwise, and civilian lives and infrastructure. F16s, or any other capable FJ, could be an important help and time is running short.

[Geriaviator]

Forty years ago I remember reading that RAF raids on the Falklands airport mostly missed the runway but did enough damage to make it unusable by the Argentine Mirages and other FJs. The temporary repairs were suitable for Herc etc but the FJ u/cs could not cope with them. Of course the RAF had a multi-role aircraft that could manage without a conspicuous runway -- in fact it didn't need a runway at all. That's why the brass couldn't wait to get rid of it ...

[henra]

Originally Posted by Sfojimbo

MiG-29/35 251
MiG-31 132
Su-24 274
Su-25 194
Su-27/30/35 429
Su-34 123

Wrt the MIG 29 it is even unclear if they are still in active frontline service and if so in which quantitites (according to some articles <100 https://www.edrmagazine.eu/future-of...35-in-the-ruaf, others stating that only one frontline unit still using it)
Wrt Su27 similar applies. According to <International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) (2021). "The Military Balance 2021". The Military Balance> only 101 Su-27 were in active Service with RuAF in 2021 which appears not to be unreasonable since only ~70 of the Su-27 were upgraded to the SM Version + 12 UBM + a few SM3 which could be considered adequate from an Avionics/weaponry perspective. The older non- upgraded Su-27 seem to have been retired from active Service.
Wrt MiG 31 it is a bit of a mixed bag. They are no true 'Fighters' but can still be a danger from the distance. That said with their Range and weapons range they are important for the defence of the vast land mass of Russia and thus will not be sent in great numbers to Ukraine since they would leave huge areas of Russia without cover if they were sent to Ukraine theater in quantities.
As said Su-24 and Su-25 you can ignore (and the Su-34 IMHO for the reasons mentioned).
So just looking at the gross figures alone doesn't paint a realistic picture.

[SASless]

That's why the brass couldn't wait to get rid of it ...

Or was it to make room for the F-35 and a pair of Ski Ramps?

​​​​​​​

[Sfojimbo]

Originally Posted by Gargleblaster

IMHO Denmark should simply donate their 48 or so F16s to Ukraine, they are being replaced by F35s.

IMO they should be offered to Sweden to cover for their donation of Grippens to Ukraine.
And others should foot the costs involved.

[uxb99]

Originally Posted by Geriaviator

Forty years ago I remember reading that RAF raids on the Falklands airport mostly missed the runway but did enough damage to make it unusable by the Argentine Mirages and other FJs. The temporary repairs were suitable for Herc etc but the FJ u/cs could not cope with them. Of course the RAF had a multi-role aircraft that could manage without a conspicuous runway -- in fact it didn't need a runway at all. That's why the brass couldn't wait to get rid of it ...

In regards to the limited damage to military targets. Sometimes it's just necessary to remind the enemy you can hit something. Obviously if you can both hit it and destroy it that's a bonus. Hitting a target can be enough to change the tactics of the enemy in your favour.

While the Harrier could take off vertically it is my understanding that it could not do so with a meaningful combat load.

[Sfojimbo]

Originally Posted by henra

So just looking at the gross figures alone doesn't paint a realistic picture.

True, one has to factor in the S-300s and S-400s along with Russia's Beriev A-50 AWACs. Especially if one is planning to use Ukrainian aircraft for close air support.

It still seems to me that Ukraine has no chance of muscling its way into the space overhead the front lines. The best they can do is to make it a standoff and deny the same to the Russians.

[Sfojimbo]

Originally Posted by fdr

F-16 runway performance is a lot better than any B737, in MIL or A/B. At the weights applicable to Ukraine theatre, it's not a factor, landing being most limiting.

Have you ever tried to look under a cowling of a B737 engine, or a B757, B767, or B777, or inboard B747/744?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... voilà... you can see lots of stuff n' pictures n' ev'rythang).

Yes, you win the point here, yet for some reason Bronk raises this as an issue.
And I do know that the USAF has had serious problems with FOD at allied airfields.

[henra]

Originally Posted by Sfojimbo

True, one has to factor in the S-300s and S-400s along with Russia's Beriev A-50 AWACs. Especially if one is planning to use Ukrainian aircraft for close air support.
It still seems to me that Ukraine has no chance of muscling its way into the space overhead the front lines. The best they can do is to make it a standoff and deny the same to the Russians.

No disagreement in that regard from my side. Still it would change the situation for the Russian Forces. For Air Assets it would become even more risky than it already is. For Ground Forces there is also the added risk of precision attack from above (what the current Air assets of UAF can't really do). A F-16 in really low level flight over foreign territory (from RuAF perspective) will still be a major pain for the RuAF to keep in check. It is fast and nimble, small, has a small RCS and can drop various precision guided munitions. Totally different league to what UAF is fielding currently.
Surprisingly Russia's AWACS cover seems to have been lacking. There seems not to be constant cover and with their radar range and the reluctance to fly them close to Ukrainian airspace their effective depth of look into the non- occupied part of Ukraine is very limited (maybe ~100km). And this only circular around its current position. With only 1 or two A50 in theater the coverage will be more than patchy. Close to non- existant. That give close to no warning time and until an alerted fighter could tackle the F-16 it would be long gone. Will there be losses when sending the F-16 to drop pgm over Russian positions? You can bet so. Will RuAF be able to shoot them down in masses? Nope.

[Beamr]

This fits todays discussions well, UKR MoD claims UKR has shot down 300 Z-jets so far in this 3 day SMO. That's much more than what the Russkies are capable of producing.
And that is more than Ukraine ever had to begin with.

Twitter

https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1630100423150555136

[Sfojimbo]

Originally Posted by henra

No disagreement in that regard from my side. Still it would change the situation for the Russian Forces. For Air Assets it would become even more risky than it already is. For Ground Forces there is also the added risk of precision attack from above (what the current Air assets of UAF can't really do). A F-16 in really low level flight over foreign territory (from RuAF perspective) will still be a major pain for the RuAF to keep in check. It is fast and nimble, small, has a small RCS and can drop various precision guided munitions. Totally different league to what UAF is fielding currently.
Surprisingly Russia's AWACS cover seems to have been lacking. There seems not to be constant cover and with their radar range and the reluctance to fly them close to Ukrainian airspace their effective depth of look into the non- occupied part of Ukraine is very limited (maybe ~100km). And this only circular around its current position. With only 1 or two A50 in theater the coverage will be more than patchy. Close to non- existant. That give close to no warning time and until an alerted fighter could tackle the F-16 it would be long gone. Will there be losses when sending the F-16 to drop pgm over Russian positions? You can bet so. Will RuAF be able to shoot them down in masses? Nope.

Yes, once in a blue moon an F-16 could charge the line and make an effective release, but it would have to be for something critical because that sortie would be a very dangerous undertaking and Ukraine has been conservative when it come to putting their pilots at risk. Maybe the fact that the possibility exists, would have a deterring effect on Russian activity, but I wouldn't count on it. The Russians seem to be tone deaf.

F-16s won't be able to provide ground support without encountering unacceptable losses - pushing back against that fact requires magical thinking. F-16s will have to stay low just like Ukraine's SU-25s do now; low means slow in the thick air: subsonic, a little faster than a SU-25, but not that much. Low and slow doesn't leave the ability to lob standoff weapons. It also doesn't provide boost in range to air to air missiles. Most of the advantages of the F-16 over Mig-29 / SU-25s will be negated by the way they will have to be used; it's the same for any other fourth gen aircraft.

The best the F-16 would bring for Ukraine would be a far better radar, better ECM and rails that can carry things like AMRAAM and better integration with HARM etc. Yes it would be an improvement over what Ukraine has now, but it would not give them close air support over the battle space.

[Wyntor]

F16

I love some of the commentary....hilarious. Nearly collapsed laughing at the "low and slow" stuff. A dirty Viper is cleared 600kts IAS/M1.6.

Low and slow.... hardly - 600kts M.9+ at sea level is pretty zippy.

Just ask a puff jet mate.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by henra

They are no true 'Fighters' but can still be a danger from the distance. That said with their Range and weapons range they are important for the defence of the vast land mass of Russia and thus will not be sent in great numbers to Ukraine since they would leave huge areas of Russia without cover if they were sent to Ukraine theater in quantities.

FWIW, back in the 80's there was a plan in the "Vector Logic" approach to fleet air defense to pair up an A-7 and an F-14; IIRC, the A-7 would carry the AIM-9, but my memory is a bit rusty on that. Is the A-7 a Fighter/Interceptor? No, but it can carry some things to shoot. I won't comment on how flexible the RUAF is in that regard, but they might be.

Originally Posted by Sfojimbo

It still seems to me that Ukraine has no chance of muscling its way into the space overhead the front lines. The best they can do is to make it a standoff and deny the same to the Russians.

Both sides seem to have been exercising Airspace Denial since neither can seem to manage local air superiority.
(And the low level/rotary wing attack/CAS assets are not in a permissive environment).

[NutLoose]

Can we get back to the war! Preventing a tank recovery.

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status...Cz9c_os58tAAAA

​​​​​​​

Twitter

[NutLoose]

Defining the front line.

https://twitter.com/ZarinaZabrisky/s...71462261788672

Twitter

[ORAC]

Reference the A-50 AWACS. Russia only had 7 upgraded to A-50U standard (mid 80s spec), of which one has just been destroyed in Minsk.

The rest hasn’t been deployed in theatre - reasons unknown but including they have the rest of Russia to cover and probably incredibly poor serviceability to keep one in theatre operational.

Note that to keep on orbit 24/7 would need 3-4 aircraft. The one they had was a token at best.

[Tartiflette Fan]

Originally Posted by ORAC

Reference the A-50 AWACS. Russia only had 7 upgraded to A-50U standard (mid 80s spec), of which one has just been destroyed in Minsk.

The rest hasn’t been deployed in theatre - reasons unknown but including they have the rest of Russia to cover and probably incredibly poor serviceability to keep one in theatre operational.

Note that to keep on orbit 24/7 would need 3-4 aircraft. The one they had was a token at best.

I've read what Wiki has to say, but are the first generation A 50 aircraft ( 40 units ? ) completely inactive/scrapped ?

[ORAC]

No, that seems to be the entire fleet.

Just as NATO nations retired most of their aircraft as incredibly expensive to operate - so did Russia. And with the graft and incompetence I doubt the ire fleet ended up in a better star than that of the same number of RAF E-3Ds….

https://www.military-today.com/aircraft/a50.htm

”A total of 40-42 A-50 series aircraft were built, including modernized and export variants. By 2011 Russian Air Force operated 20 of these aircraft.

Some sources report that in 2022 Russian operated only 9 A-50 aircraft, including 3 upgraded A-50M and 6 A-50U aircraft.

In 2023 one Russian A-50U aircraft was destroyed by saboteurs, while operating in Belarus. This reduced the number of operational aircraft to 8.“…

[rattman]

So US DOD budget "realignments" are being submitted. Interesting thing one of the updates wants to change 1.4 million in line breaching charges to 55 million in line breaching charges, has ukraine been given anything western that uses them. Or are they interchangable with soviet era hardware. Maybe a lot of line breaching to be seen in the future

Also a request for an extra 380 million for GMLRS plus extra for AMRAAMS, LRASM and AARGM-ER. It pretty obvious these are to replace older munitions sent to ukriane

[ORAC]

The eventual full price of the SMO might be starting to become clearer…..

https://twitter.com/tendar/status/16...yFpT-xwFCs1SVA

You might have never heard of cities called "Khaishenvai", "Boli" or "Shuangchenzi" as well as the island of "Quedao", because that are the official names according the Chinese Ministry of Natural Resources for Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, Ussuriysk and Sakhalin, "newly" introduced.….



​​​​​​​