A few F-16s would be handy too.
They need more than a few. The Russian SAMs are just as tough near the front. Plus still they will have over 100 SU 34s to fly CAP with R77 air to air missiles. Depending on the version of the missile, they can stand off 50 mi, 68 mi or 120 mi. To attack the Russian strike aircraft the F-16s will have to go up to the border to reach them at their release point.SU 34s flying CAP for the strike aircraft can stay completely outside of ADA range and air to air range.
to be sure, they didn’t even have glide bombs before the war. While Russia does have a lot of AC left, most of what they’ve been losing is SU34’s and 35’s while most of what they have left is the older MIG varieties. You have to wonder how well they’ll stand up against f-16’s if Ukraine gets them in time. With the F-16 they will also get full use of HARM’s and other ordinance making them more effective. There is a reason Putin changed his tune the other day and issued a “warning” about F-16’s. Still, without AWACS, I do believe Ukraine may not be at a great advantage with F-16’s against the SU 35’s. Going to be interesting to see.
They’ll have AIM 120’s and from what I’ve read they are getting the latest radars which will extend the acquisition range to at least parity, maybe beyond, what the SU 34’s can do. With A50 support the russian AC would be at an advantage… maybe. I haven’t seen any Russian ability to use the A50 as more than a giant flying acquisition radar.
There is only two ways that F-16s will make any difference in the war:
-
They are used to launch nuclear weapons, or
-
They use airfields in Poland or other neighboring countries for launching raids in Ukraine. Resulting Russian counterattacks could be used as pretext for NATO escalation.
Putin has announced that the destruction of F-16’s will be a top priority in part because they are nuclear capable:
“If they deliver the F-16s, I think you know better than others that this will not change the situation on the battlefield,” the president said. “And we will destroy these planes just as we have destroyed tanks, armored vehicles, and other equipment, including multiple launch rocket systems.” . . .
“Of course, if they are used from airfields of third countries, they become a legitimate target for us, wherever they are located,” he said. Russia is well aware that the 1970s jet can potentially carry nuclear weapons, and this will be taken into account in combat operations, Putin noted.
Putin issues F-16 warning to Kiev’s sponsors — RT Russia & Former Soviet Union
so is a biplane, so is a suitcase, so is a box.
so what?
I don’t see biplanes, suitcase or boxes listed as elements of the US nuclear triad. Nor do I see photos of them flying with nuclear bombs.
The service, in fact, is putting great emphasis on the use of Dual Capable Aircraft like the F-15E, the F-16C and the F-35A as part of the nuclear triad.
Rare Photo Shows An F-16 With Two (Inert) B61 Nuclear Bombs - The Aviationist
what does them being n the US triad have to do with them being “nuclear capable?”
The US has nuclear weapons based in Europe that can be loaded onto F-16s at any time.
An F-16 flying towards Russia is a potential nuclear attack especially if it comes from a NATO base. The F-16 can carry 340-kiloton nukes that can wipe out whole cities.
there are already F-16’s in Europe, lots of them, and I’ll bet they fly toward Russia all the time.
Once again, you post nothing but Russian propaganda.
Russian conventional missiles have proved capable of hitting any base in Ukraine. The most likely outcome is that any F-16s sent to Ukraine will be destroyed on the ground, or the runways will be rendered unusable before they can do anything to affect the outcome of the war.
The original timeline for the F-16 delivery was “early” 2024.
The training programme should leave Ukrainian pilots and service personnel able to use F-16s in combat by early next year, NATO leaders said in July.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/how-many-f-16-jets-will-ukraine-get-how-will-they-change-war-2023-08-23/
Now they are saying a few might make it by July.
My guess is that there will be more delays, and Ukraine is unlikely to ever see any F-16s. Images of burning F-16s on runways are not good for arms sales.
The newest AIM 120s are effective out to about 86 nmi. The older models out to 50 nmi. F-16s have look down, shoot down capability against low flying targets. The problem will be operating at altitudes high enough to detect the incoming Russians, who will be down on the deck, in the Russian ADA envelope. SEAD using the full capabilities of the HARMS will be critical to countering the Russians and how they are currently operating. Russia isn’t sending planes on deep strike missions inside Ukrainian controlled air space. And the Russians will know which bases the F-16s are operating out of and will throw the kitchen sink against those targets.
1 Like
So he has to side with Putin.
Economist and author, David Goldman, recently reported on a conference with leaders in NATO countries. He reported a dangerous level of delusion about plans for continued escalation in Ukraine and a looming war with China. Here are a few excerpts:
Somewhere last weekend a few dozen former Cabinet members, senior military officers, academics and think tank analysts met to evaluate the world military situation.
I can say that I haven’t been so scared since the fall of 1983, when I was a junior contract researcher doing odd jobs for then Special Assistant to the President Norman A Bailey at the National Security Council. That was the peak of the Cold War and the too-realistic Able Archer 83 exercise nearly set off a nuclear war . . .
Another rapporteur . . . demanded that Germany supply its long-range Taurus cruise missile to Ukraine, with a 1,000-kilometer range and a two-stage warhead suitable for destroying major infrastructure . . .
Taking the war to Russia’s homeland and destroying major infrastructure is one way to transform the proxy war with Ukraine into a general European war.
. . . China’s newfound dominance in the world automotive market . . . . also has critical military implications. China claims that it has automated plants that can make 1,000 cruise missiles a day—not impossible given that it can manufacture 1,000 EVs a day, or thousands of 5G base stations.
The implication is that China can produce the equivalent of America’s inventory of 4,000 cruise missiles in a week while American defense contractors take years to assemble them by hand . . .
No one disputed the data I presented. And no one believed that Russia is taking 25,000 casualties a month. Facts weren’t the issue: The assembled dignitaries, a representative sampling of the foreign policy establishment’s intellectual and executive leadership, simply couldn’t imagine a world in which America no longer gave the orders.
They are accustomed to running things and they will gamble the world away to keep their position.
“Basic facts are in question daily as the Kremlin floods the Western debate with its narratives,” analysts at the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War said in a March 27 report.
The analysts said that “the notion that the war is unwinnable because of Russia’s dominance is a Russian information operation, which gives us a glimpse of the Kremlin’s real strategy and only real hope of success.”
Because Russia needs to sideline Ukraine’s Western partners, the US in particular, the ISW analysts wrote, “the Russian strategy that matters most, therefore, is not Moscow’s warfighting strategy, but rather the Kremlin’s strategy to cause us to see the world as it wishes us to see it and make decisions in that Kremlin-generated alternative reality that will allow Russia to win in the real world.”
ISW asserts that the Kremlin is pushing the narrative that “supporting Ukraine is a distraction from ‘real’ US problems” and is simply not worth the effort, and it’s having an effect. Conflict fatigue has become a serious issue in the West, especially the US as support funding for Ukraine’s war effort has been held up and unable to pass in Congress for months.
Keep up the good fight.
Yes, with the Ghost of Kyiv on our side, victory is assured.
The Ghost of Kyiv! You’ve been beating that same dead horse for two years now. 
2 Likes
The video has this logo at the beginning showing it is Azov-approved propaganda:
3-тя окрема штурмова бригада
I didn’t watch the video, I read the ISW assessment linked in the article that states Russia’s best chance of winning the war is convincing the West that Russia can’t be beaten. Anyone reading your posts in this thread can see that strategy in action.
ISW is a neocon propaganda machine. It is fine to read it if you want to know what the current delusions for the inside-the-beltway crowd.
Kimberly Kagan, the founder and president, is the sister of neocon commentator Robert Kagan, the husband of Victoria Nuland. They are one big war-loving family with zero actual experience fighting wars.
