this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
74 points (97.4% liked)

Ukraine

8264 readers
885 users here now

News and discussion related to Ukraine

*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.

*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.

*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title

*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW


Donate to support Ukraine's Defense

Donate to support Humanitarian Aid


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (7 children)

Last I heard was not earlier than March. Allegedly they can shoot down Russian planes, because their targeting systems have longer range.
Russian air superiority is said to be a huge problem for Ukraine, and the main reason their spring offensive last year failed.

[–] chgowiz@kbin.social -3 points 10 months ago (6 children)

The reverse is probably going to be true, unfortunately. The F16s weaponry is still based on 70s/80s engagement envelopes, more modern Russian a/c use missiles/radar that have much further range. The F16s will be most effective where UKR has additional anti-air assets to keep the more modern a/c away.

A very good breakdown of this by someone who's studied military aircraft for a living...

https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/its-the-range-stupid-part-1
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/its-the-range-stupid-part-2
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/q-and-a-regarding-f-16s-for-ukraine
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/q-and-a-regarding-f-16s-for-ukraine-51d
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/q-and-a-regarding-f-16-for-ukraine

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

There's quite a few problems with the analysis being done by "Sarcastosaurus" and I've a mind to go at him about them. However a fundamental problem is his assumption that the F-16 is headed to Ukraine to engage in dogfights with Russian Fighters. It's not.

The F-16 is headed to Ukraine to be used as a missile truck, specifically a NATO missile truck. This is important because NATO countries can supply parts and armaments for the airframes, something they cannot do with Ukraine's current selection of former USSR airframes. Additionally the NATO armaments are integrated with the platform and are able to use their full capability.

A good example of this is the AGM-88 HARM. Ukraine is currently using them but because they're being jury rigged onto MiGs instead of a NATO aircraft they only have access to the "Pre Briefed" mode, which drastically curtails their capability. On a NATO plane the TOO and SP modes are unlocked which will be an absolute game changer for dealing with ground based radar threats.

If / when those are dealt with then the F-16 can stop flying SEAD missions and start putting warheads on foreheads by dropping JDAMs, which will have an immediate impact on the ground war. Those F-16s will likely be flying inside the envelope of Ukraine's own air defense systems and absolutely NONE of Russia's planes are safe from those. Add on some CAP flights by Ukraine's remaining MiGs and those F-16s will be flying in relative safety and comfort.

Only time will tell how the Ukrainian's choose to use their F-16s and how well they perform in the role(s) they are tasked with but the presumption that they're going to be used for Dog Fighting is unfounded.

[–] chgowiz@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

You had said "Allegedly they can shoot down Russian planes, because their targeting systems have longer range."

My post was to share information to indicate that is not so - F16 does not have longer range.

The rest, you and Tom are in agreement.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 1 points 10 months ago

You had said “Allegedly they can shoot down Russian planes, because their targeting systems have longer range.”

You have me confused with someone else. I didn't say that. :)

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)