Oldbear83 said:
whiterock said:
Oldbear83 said:
Thanks FLBear. Seems to me the pilots may have more to do with the outcome than the machines.
WADR to Ukraine's pilots, I think sending their men up in F-16s is a good way to lose a bunch of F-16s.
F-16s are an important weapons platform for the Ukes. No chance of taking out SAM sites without air operations. and it broadens the inventory available to strike Russian positions & weapons systems.
The big difference in this war and others is that the main threat is not the opposing air forces. It's enormous numbers of SAM missile systems in theater. Neither Air Force has the assets to enter each others' air space. So being able to fly in your own airspace and launch air-to-ground ordnance is really what the Ukes are asking for. Right now, they're pretty limited. Maintaining an air-defense nationwide doesn't leave a lot of frames left over for close air support, and they're still using Russian airframes that are not compatible with a lot of otherwise available western weapons systems.
Ukes have been given enormous numbers of helicopters, but cannot cross into Russian SAM envelopes. F-16 can fly at distance, launch HARM missiles to take out SAM systems in specific areas, which will allow Ukes to use helos in support of ground operations against entrenched Russian positions.
F-16 is an important need, just not for the reasons many think.....
How much training time will the 'Uke' pilots get?
Do they know how to evade missiles?
These are not trivial questions ...
They will get less than US pilots do get but I've read the reports from US pilots who have evaluated them in the US which assess the UKEs as very quick, intuitive learners. They after all have flown 3rd and 4th gen fighters, so it's not a leap up in tech, just familiarization. They'll hafta get airworthy quickly and have to add from there. And they will get the opportunity. 6 months after they arrive, they'll be the most battle seasoned F-16 pilots in the world.
The tactics I described will avoid a lot of missile dodging. Only a couple of S-400 munitions out-range the HARM and then tactical considerations can close a lot of the envelope of vulnerability, allowing F-16 to outrun the missile's max range. What we don't know for sure (or at least I cannot find in open sources) is the remaining inventory of S-400 munitions. We do know the most common has a range of 150mi (vs 160mi of longest HARM variant), and one that will reach out to 350mi. The arrival of HARMS will force Russia to be selective in engagement choices. Turning on the radar will be risky, so they will have disincentive to be launching at max-range targets (which Ukes will no doubt be enticing them to do).
Wildcard: Russia has been using S-400 missiles to attack ground targets. That is of course very inaccurate, but Russians are desperate. They are not getting a lot of targets in the air, so why not use them on a needed missions on the ground (or so the Russian thinking goes). That raises two important questions. First is obvious: what kind & how many missiles remain. The second one is more important - having the F-16 will force Russia to quit, or at least scale back, using the S-400s as indirect artillery fire. They will not want to turn on the radars and expose the installations to HARMs, and they will have to hold back greater stores of missiles to deal with the potential F-165 threat.
The F-16 is no holy grail. But it is a very important add, one that should have been sent a year go or more.
