Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
We've known about this for a long time.
The command and control structures, the NCO culture, the lack of C3i infrastructure and the top down hierarchy culture makes transforming the AFU to a modern western standard fighting force very difficult in the short-medium term.
Do you think that the F-16 have the potential to be a game changer?
No.
Individual weapon platforms need to fit a proper cohesive doctrine as a small cog in the overall fighting strategy of a military. Rarely do individual 'wunderwaffen' work in a broad battlefield context (barring exceptional circumstances, like African tribesman armed with Spears and Shields charging lines of Maxim Guns). The F-16 is a very small piece of the overall NATO doctrine developed in the 1980's called Airland Battle, and later modified to something called 'Full spectrum dominance'. A singular fighter jet, in low numbers, no matter how good, is unable to shift the battlefield on its own without a full integration to its own battlefield needs with specific designs to fit those needs. Sorry if this sounds like word jumble, let me try and explain with examples.
The F-16 was designed as the 'lo' aspect of the 'lo-hi' calculus in the US air force. The 'hi' being the F15. Hi-lo is basically the idea that you have a smaller, limited amounts, of very high quality aircraft that is designed to take control of the skies in rapid time followed by the 'lo' (cheap, more disposable aircraft that have a wider utilization use at more bang for buck), which then supports ground troops. In Modern times the 'Hi' aspect of the US Air force is the F22 (and in the future, the NGAD/FA(XX)/whatever the new air force one is designated as), with the 'lo' being the F-35.
From a strategic perspective, the first and most important mission is SEAD/DEAD (Suppression/denial of enemy air defences). This is a combination of Air superiority 'Hi' fighters (F15C, F-15E/EX, F-22), stand off munitions (TLAMs, JASSM's), anti-radar assets, stealth penetrators (B-2's), going at full operational velocity, before further degradation is completely with more vulnerable assets with higher firepower (B1's, B52's, etc). Once this phase has been completed, the 'Lo' aspect of the mission profile really kicks in. F16's providing mobile air support, air cover, CAS missions, Tactical bombing etc etc, all the while the sky is dominated by the 'Hi'. That's not to say the F-16 cannot do Air to air combat missions, it's very good at doing so, especially since Block 72.
The key part to all of this is real time battlefield command and control. F-16's have great electronic suites, again especially since the latest blocks, but it's not enough to dominate a battlefield on it's own. It requires AWACS and AEWC&C as well as ELINT aircraft in the sky, after the initial SEAD/DEAD phase to provide real time battlefield intelligence to all the constituent parts. The real important part here is command, control and intelligence. US battalions have dedicated, fully trained, communications units with top range C3i equipment to communicate seamlessly with all the other assets on the ground, in the sky, and beyond. F-16's can be raised into the skies to provide CAS/Tactical bombing support and be given real time missions that are not briefly until after take off, with real time intelligence being communicated to the squadrons to assist where it need be. Again, communication is king.
A unit that has been bogged down, suppressed or needs general fire support, cannot make a request, wait for it to be passed down up and down the chain, until a fighter is scrambled, sent to the location to provide assistance. It might be too late then. One of the F-16's job is to provide real time support when and need be. One other really important thing here is "battlefield intiative", which is really dependent on a very well organized, high moral and very well trained NCO group. You cannot wait to escalate up the chain or to ask permission, you have to make decisions in real time, on the spot, without asking for permission. This is what NATO (not all of NATO but western europe and USA) really excel at. Decades and decades of a culture of NCO initiative, fostered by a no-blame culture and instilling that belief in NCO's.
I can give an anecdote from 2003 Iraq War invasion. A Sniper gets bogged down North of Basra and he is under fire from Iraqi's troops. He and his spotter cannot escape and are completely suppressed. The spotter contacts his CO HQ requesting artillery support. His CO HQ responds that there are no artillery units within range of his position to provide support. Rather than escalate to his superior, the radioman at the CO HQ immediately contacts the Air force command to ask for assistance for any assets in the vicinity. The answer is no, but the Air force radioman asks for the Ground force radioman to wait, as he contacts an E-3 Sentry patrolling in the skies above. The E-3 Sentry confirms to the air force radioman that there are naval assets in the region, and in turn the Ground force radioman contacts the USS Theodore Roosevelt with a request for assistance with broad co-ordinates. The USS Theodore Roosevelt radioman contacts an in air E-2 Hawkeye, who commands two patrolling F-18 Hornets to the location of where the sniper is being suppressed. 3 minutes later the F-18 hornets arrive and bomb the troops firing on the Sniper, allowing them to escape.
The entire chain of: Sniper team -> CO HQ -> Airforce -> E3 -> Airforce -> CO HQ -> USS Roosevelt -> E2 -> F18: Took a grand total of 88 seconds. 88 seconds to communicate between three different branches to command and control air support for a sniper team.
Now, why won't this work for Ukraine? So many reasons:
1) No 'Hi' in the calculus to control the skies.
2) Limited SEAD/DEAD to supress and destroy the air defense assets. Ukraine would have to use F-16's to do this, or Mig29's or SU-25's which are not suitable for this purpose.
3) F16's exist to be the 'Lo', high in quantity and allows for tactical sortie flexbility. Ukraine does not have anywhere close to enough to achieve this.
4) No C3i infrastructure to allow for tactical and strategic level asset communication in seconds.
5) No Battlefield intelligence platforms like E3/E2, ELINT or command and control assets.
6) No homogenous NCO culture that allows for on the spot decision making without hesitation.
7) All these factors mean the F-16 will be an order of magnitude less effective in Ukrainian hands than it would be in NATO hands.
If the anecdote was transposed to Ukraine it would go as follows.
Sniper calls in for air support, there are russians around his position. CO HQ says there's no support. Sniper begs. Radioman says he will ask his superior office. Superior officer says he will make a call to the Air force regional commanding officer. Air Force commanding officer has no idea what assets are available. Says feck it, lets scramble a jet (doubt he would even do that to be honest). Jet takes off into the air. By the time it arrives, Sniper is dead. Plane is now intercepted by AA missiles. Plane shot down.
After these prisoners are released, I hope that no more Americans go to Russia.
For further information on why NCO culture is so damn important, and how much NATO emphasizes this, I refer you to some official NATO documents emphasizing the key attributes of an NCO.
https://shape.nato.int/command-seni...ommissioned-officer-nco-tactical-to-strategic
https://shape.nato.int/resources/site7234/General/BISCD040-002 NATO NCO_JO Employment and Development Strat.pdf
I've highlighted two paragraphs that really show how much an NCO is expected to make "On the spot decisions without command"
https://shape.nato.int/command-seni...ommissioned-officer-nco-tactical-to-strategic
https://shape.nato.int/resources/site7234/General/BISCD040-002 NATO NCO_JO Employment and Development Strat.pdf
I've highlighted two paragraphs that really show how much an NCO is expected to make "On the spot decisions without command"
This last one refers mainly to non-combat activities, but the purpose of this is so in combat, the NCO's show the same initiative.
Massive thanks as always for the thorough and very, very informative reply.
After doing my own digging, I kinda concluded that the F-16s alone wouldn't never be enough, but your post paints a much clearer picture. What type of missions could these F-16s realistically fulfill given the current state of the Ukrainian army? It can't just be a PR exercise.
It definitely "helps" the war effort and is not just a PR exercise. But how much it helps really is up for debate.
To answer your question first of all:
1) F-16's have hardpoints that are compatible with practically most NATO missiles that are of relevance. This means stand-off munitions such as JASSM could be used, to strike at pre-determined Russian positions from hundreds of KM's away.
2) They can provide pre-determined low-flying/ in-out tactical bombing runs close to the frontline. Again, mostly on pre-defined positions and co-ordinates.
3) On large scale engagements, they can provide CAS operations, but this will have a survivability problem as the air is very contested and no SEAD/DEAD has been done.
4) They can provide long range intercepts of enemy missiles and enemy aircraft that stray too deep into the frontlines.
All of this will be done at a relatively low sortie-cadence and the effectiveness of such tactical level engagements won't change the strategic overview of the battlefield all that much.
Think of this analogy. Imagine you are a Gaullic tribal leader Vercingetorix fighting Caesar's army at Alessia. The battle is lost but at a razors edge. Afterwards you have the ability to go back in time and try again.
You make your soldiers spears 1 ft longer, the tips 20% sharper, your soldiers swords 15cm longer with much better rolled iron.
Are you going to win the battle this time around? Uncertain. It's still at a razors edge. So are those material improvements a "Game changer?". Probably not. But do they still offer improvement from the previous iteration? Absolutely.
Do you think it's possible that they will get AN/ASQ-213 pods for some of the aircrafts? They won't be able to do any large scale SEAD/DEAD operations either way but at least having a handful of aircrafts equiped with the targeting pods should increase the precision of the HARM missiles quite a bit.
We're talking about the doubling of Ukraine's air force or thereabouts. That changes the game even before you consider any enhanced capabilities the F-16 and its armaments bring.
1) No, we're not doubling our air force. AFU had about 200 combat aircraft pre war, and they are now down to about 120-130 after attrition, loss, lack of spare parts combined with NATO donations of old Mig-29's. The West has pledged 4 squadrons of F-16's.
2) You can 5x it, but if it doesn't suit the need of the battlefield it's not the force multiplication you think it is.
Can you explain to me how hypothetically, even if Ukraine get 200 F-16's, the strategic positions of either side changes?
I don't think it's worth it. You need the F-16 to get within Radar tracking range of any anti-air radar for HARM targeting pods to be really useful and the survivability is just not there for the attrition rates to be worth it.
The black sea fleet has already withdrawn because of the potential anti ship capability of the F16, so you could argue it has already changed the strategic position.
If they drop the bridge to Crimea which is probably worth some attrition to the number of F16's then logistically that could be a game changer for Russia in supplying forces there.
The increased Radar range over the front lines will push up Russia's losses or force them to withdraw further and that reduces the glide bomb tactic.
I'm not saying they will win the war overnight but they will have a larger impact than some think because they are probably the best trained pilots in the best aircraft fighting over Ukraine.
By the way, how many aircraft can Russia regularly field do you think? The numbers of F16 may not be that great but I think Russia's problems in this war to stem from its lack of air power, in reality, over theoretically. The arrival of the F16's is adding pressure to an already failing organization.
How do you know that's the reason, let alone it happened before the first viper took flight. Isn't it more likely it's the drone and missile threat?
Yeah I've seen this narrative and it makes zero sense.
ASuW by Aerial assets is by super advanced platforms that Ukraine won't get (Mako, LRASM) or by rather specific missiles like SLAM-ER (which doesn't even work with most F-16's, only Block 72+ IIRC)
Either way, the only ASuW missile that can even fit on F-16's is SLAM-ER on the Block 72s. All the other stuff isn't even compatible.
Let's break this down piece of by piece:
This is fan fiction.
With what. You need bunker-busting penetrating GBU series bombs to destroy a bridge like Kerch. Stand off munitions with penetrating warheads like JASSM-ER simply won't cut it. Getting a laser guided GBU that close to the bridge is basically a complete suicide mission.
How does the F-16 give extended radar range exactly? AN-APG68 has a double digit KM range. It's also useless because Ukraine doesn't have Link16 which means they cannot datalink F-16 radar data to anywhere anyway.
Oh boy. This is so so so far from being true.
The problems that Russia has is the same. Russia doesn't have pilot training time to do large formation flying, hence you see them stalk out in pairs. Air denial is exponentially more effective than air power for both sides right now. They can't do complex sorties because they will be plucked out of the sky due to lack of SEAD/DEAD.
The same problem that AFU faces.
The complete withdrawal of the Black Sea fleet probably has nothing to do with the F-16. The fact is simply that they have nothing to achieve and everything to risk by staying out. Landing operations were only on the cards during the early days of the war, any idea of that having been long abandoned since. Between the massive attrition the fleet has suffered both due to wear and tear as well as enemy action, their inability to reinforce and Ukrainian abilities to strike targets way offshore with the Neptunes and drones, there is just nothing that the fleet can even hope to achieve by staying out and about. It has become so weak that they cannot even posture anymore and hope to bind significant Ukrainian forces to guard against a threat from the sea. Pulling them back was the prudent decision, F-16 or not. There was just nothing for the ships to do except suffer even more losses and accrue more cost. The ships had already been recalled to the Sea of Azow long before the first F-16 was even inbound to Ukraine.
Overall I would not overestimate what a few squadrons of older F-16s can achieve in Ukraine. The most important thing is that they will replace some of the losses, and take pressure off of the surviving Ukrainian airframes. They will offer the capability to carry most western weaponry without having to hack together adapter kits, which is good but not a gamechanger either. Especially not if the west doesn't deliver a lot more in modern weaponry - not that the older F-16s are even capable of launching the really good stuff. Nothing will change in how either side's SAMs prohibit approaching each other's airspace in any manner that isn't nap-of-earth. The aircraft will be useful, no doubt, but I will be extremely surprised if they change status quo in the air even slightly.
Overall I would not overestimate what a few squadrons of older F-16s can achieve in Ukraine. The most important thing is that they will replace some of the losses, and take pressure off of the surviving Ukrainian airframes. They will offer the capability to carry most western weaponry without having to hack together adapter kits, which is good but not a gamechanger either. Especially not if the west doesn't deliver a lot more in modern weaponry - not that the older F-16s are even capable of launching the really good stuff. Nothing will change in how either side's SAMs prohibit approaching each other's airspace in any manner that isn't nap-of-earth. The aircraft will be useful, no doubt, but I will be extremely surprised if they change status quo in the air even slightly.
I think they withdrew their fleet because the Ukrainians kept sea droning their ships in port and at sea.
Well the basic hope is they will help supress Russia's glide bomb usage along the front lines, which would make a big difference. You giving me 200 though? With full armaments on top of their current compliment of aircraft? I mean... What the feck could Russia even do if Ukraine began a dedicated sead/dead campaign against the southern occupied territories, starting West and working toward Crimea?
Bit of stockpiling the mid-long range ground launched stuff, couple days of mapping/hitting anything that looks remotely like AD, then send in the cleaners. Yes there are losses, but if you're giving me 200 planes, they are making things happen. If you've been watching the same war I have... What does Russia have to pluck them out the sky with? Do they even have 200 operational fighters of their own? I don't think any evidence exists to suggest they do.
Last edited:
Let's break this down
How effective is this really going to be without AWACS or C&C assets?
What could Russia even do? Shoot them down with the hordes of S-300's and the limited number of S-400's that they have spewing from their ass? The one thing that Russia does have that has confirmed huge quantities of is S-300 interceptor missiles. The problem that plagues the S-300 isn't the platform itself but how it's used in tandem (or rather, not used in tandem) with Pantsir's, Buk's and Tor's which mean that whilst they're fully capable of taking out planes and missiles, a random FPV drone can hit its control station and take out the entire battery.
Also, please tell me how Ukraine are going to do SEAD/DEAD campaigns with just F16's? They don't have TLAM's, they don't have Wild Weasel style trained fighter groups, they have a limited number of HARMS, they don't have any real time command and control assets to mark targets and guide the F-16's. Furthermore, this is in a completely unpermissable environment. Hell, we're not even sure if AFU are getting JASSM's, forget the other stuff. When all this is happening, do you expect the VKS to just sit around and not intercept?
Finally, the first thing to do in SEAD/DEAD is to take out central communications infrastructure. if the AA platforms are all communicating with each other, taking them all out will be very difficult. What does Ukraine have that can take out comms infrastructure 1000km into Russia?
S-300s'. S-400's. Buk. Tor. Pantsir. Strela's for low flying.
As for 200 operational fighters....well. They have far more than 200 operational, far more. The reason they're not sending them en-masse over Ukraine is again, permissability. The costs of doing dedicated SEAD is just too costly for the VKS from an airframe attrition rate, and VKS has 1000+ frames. 200 planes is not enough to do SEAD on a frontline/country the size of Russia.
Errr. Do you really think Air defense platforms just park themselves there for days? You need spotters, intel, HUMINT because Ukraine is seriously deficient in ELINT and AWACS. Then you have a few hours window to let the attack fly before the platform has moved on.
Your suggestions are not grounded in reality.
Last edited:
To put into perspective, the Coalition in the gulf war:
Had 3000 aircraft with a sortie tempo of 2000 sorties a day.
Full spectrum dominance of the aerial battlefield, with AWACS, C&C, AEWC&C, ELINT, SIGINT assets in the air 24/7.
Penetrative stealth bombers in the form of the B2 and F117 Nighthawk.
Fully functional and tested command chain, with a decades old NCO culture across every unit.
Fully trained and veteran combat mechanics.
Facing SAM network that was basically SA-6's and SA-3's, which is orders of magnitude weaker than S3/400's.
The support of an entire US Fleet with infinite TLAM's.
Wild Weasel squadrons dedicated to drawing AA fire and taking them out.
Thousands of decoy missiles aimed to overwhelm enemy defences.
All with planes that are better than what Ukraine are getting.
(Ukraine are getting Block 15 F16A's...which predate the Gulf War).
All that said, with all that advantage, in 1 month the Coalition lost 40 fighters to SAM fire and AA fire, despite slamming them none stop all day every day with every fecking fire combination from the sky and from ships you can possibly think of.
SEAD/DEAD is really damn hard, and doing it with 200+- Block 15 F-16A's, on such a large battlefield is basically impossible.
I love how much I learn here. Specially the concept of Wild weasels squadrons
Well I certainly believe you worked for NATO the way you still over-estimate Russian capability. Have you been watching the same war I have? How many examples do I need to link of how useless Russian AD is relative to prior assumptions and your book knowledge? Slow as feck, not even that low altitude drones, without help, constantly striking targets deep inside Russia and occupied territories, even the fecking Kremlin, sinking warships and systematically knocking out refineries. Russia 'intercepts' everything with their faces. Maybe I'll just check my daily twitter feed, because no doubt there will be another recent example, there always is. You're telling me they have "hordes of S-300's, Buk. Tor. Pantsir. Strela's for low flying", yet after months and months of Ukraine hitting refineries within Russia, mosquito nets are the only actual defence they seem to have
Every bit of upgraded tech Ukraine receives has humiliated Russia so far, no real reason to expect otherwise with this one.It's been open season on Crimea for a while now, any guesses why Ukraine so heavily prioritise AD in the south of late? "Wasting" valuable/limited ATACMs in Crimea I suppose, instead of pushing back Russian aggression in Chasiv Yar and wider Donesk. Again, there's examples from today. S-400's are knocked out as fast as they go up. Its been going on for a long time. I do wonder...
Block 15 F-16A's? I'm sure you're aware they are block 50+ equivalent with whatever upgrades they've continued to receive. Even without AWACS or other link, Russian pilots would be very brave to come within glide bombing range against a permanent patrol in a hot area.
We're not invading Iraq here. You're challenge is whether 200 F-16's would "change a strategic position", which I suppose is a less hyperbolic way of saying "gamechanger", thus linking to the original question. Work with me here, you know far more than I do. Your in command and given 200 plane's to "make a strategic difference". if you say you can't you're probably getting fired on the spot, but in any case, what would you need? JASSM's? One AWACS?
Does Ukraine have the bases from which to operate a large number of F-16s? I read they are very particular in what they need with runways, basically needs to be pristine without any debris.
More Ukrainian drones intercepted overnight. This time with one of Russia's most active air bases, like all of it, and more refineries. The most obvious targets there are, yet there's apparently not a damn thing Russian AD can do about it.
Sweden is actually sending 2 Saab 340B AEW-300 aircrafts to Ukraine. These aircrafts have been used by the Swedish airforce and are equiped with the Erieye AESA radar and the 9Air C4I command and control system.
The radar can detect targets at a range of 350 km in a dense hostile electronic warfare environment—in heavy radar clutter and at low target altitudes.
The C&C system is a complete C4I system that can be integrated with third party modules and likewise allows the 9Air C4I module to be integrated with equipment from other providers so they should be able to provide target data to both airborne and ground units in Ukraine.
It will take time to get the Ukrainians ready to operate these so we shouldn't expect them in Ukraine anytime soon but when they have these flying and most of the promised F-16 in the air it should be a boost in capabilties for the UAF.
https://www.saab.com/products/saab-2000-erieye-aewc
https://www.saab.com/products/9air-c4i
First satellite image from the Morozovsk airbase, the storage buildings in the top right looks completly destroyed. Unfortunatley there are clouds covering the left side where a lot of the aircrafts are stored in dugouts and where FIRMS satellites picked up a large fire.
Well I certainly believe you worked for NATO the way you still over-estimate Russian capability. Have you been watching the same war I have? How many examples do I need to link of how useless Russian AD is relative to prior assumptions and your book knowledge? Slow as feck, not even that low altitude drones, without help, constantly striking targets deep inside Russia and occupied territories, even the fecking Kremlin, sinking warships and systematically knocking out refineries. Russia 'intercepts' everything with their faces. Maybe I'll just check my daily twitter feed, because no doubt there will be another recent example, there always is. You're telling me they have "hordes of S-300's, Buk. Tor. Pantsir. Strela's for low flying", yet after months and months of Ukraine hitting refineries within Russia, mosquito nets are the only actual defence they seem to have
It's been open season on Crimea for a while now, any guesses why Ukraine so heavily prioritise AD in the south of late? "Wasting" valuable/limited ATACMs in Crimea I suppose, instead of pushing back Russian aggression in Chasiv Yar and wider Donesk. Again, there's examples from today. S-400's are knocked out as fast as they go up. Its been going on for a long time. I do wonder...
Block 15 F-16A's? I'm sure you're aware they are block 50+ equivalent with whatever upgrades they've continued to receive. Even without AWACS or other link, Russian pilots would be very brave to come within glide bombing range against a permanent patrol in a hot area.
We're not invading Iraq here. You're challenge is whether 200 F-16's would "change a strategic position", which I suppose is a less hyperbolic way of saying "gamechanger", thus linking to the original question. Work with me here, you know far more than I do. Your in command and given 200 plane's to "make a strategic difference". if you say you can't you're probably getting fired on the spot, but in any case, what would you need? JASSM's? One AWACS?
I'm on a holiday with family so I have very little time to respond in detail I'm afraid.
But just to sum up - defending strategic assets in a wide area of geography against asymmetric assets (like cheap drones) is very different to battlefield coverage.
Russia really lacks in the former, S-300's aren't going to be useful against drones and the majority of the Tor's/Buk's/Pantsir's are on the frontline.
We will see in real time over the next six months anyhow over how the performance of the F-16 does, but I'm willing to bet it doesn't change much. You might get more videos and stories of local successes etc but it won't result in the strategic initiative still being well in Russia's favour.
I'll respond to this though as it should be quick
Resign.
But on a serious note, in an extreme hypothetical note:
1) Request 2-3 AWACS
2) Request 1-2 Sigint/ELINT
3) Spend 3 months training up a wild weasal squadron
4) Ask if any BGM-109G's are still kicking and alive in a warehouse somehow.
5) Beg for Ground based MK-41 launchers (highly unlikely, but if this request is given, TLAM's baby)
6) Beg for a shit tonne of JASSM-ER's and MALD's.
Use TLAMs to take out static radar and comms assets on a semi-broad front. (If not feasible, JASSM's + MALD's it is)
Use BGM-109G's to do the same (if not available, ATACAMS will have to do but far less effective for this role)
Wild Weasel squads to draw mobile radar assets active, take as much out as possible, will suffer heavy attrition.
JASSM-ER spam on any radar sites that pop up from Weasel activity.
24/7 AWACS coverage with rotating sorties. (This won't last long, the crews will be exhausted to feck)
Sigint/ELINT in the day to intercept any rotation.
Keep this up for a month or two and some degredation is possible for potentially effective intercept missions, combat patrol missions and CAS on the frontline.
Attrition is going to be fecking horrible though.
Resign.
But on a serious note, in an extreme hypothetical note:
1) Request 2-3 AWACS
2) Request 1-2 Sigint/ELINT
3) Spend 3 months training up a wild weasal squadron
4) Ask if any BGM-109G's are still kicking and alive in a warehouse somehow.
5) Beg for Ground based MK-41 launchers (highly unlikely, but if this request is given, TLAM's baby)
6) Beg for a shit tonne of JASSM-ER's and MALD's.
Use TLAMs to take out static radar and comms assets on a semi-broad front. (If not feasible, JASSM's + MALD's it is)
Use BGM-109G's to do the same (if not available, ATACAMS will have to do but far less effective for this role)
Wild Weasel squads to draw mobile radar assets active, take as much out as possible, will suffer heavy attrition.
JASSM-ER spam on any radar sites that pop up from Weasel activity.
24/7 AWACS coverage with rotating sorties. (This won't last long, the crews will be exhausted to feck)
Sigint/ELINT in the day to intercept any rotation.
Keep this up for a month or two and some degredation is possible for potentially effective intercept missions, combat patrol missions and CAS on the frontline.
Attrition is going to be fecking horrible though.
This is actually something that could be a huge decisive gamechanger, but
a) There is zero chance Uncle Sam hands this over
b) Needs a shit tonne of protection
c) Needs both Link16 and Aegis Radar systems to work
But if in 2026 this does get handed over, AFU can basically missile spam forever.
You can quad pack ESSM's into singular cells and a single launcher can launch 32 ESSM's in one volley.
What does he mean by this though?
This is a classic case of "complain without providing any analysis or solution".
What does, "Force to fight a frontal war" even mean?
Didn't realize that they were already in theater...
AIM-9X, AIM-120 AMRAAM, a drop tank and a weird pod that isn't anything I've actually seen before or studied before. Whatever the hell that is, it's definitely not typical loadout, it looks way to small to be an ALQ-184 jammer pod.
Anyway, this loadout screams missile/deep penetration interceptor missions.
How long have Fighting Falcons been operable in UKR?
Those are some big scalps in the last few days.
No idea
Anyone who claims they know don't know, and anyone who actually does know won't be in a position to say.
vipers, please