In reply to Teslag

Teslag said:

---

It would be suicide to use old F16's in an air superiority roll.

---

Compared to the old MIG-29s they're using?

I get that Russian air defense likely makes the difference a moot point but surely F-16s are more capable.

In reply to ReturnOfTheAg It would struggle against those as well. And more than just that, they don't have enough F16's to make it worthwhile in that roll. Training crews for these planes has taken a better part of a year, and their value is too high to risk them in that role when better options exist.

In reply to Teslag

Teslag said:

---

It would be suicide to use old F16's in an air superiority roll.

---

It would also be foolish to compare strategy and equipment in this war to what the USA, Brittain, France, or Germany would do or can field. It's irrelevant to the reality of the situation. They're currently flying worse aircraft from 2 lane highways.

Those old, but upgraded and maintained F16s could drastically impact what we are seeing. If nothing else they can hopefully ensure Russians can't fly in Ukraine and add a much needed layer to shoot down ballistic missiles and drones. Not to mention limit Russian ability to continue their new found close air ground support on the front lines. Just like we've seen in Israel. Israel has possibly the best air defense capability / network in the world. Yet they needed fighter support (from multiple nations as well) to limit the Iranian response.

Good luck dropping bombs over the lines if you have to worry about F16's.

In reply to ReturnOfTheAg

ReturnOfTheAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It would be suicide to use old F16's in an air superiority roll.

---

Compared to the old MIG-29s they're using?

I get that Russian air defense likely makes the difference a moot point but surely F-16s are more capable.

---

In theory, F16s can be engaged and shot down over the horizon by the high end Russian fighters. They're much more capable than what they have, but allegedly outclassed by current gen Russian fighter radar and air to air missile capabilities. So using them offensively isn't ideal. Which makes the entire reason they were slow rolled (not wanting them used offensively in Russia) a joke.

They could have been a great help in reducing Russian ability to hit Ukraine infrastructure that can't be covered by limited air defenses at will over the last year.

In reply to AgLA06 Where they woudl have been helpful is providing CAS for Ukraine's offensive but that window is closed. Where they will be effective going forward is taking out Russian supply lines and logistic support in any futile Russian "offensive" they may try.

The half dozen F-16's/10 pilots will be used mostly over western Ukraine to shoot at stuff like shaheds, imho. Stuff new pilots, just transitioned to the type and short on experience, would be most capable of performing.

A2G near the front line/air defenses etc. would be very risky. See: the withdrawal of Abrams and Challenger tanks back toward Kiev.

In reply to nortex97

nortex97 said:

---

The half dozen F-16's/10 pilots will be used mostly over western Ukraine to shoot at stuff like shaheds, imho. Stuff new pilots, just transitioned to the type and short on experience, would be most capable of performing.

A2G near the front line/air defenses etc. would be very risky. See: the withdrawal of Abrams and Challenger tanks back toward Kiev.

---

Great point

Seems like this move is purely an injection to stave off attrition of the Ukrainian Air Force over time.

And if they prove small success in specific strike missions like Teslag mentioned, I'd be willing to bet that'd lead to more F-16 shipments.

Is there any evidence as to how far inside Ukraine Russian Air defense stretches?

I feel like I remember seeing there talk of possibly providing AGM-84E SLAM-ERs to Ukraine which I think have a range of 150 miles or so (apparently Turkey has used them on Vipers before)

https://www.twz.com/air/ukraine-says-its-getting-long-range-missiles-with-its-f-16s

In reply to ReturnOfTheAg

ReturnOfTheAg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

It would be suicide to use old F16's in an air superiority roll.

---

Compared to the old MIG-29s they're using?

I get that Russian air defense likely makes the difference a moot point but surely F-16s are more capable.

---

Under the current circumstances, the Ukrainians are initially likely to use the F-16 in much the same way they're using their existing fleet of fighters for air to air and air to ground within Ukraine.

However, the F-16s have a much better radar, flight computer and EW system than the legacy Soviet fighters and should be far more effective flying those same mission sets.

The F-16 also allows Ukrainian pilots to employ Western air munitions at their full range of capabilities, rather than cobbling together something very basic to make the weapons work from ex-Soviet fighters.

Longer range ATACMS could render Crimea worthless for military operations.

https://www.businessinsider.com/atacms-ukraine-could-make-crimea-militarily-worthless-russia-expert-2024-4

Quote:

---

Ukraine has landed many blows on Crimea before vastly weakening Russia's Black Sea Fleet, the port of Sevastopol, and periodically targeting the strategic Kerch Bridge that connects the peninsula to Russia.
These have been variously conducted by weapons including air and naval drones, and likely the UK- and France-supplied Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles.
But ATACMS have a key advantage over Storm Shadows, Radio Free Europe reported, in that they travel much faster.

In mid-April, Ukraine claimed to have struck the Dzhankoi military base, in northern Crimea, including a prized S-400 air defense launcher, without elaborating on the weapon used. A senior US official later told the Times that it was among Ukraine's ATACMS targets.

---

My guess is the F16s will be used as another form of air defense and CAS over Ukraine controlled areas. Anything towards the Russian lines would be a suicide mission

In reply to Teslag

Teslag said:

---

Where they woudl have been helpful is providing CAS for Ukraine's offensive but that window is closed. Where they will be effective going forward is taking out Russian supply lines and logistic support in any futile Russian "offensive" they may try.

---

you have your answer here; they can / should be used to gum up the orc offensives for now.

ATACAMS hits on orc exposed troops 80KM behind front. First shot is apparently a dud or possibly coincidental training munition. Next three do some damage. Comments state hearing 116 casualties.

The cluster is impressive.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1chjlkg/ukraine_with_atacms_strikes_russian_infantry/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

In reply to P.U.T.U

P.U.T.U said:

---

My guess is the F16s will be used as another form of air defense and CAS over Ukraine controlled areas. Anything towards the Russian lines would be a suicide mission

---

I don't know that they couldn't penetrate Russian territory in a well planned strike, but I do agree that their primary function will be to enable Ukraine to access additional munitions that we may have in greater quantities than the ground based systems we have been transferring over the past 2 years.

In reply to JFABNRGR

JFABNRGR said:

---

ATACAMS hits on orc exposed troops 80KM behind front. First shot is apparently a dud or possibly coincidental training munition. Next three do some damage. Comments state hearing 116 casualties.

---

Or possibly extended range GMLRS with >70km range? Hopefully ATACMS are being saved for airfields, depots, transport hubs, etc.

In reply to benchmark

benchmark said:

---

JFABNRGR said:

---

ATACAMS hits on orc exposed troops 80KM behind front. First shot is apparently a dud or possibly coincidental training munition. Next three do some damage. Comments state hearing 116 casualties.

---

Or possibly extended range GMLRS with >70km range? Hopefully ATACMS are being saved for airfields, depots, transport hubs, etc.

---

Looks a whole lot like an M39

⚡️Video of the use of the MGM-140A ATACMS Block 1 cluster ballistic missile with 950 M74 submunitions during testing.

It is interesting that the footage shows the use of a missile precisely at a simulated airfield with helicopters and other light equipment. pic.twitter.com/Sp7BtfgvuN

— 🇺🇦Ukrainian Front (@front_ukrainian) October 17, 2023

Another Russian oil refinery hit, plus other notes from the front.

UPDATES

In reply to ReturnOfTheAg Maybe the dud is the casing that held the bomblets. I count almost 6 seconds between the initial impact and the bomblets. In another YT test video I count 4 seconds and would assume the altitude of disbursement is discretionary based on target conditions.

Benchmark posted possibly extended range GMLRS as ATACAMs should be saved for more valued targets and I would generally agree or does this mean the number of ATACAMs headed to UKR in the new aid bill mean there's enough to justify this mission.

At 2300 MPH, assuming a standoff of 60KM + 80KM deep from front, those bad boys arrived in 2.2 minutes.

It was also cool to see the fixed wing ISR bird in use.

More detail on those devastating ATACMS strikes on Russian troop concentrations.

VOLLEY

BREAKING: US State Dept accuses Russia of using 'chemical weapon' against Ukrainian forces - AFP

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) May 1, 2024

In reply to Agthatbuilds

Agthatbuilds said:

---

BREAKING: US State Dept accuses Russia of using 'chemical weapon' against Ukrainian forces - AFP

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) May 1, 2024

---

I wonder at this point if anyone cares or is there any consequences to it. Russia is already sanctioned to hell by the West and China plays dumb and keeps feeding them aid anyway.

Makes sense that longer range weapons were "approved" if CW's were used…

More detail on latest strike against a Russian oil refinery.

FIRE

If chemical weapons were used, we should announce a contract with Burisma to dispose of newly discovered Cold War era chemical weapons stockpiles.

Or maybe just send Ukraine the coordinates of one of these:

US accuses Russia of using chemical weapons in Ukraine, plus other notes from the front.

UPDATES

In reply to 74OA

74OA said:

---

More detail on latest strike against a Russian oil refinery.

FIRE

---

If the orcs cant defend against these slow flying UAVs deep into russia with ADA, are we certain their ADA will be affective against F16s?

Has there been any confirmed effective use of russian ADA on UKR flyers?

In reply to JFABNRGR

JFABNRGR said:

---

74OA said:

---

More detail on latest strike against a Russian oil refinery.

FIRE

---

If the orcs cant defend against these slow flying UAVs deep into russia with ADA, are we certain their ADA will be affective against F16s?

Has there been any confirmed effective use of russian ADA on UKR flyers?

---

Russia has repeatedly claimed to have shot down Ukrainian drones over its territory, but it is too big to defend everywhere. Till now, its domestic refineries have relied on distance for defense, not ADA.

Hitting Ryazan is big, I believe it is Russia's largest refinery and you would think they have some ADA around it, if they do they don't do well against slow flying drones.

Russia still has plenty of S300 and S400 systems, unless you know they are not in a territory not worth losing air assets like the F16 to test.

In reply to EastSideAg2002

EastSideAg2002 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

BREAKING: US State Dept accuses Russia of using 'chemical weapon' against Ukrainian forces - AFP

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) May 1, 2024

---

I wonder at this point if anyone cares or is there any consequences to it. Russia is already sanctioned to hell by the West and China plays dumb and keeps feeding them aid anyway.

---

This is exactly what will happen

In reply to P.U.T.U Again there's no credible evidence the F-16's will be used in air to ground missions. This requires a lot of additional training and most of the pilots have no background in this, plus the equipment they are using is not well suited for it.

The USAF might use the F-16's very differently, for instance; refueling them close to the FEBA. Unrefueled, and laden with ordnance, the F-16's they have will have very limited range, and precious little real advantages penetrating Russian airspace vs. their existing MiG-29's.

Ukraine has no tankers for this, and has not deployed their existing (non-stealthy) tacair assets into Russian territory.

In reply to ABATTBQ11

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

EastSideAg2002 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

BREAKING: US State Dept accuses Russia of using 'chemical weapon' against Ukrainian forces - AFP

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) May 1, 2024

---

I wonder at this point if anyone cares or is there any consequences to it. Russia is already sanctioned to hell by the West and China plays dumb and keeps feeding them aid anyway.

---

This is exactly what will happen

---

The West is already doing just about everything it can to Russia short of direct attack, but there's always more to sanction.

NEW

In reply to P.U.T.U

P.U.T.U said:

---

Hitting Ryazan is big, I believe it is Russia's largest refinery and you would think they have some ADA around it, if they do they don't do well against slow flying drones.

Russia still has plenty of S300 and S400 systems, unless you know they are not in a territory not worth losing air assets like the F16 to test.

---

How many of their S-300 missiles did they waste firing them against civilian areas?

In reply to nortex97

nortex97 said:

---

Again there's no credible evidence the F-16's will be used in air to ground missions. This requires a lot of additional training and most of the pilots have no background in this, plus the equipment they are using is not well suited for it.

The USAF might use the F-16's very differently, for instance; refueling them close to the FEBA. Unrefueled, and laden with ordnance, the F-16's they have will have very limited range, and precious little real advantages penetrating Russian airspace vs. their existing MiG-29's.

Ukraine has no tankers for this, and has not deployed their existing (non-stealthy) tacair assets into Russian territory.

---

The Ukrainians are using SU-27s and MiG-29s for air to ground, a mission set they were not originally designed for, so I'm certain they'll use the F-16 for the same, particularly as it is one of the most famous multi-role aircraft on the planet. Their pilots now have years of air to ground combat experience. Additionally, all European F-16s received the Mid-Life Update which expanded their original air to ground capability to include more modern generation munitions such as GBU30/32, AGM-154, EGBU-12, GBU-39, GBU-54, JDAM, etc as well as integration of the Sniper targeting pod for night and all-weather targeting.

SU-27
MiG-29
MLU

In reply to nortex97

nortex97 said:

---

Again there's no credible evidence the F-16's will be used in air to ground missions. This requires a lot of additional training and most of the pilots have no background in this, plus the equipment they are using is not well suited for it.

The USAF might use the F-16's very differently, for instance; refueling them close to the FEBA. Unrefueled, and laden with ordnance, the F-16's they have will have very limited range, and precious little real advantages penetrating Russian airspace vs. their existing MiG-29's.

Ukraine has no tankers for this, and has not deployed their existing (non-stealthy) tacair assets into Russian territory.

---

There no reason they won't use F-16's the same way Russia is currently using its tacair, tossing JDAM's at preplanned targets near the front lines

In reply to 74OA We will respectfully just have to see, I guess, as the French (LeMond) report on the trainees for the F-16's in SW France from Ukraine do not reflect your assessments as to experience, and I still don't grasp why the platform would provide any advantages in this role, especially in the quantities initially to be fielded in an initial operational capability/capacity (1 squadron).

Interesting interview/discussion of the status of the front/strategic outlook with Ukraine's intel commander;

"General Skibitsky says he does not see a way for Ukraine to win the war on the battlefield alone. Even if it were able to push Russian forces back to the borders—an increasingly distant prospect—it wouldn’t end the war. Such wars can only end with treaties, he says. Right now,… https://t.co/I5kWMkF6Q1 pic.twitter.com/huehMJQUdU

— Rob Lee (@RALee85) May 2, 2024