blandy Posted February 22 Moderator Share Posted February 22 4 hours ago, Panto_Villan said: I’m sure you know this stuff far better than I, but it’s worth bearing in mind the way the Ukrainians use their fighters (at least as far as I’m aware). They mostly use them well behind their lines to intercept cruise missiles, because as you say unless you fly extremely low then you’re vulnerable to air defence if you approach the contested area. Sure, flying higher would give them more time to react to incoming SAMs but the Russians have a LOT of anti-air so I don’t think the Ukrainians want to get into firing range of them at all. The point I was making regarding range was more about the relative altitude of the aircraft involved. The Russian planes are flying high and the Ukrainian ones have to fly low; if there’s a 30,000 ft altitude difference then that’s ~10km of additional distance the missile has to traverse. That’s about 25-30% of the range of a Sidewinder, right? It means the Ukrainians would need to get even closer to the front lines to try and intercept the bombers launching missiles at Ukraine from near the border. So I think in this specific situation what I’m saying is correct, isn’t it? Even if it’d be inaccurate in most cases. As I understand it at the moment, Ukraine has a relatively few, fairly ancient, jets. Currently they are staying well away from the front lines and from Russian aircraft, because they’d get shot down. So they largely are used to intercept incoming suicide drones and wotnot. If/when F16s are available to them, then the huge increase in capability of these may well allow them to operate differently. Rather than stay out of the fray, they ought to allow Ukraine to do at least 2 things they can’t do now - push back/discourage/engage Russian air providing ground support to Russian troops and secondly (assuming they are given some) use the ground attack variants to support their own troops. The caveat is that jets is one thing, the whoosh-bangs and DefAids that the west use are a different matter. I would imagine there’s still some likely reticence in handing Ukraine current versions of those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 23 VT Supporter Share Posted February 23 I read a while back that although they've managed to jury rig Storm Shadows so the work from their existing ex Soviet jets, the missiles have to be pre programmed on the ground. Fine for static targets, but if that ship in dock moves after you've taken off, then you have to abort the mission. My understanding is that on F16’s they can be programmed/reprogrammed in flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 9 hours ago, blandy said: As I understand it at the moment, Ukraine has a relatively few, fairly ancient, jets. Currently they are staying well away from the front lines and from Russian aircraft, because they’d get shot down. So they largely are used to intercept incoming suicide drones and wotnot. If/when F16s are available to them, then the huge increase in capability of these may well allow them to operate differently. Rather than stay out of the fray, they ought to allow Ukraine to do at least 2 things they can’t do now - push back/discourage/engage Russian air providing ground support to Russian troops and secondly (assuming they are given some) use the ground attack variants to support their own troops. The caveat is that jets is one thing, the whoosh-bangs and DefAids that the west use are a different matter. I would imagine there’s still some likely reticence in handing Ukraine current versions of those things. As far as I gather the US mothballed old ammunition storage for the F-16 is immense, now I'm not sure how usable this stuff is but if someone could put Trump back in his box there could potentially be enough ammunition and whatnot to deliver to Ukraine for years to come. With Biden winning a term I'm sure he'd also like to make a point with Turkey trying to sell KAAN fighters to Ukraine, potentially allowing Ukraine to have more models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 23 Moderator Share Posted February 23 2 hours ago, Anthony said: I read a while back that although they've managed to jury rig Storm Shadows so the work from their existing ex Soviet jets, the missiles have to be pre programmed on the ground. Fine for static targets, but if that ship in dock moves after you've taken off, then you have to abort the mission. My understanding is that on F16’s they can be programmed/reprogrammed in flight. That's broadly correct-ish, it's to do with the enabled (or not) seeker modes and stuff. The interface for NATO is a mil standard 1860 connector and all the associated data and power and so on. UA a/c obviously don't have that NATO standard I/f and IIRC there are different levels of capability for the woosh bangs themselves and export versions tend not to be fully enabled .... though it's a very long while since I had anything to do with them. Not sure "abort mission" is the only option, but yeah that's the gist of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted February 23 Share Posted February 23 (edited) Russia has lost another AWACS plane. It was well within Russian territory. We may have just seen the first F16 kill of the war. Edited February 23 by Mandy Lifeboats Spelling mishsteaks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: Russia has lost another AWACS plane. It was well within Russian territory. We may have just seen the first F16 kill of the war. Would Ukraine have fired from their territory or would the F16 have crossed over into Russia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 I don’t think there is any indication Ukraine has F-16 jets. The skys are being cleared at a remarkable rate at the moment though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 (edited) 5 hours ago, ender4 said: Would Ukraine have fired from their territory or would the F16 have crossed over into Russia? I think a missile fired from Ukrainian airspace (whether from an F16 or from something else). I don't think it's a coincidence that NATO recently stated that Ukraine has the right to strike targets on Russian territory. That was a clear indication that NATO is now happy for NATO supplied weapons to hit mother Russia. Edited February 24 by Mandy Lifeboats Spelling mishsteaks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 The plane was 200km behind the front lines. I am no expert on air defences but Wikipedia tells me that the Patriot system has a range of 180km. I doubt Ukraine would have set up a Patriot system literally within sight of the Russian front lines. Surely it would have been at least 30km back?? So it's something with a range of about 250km? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 24 Moderator Share Posted February 24 1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: NATO recently stated that Ukraine has the right to strike targets on Russian territory. That was a clear indication that NATO is now happy for NATO supplied weapons to hit mother Russia. Really? I'm staggered if that's true. That would be well out of scope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 24 Moderator Share Posted February 24 1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: The plane was 200km behind the front lines. I am no expert on air defences but Wikipedia tells me that the Patriot system has a range of 180km. I doubt Ukraine would have set up a Patriot system literally within sight of the Russian front lines. Surely it would have been at least 30km back?? So it's something with a range of about 250km? Or something Russian (and as amusing as that would be, I doubt Wikipedia or whoever says it was 200km knows where exactly the plane was when hit). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozzavfc Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 24 minutes ago, blandy said: Or something Russian (and as amusing as that would be, I doubt Wikipedia or whoever says it was 200km knows where exactly the plane was when hit). Maybe it was of those rogue cigarettes that sank the Moskva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 2 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: I don't think it's a coincidence that NATO recently stated that Ukraine has the right to strike targets on Russian territory. That was a clear indication that NATO is now happy for NATO supplied weapons to hit mother Russia. I personally think that the key for Ukraine is hitting more sites in Russia. It’s much harder for Putin to shrug off. Putin is hitting non military sites all over Ukraine, not just in the East. If Ukraine had the capability to they should do the same (as sad and harsh as it sounds). I think it’s the only way Putin could feel enough pressure to back down and create a chance the war would end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 (edited) 2 hours ago, blandy said: Really? I'm staggered if that's true. That would be well out of scope. It's true and widely reported. Quote NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has announced that once Ukraine acquires US-made F-16 fighter jets from its allies, the nation will have the authority to deploy these aircraft to target legitimate Russian military targets beyond Ukraine’s borders. https://www.eurasiantimes.com/f-16-fighting-falcons-nato-boss-ruffles-kremlin/ Edited February 24 by Mandy Lifeboats Added details 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted February 24 Share Posted February 24 (edited) America, put your **** hands in your pockets and give Ukraine what they need FFS. So angry tonight Two years of these Fascist invaders Edited February 24 by Captain_Townsend 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 25 Moderator Share Posted February 25 22 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: It's true and widely reported. https://www.eurasiantimes.com/f-16-fighting-falcons-nato-boss-ruffles-kremlin/ Quote will have the authority to deploy these aircraft to target legitimate Russian military targets beyond Ukraine’s borders That caveat is the important thing, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 On 24/02/2024 at 08:39, blandy said: Or something Russian (and as amusing as that would be, I doubt Wikipedia or whoever says it was 200km knows where exactly the plane was when hit). MANPADS from Ukraine special ops behind enemy lines is another theory bandied around. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedClaretAndBlue Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 Ukraine talking peace plans, hopefully the end game is in sight. Ukraine gives up territory for peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 8 hours ago, blandy said: That caveat is the important thing, I think. It obviously needs to be a legitimate military target. NATO has a history of attacking civilian infrastructure with military value as part of military operations. Power, water, bridges, dams, factories, trains etc. But its probably best if they avoid civilian airliners belonging to China. Even if they think there's a few missiles in the hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts