The F-16 is in the news lately. Here is one loaded for bear.

[edyvw]

I honestly don't know how they plan to use it.

Were I planning, the first priority would be to establish and maintain air superiority over their advancing troops. Keep the Russian AF off them. Deny the Russian defenders air support.

Next priority would be Close Air Support (CAS). Give your troops an edge when they're in contact with the enemy.

Next would be air interdiction - interrupt the Russian supply lines. Starve their front line troops of ammo, fuel, food, everything.

But first would be air superiority. That enables all the other missions.

A month ago, I was at USAFA for Ira C. Eaker event. Three previous commanders of AF Europe were there (Breedlove, Walters, Harrigan) and James Hecker, the current one. Hecker was talking about how both sides utilized air defenses exceptionally well and that it would be tough to do it, even if F16s were delivered. Now this was an unclassified event, but an interesting observation considering the source.

 

[y_p_w]

flying for eight hours.....glad I can't do it. heart medicine and a enlarged prostate make me have to pee way to much for a eight hour shift.

 

[Jetronic]

I honestly don't know how they plan to use it.

Were I planning, the first priority would be to establish and maintain air superiority over their advancing troops. Keep the Russian AF off them. Deny the Russian defenders air support.

Next priority would be Close Air Support (CAS). Give your troops an edge when they're in contact with the enemy.

Next would be air interdiction - interrupt the Russian supply lines. Starve their front line troops of ammo, fuel, food, everything.

But first would be air superiority. That enables all the other missions.

But air superiority would require disabling the russian sams, and that's still risky business. Not accomplished in a couple days either (unless they'd rather run than fight, which is also possible).

 

[Astro14]

But air superiority would require disabling the russian sams, and that's still risky business. Not accomplished in a couple days either (unless they'd rather run than fight, which is also possible).

I wish I knew what weapons they were getting with their F-16s, as well as the lot/type of F-16. The F-16 can do a good job of SEAD. I don’t know the full Russian order of battle. Which SAM systems do they have in the occupied territorie?

 

[IndyIan]

I wish I knew what weapons they were getting with their F-16s, as well as the lot/type of F-16. The F-16 can do a good job of SEAD. I don’t know the full Russian order of battle. Which SAM systems do they have in the occupied territorie?

My active military buddy didn't exactly know how they were going to use the F-16's either? Right now neither side seems to fly much human piloted aircraft over each others territory? To risky to provide air support it seems?
My guess is that if the ukraine does some large rapid armoured advance then Russia may use aircraft to attack them as ukraine won't have advanced air defenses near the front of the attack? Then the F-16's could engage Russian aircraft as the russian AA would be less likely to engage with their own aircraft in the area? I don't know how well friend or foe systems work in close combat? I suspect with jamming a missile defaults to just hit the "hot thing"?
Also the F-16 bomb tossing trick might be useful?

 

[MRC01]

... the takeoff is the easy part. Landing it, and getting it stopped, is the greater challenge on a short field. ...

I've never flown anything remotely resembling an F16, but I can say that the above statement is true of every airplane I have flown, from vintage taildraggers to Cessnas, Mooneys and Pipers.

 

[Jetronic]

I wish I knew what weapons they were getting with their F-16s, as well as the lot/type of F-16. The F-16 can do a good job of SEAD. I don’t know the full Russian order of battle. Which SAM systems do they have in the occupied territorie?

They have S-300 and S-400 covering the front lines from inside russia, and BUK, TOR, Pantsir and AA (57mm) inside ukraine, along with igla/verba

 

[Jetronic]

My active military buddy didn't exactly know how they were going to use the F-16's either? Right now neither side seems to fly much human piloted aircraft over each others territory? To risky to provide air support it seems?
My guess is that if the ukraine does some large rapid armoured advance then Russia may use aircraft to attack them as ukraine won't have advanced air defenses near the front of the attack? Then the F-16's could engage Russian aircraft as the russian AA would be less likely to engage with their own aircraft in the area? I don't know how well friend or foe systems work in close combat? I suspect with jamming a missile defaults to just hit the "hot thing"?
Also the F-16 bomb tossing trick might be useful?

Just the promise of sending F-16s and the alledged training of pilots will have an effect on Russia, I bet we will see an increase in air operations between now and when the F-16 are supposed to arrive. And that maybe the ultimate goal, more opportunities to shoot down russian jets with the current sam systems.

 

[Dave Hess]

Do you actually know what edyvw does or what he did?
Lockheed-Martin people were in Ukraine last year.
What do you think Ukrainians are? Bunch of sheep herders? Your assumptions are at best uninformed.

No, I don’t know what you do or did in your military career.
You can let us know, or PM me if you don’t want to post in public.
I asked you in another aviation thread if you were a USAF pilot now teaching at the Academy and you said No.

Only subject matter experts like Lockheed-Martin, F-16 pilots, F-16 maintenance crews, logistics experts, etc… need to be involved in this effort. No dumb dumb high ranking officers that sat behind a desk their entire military career be allowed to give their unsolicited useless advice on this important war effort.

I have great respect for all Ukrainians and feel America needs to go ‘all in’ with this F-16 program.
I agree with you 100% that a ground war still needs to be fought, not just an air campaign.

Again, I’m not attacking you.


FACT:
Israel would not exist today if Nixon didn’t do what he did…. it was a very difficult decision and he ruffled some feathers in the Middle East.

 

[edyvw]

No, I don’t know what you do or did in your military career.
You can let us know, or PM me if you don’t want to post in public.
I asked you in another aviation thread if you were a USAF pilot now teaching at the Academy and you said No.

Only subject matter experts like Lockheed-Martin, F-16 pilots, F-16 maintenance crews, logistics experts, etc… need to be involved in this effort. No dumb dumb high ranking officers that sat behind a desk their entire military career be allowed to give their unsolicited useless advice on this important war effort.

I have great respect for all Ukrainians and feel America needs to go ‘all in’ with this F-16 program.
I agree with you 100% that a ground war still needs to be fought, not just an air campaign.

Again, I’m not attacking you.


FACT:
Israel would not exist today if Nixon didn’t do what he did…. it was a very difficult decision and he ruffled some feathers in the Middle East.

I will just say politely that you have a gross misunderstanding of this process based on daily news and hearsay.
Mechanics, pilots, and Lockheed-Martin have their part of the job to do it here. Generals have their part to do. Politicians their. Civilians have their. This is a multi-agency effort that involves also entities like RAND Corporation etc., contractors etc. I was last week all week in DC. I had a meeting with 2 star on some issues (I will leave it at that) who somehow managed to get political. He is clearly not a fan of the current administration. But the guy spends 10-12hrs a day executing decisions made by this administration.
So, sleep well. F16's will be there, and mechanics and pilots will make sure they fly where they need to fly.
Also, military officers do not spend their whole entire career behind a desk, and very few like it, but someone has to do it. Time comes when it is their turn to be "behind the desk."

The ground war is being fought. What I said is that war will be resolved on the ground, but the air component is a big part of the effort. UKR could get away without F16, but it is MUCH better to have them. They cannot get away, on the other hand, without M1, Leopard, HIMARS, etc, etc.

 

[Jetronic]

It appears the Ukrainians might be getting F-16A MLU jets, so with the older radar and AIM-9M and AIM-120C. This limits their radar and missile performance. I don't think it'll be a gamechanger at all if they get the F-16A MLU. Practical engagement range will be around 40 miles (fired from high up, less if fired from down low) vs 60+ for a russian SU-35 and possibly SU-30SM.

Can't go high or risk SAM fire, so can't go far either as fuel consumption and missile performance is bad down low. But go low and you are at risk from AA, manpads and short range SAMs as soon as you reach the front lines.

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

AIM-120 on the wingtips.

A Viper with all that stuff on it is a dog. Sluggish. Heavy. Difficult to turn and climb.

Makes for great photos, but…

Actually why do they do that? Before the AMRAM they put Sidewinders on the tips and the heavier Sparrows were underwing...

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

It appears the Ukrainians might be getting F-16A MLU jets, so with the older radar and AIM-9M and AIM-120C. This limits their radar and missile performance. I don't think it'll be a gamechanger at all if they get the F-16A MLU. Practical engagement range will be around 40 miles (fired from high up, less if fired from down low) vs 60+ for a russian SU-35 and possibly SU-30SM.

Can't go high or risk SAM fire, so can't go far either as fuel consumption and missile performance is bad down low. But go low and you are at risk from AA, manpads and short range SAMs as soon as you reach the front lines.

The AIM-120C has a range of 57-86 nautical miles...

In WWII the German Army (Heer) had a joke. If it's camouflaged it's British (RAF), if it's silver it's American (USAAF), if its invisible it's the Luftwaffe.

Guessing some poorly trained Russian cannon-fodder ground pounders might be saying that today...

 

[Jetronic]

The AIM-120C has a range of 57-86 nautical miles...

In WWII the German Army (Heer) had a joke. If it's camouflaged it's British (RAF), if it's silver it's American (USAAF), if its invisible it's the Luftwaffe.

Guessing some poorly trained Russian cannon-fodder ground pounders might be saying that today...

The range is calculated firing from a very high altitude and fired at very high speed. Range drops significantly when altitude is less, and also when the firing vehicle is slower.

Nasams fires AIM-120C from sea level and 0 ft up. What range does that have? Single digits iirc?

 

[y_p_w]

Actually why do they do that? Before the AMRAM they put Sidewinders on the tips and the heavier Sparrows were underwing...

Looks like the hardpoints are taken by various pods.

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

The AIM-120C has a range of 57-86 nautical miles...

The range is calculated firing from a very high altitude and fired at very high speed. Range drops significantly when altitude is less, and also when the firing vehicle is slower.

Nasams fires AIM-120C from sea level and 0 ft up. What range does that have? Single digits iirc?

Okay noob. The missiles are independent and it doesn't really mattered when or where fired...

 

[Jetronic]

Okay noob. The missiles are independent and it doesn't really mattered when or where fired...

lol

 

[Astro14]

Okay noob. The missiles are independent and it doesn't really mattered when or where fired...

The effective range of any missile depends on the launch altitude and speed of the launch platform.

Those two factors will affect ultimate range dramatically. For example, a low altitude shot, from a slow airplane, or worse, ship or other stationary platform, can have 1/10 the range of a high speed, high altitude shot.

The rocket motor in an air to air missile burns for several seconds. When the missile reaches motor burn out/top speed, there can be tremendous drag, so it begins to slow immediately.

The top speed is a function of launch velocity and velocity added by the rocket motor, but drag is effective immediately, so in thin air, the missile reaches a very high speed over launch.

In thick air, it reaches a much lower speed over launch because of that drag. Add in a lower starting velocity, and higher drag, and it becomes ineffective rather quickly.

 

[Jackson_Slugger]

The effective range of any missile depends on the launch altitude and speed of the launch platform.

Those two factors will affect ultimate range dramatically. For example, a low altitude shot, from a slow airplane, or worse, ship or other stationary platform, can have 1/10 the range of a high speed, high altitude shot.

The rocket motor in an air to air missile burns for several seconds. When the missile reaches motor burn out/top speed, there can be tremendous drag, so it begins to slow immediately.

The top speed is a function of launch velocity and velocity added by the rocket motor, but drag is effective immediately, so in thin air, the missile reaches a very high speed over launch.

In thick air, it reaches a much lower speed over launch because of that drag. Add in a lower starting velocity, and higher drag, and it becomes ineffective rather quickly.

So at low altitude the minimum range is 57 nm at low altitude?

 

[Astro14]

So at low altitude the minimum range is 57 nm at low altitude?

There are a lot of factors. Rocket motor total impulse, thrust/weight, airframe drag of the missile, missile guidance details, speed of the shooter, speed of the target, closure rate, and others.

I can’t comment on any specific missile, as they’re all still in use and the data remains classified.

However, with a high altitude supersonic fighter, shooting a high altitude supersonic bomber coming straight at them, the missile range might be 50 miles.

If you’re shooting the same bomber, and it’s traveling at 90 degrees to the fighter, both at high altitude, then the max range might be as little as 10 miles.

Same bomber, same fighter, very low altitude, both at the same speed, so, no closure on the target to help the missile get there, the same missile might have a max range of two miles. Perhaps three. No more. Depends a lot on drag when you’re down in thick air.