Jackson_Slugger
$50 Site Donor 2022
I understand and appreciate you cannot get specific nor would I want you to. But the original poster said these were ranged at around 40 miles, they're not. My only point...
The F-16 is in the news lately. Here is one loaded for bear.
- Thread starter Snagglefoot
- Start date
- Status
The radars in the F-16A MLU are ranged 40 miles for a fighter sized target, so that limits any missile engagement. But under a lot of conditions, an AIM-120C won't even do that. Conditions which are present over the Ukraine front lines. Somehow you focused on the maximum missile range....
The AIM-120 is a formidable missile. Let’s leave it at that.
The “ranged at 40 miles for a fighter sized target” comment isn’t exactly true. There are too many, still classified, details omitted/ignored to make that statement. Radar range depends on a multitude of factors. The APG-66 in the F-16 has been upgraded over the years, and works well, supporting a variety of air to air missiles, but is fundamentally constrained by antenna size in the relatively small F-16 nose.
Effective missile range, radar range, aircraft range, etc. all come down to employment - tactics, if you will. How it gets used and in what scenario. Good pilots, employing the airplane wisely, will be able to defeat a force consisting of superior (on paper) airplanes.
The F-16 will do well against the current Russian AF jets being used in Ukraine. It’s not as good in the pure air to air role as the F-15, which has greater speed, range, weapon capacity, and radar capability, but the F-16 brings multi-role, including CAS, capability to the fight.
As previously discussed, the F-16 is the only choice because it is a common airframe across NATO, which allows NATO training, maintenance and parts support for Ukraine.
The popular conception of air combat is really close dogfights. Obviously from one seminal fighter pilot movie. And it's pretty obvious that the F-16 would excel at that, if it ever came down to something like that and not just missiles fired from many miles away.
From what I heard, the upgraded radar in the european F-16A MLU is still not what you get in the F-16B. APG-66(V)2A it is to be exact. The original APG-66 had a 34nm range, this has more but not quite what the APG-68 has
And the available air frames are all end of life aswell. the Dutch F-16s have a 3G limit imposed on them because the frames are cracking and patched up, and they are the most likely place to source planes from as the deliveries of F-35 are ongoing there. Countries that aren't receiving replacement planes are not likely to give up their F-16s
As it stands now, deliveries of F-16s is mostly a political statement, sure looks good as a headline but it's little more than that.
No argument, there.
The Dutch airplanes are old. Fatigue consequences are to be expected. The original radar wasn’t that great, as you say. It’s a function of the technology of the day (when they were built) and that small nose. I haven’t fought or flown the MLU, I’m too old, so, I will take your word on its performance, but the new phased array is impressive.
Either way, it’s not just the tools, it’s the carpenter that is going to bring success, or failure, in the air war.
Jackson_Slugger
$50 Site Donor 2022
Thank you for that clarification. But upgraded versions like the Viper should have longer ranges, this thread seems to be focused on The Ukraine's potential acquisition of probably A or C models so fair enough...
Interestingly it seems the Ukraine has asked Australia for their excess F-18 Hornets now....
Those might be in better shape, but there's far fewer european users which reduces the available support. Denmark also used the F-16A, but sold theirs to Romania and the F-16C users are generally not replacing them yet. So the only "available soon" F-16 are the A MLU from the Netherlands or Belgium. I doubt the Belgian F-16 are in much better shape than the Dutch but in any case Belgium is yet to receive their first F-35 so needs the planes themselves.
So saying there's lots of F-16 around is like saying there's lots of Crown Vic around. Just not many on dealer lots, and a bunch are actually in the salvage yard, or on their way. The ones who have a crown victoria are not likely to depart with theirs either.
Could these fighters be used to carry around an advanced sensor to help detect and track missile and drone attacks? Maybe an eye in the sky that can get closer to the front and still be able to run away when it gets targeted?
It seems neither side will ever be able to fly fighters or anything else over each others territory without huge risks of losing pilots and aircraft, so they seem to be fairly useless in their traditional roles?
It seems neither side will ever be able to fly fighters or anything else over each others territory without huge risks of losing pilots and aircraft, so they seem to be fairly useless in their traditional roles?
Astro, when you flew the F-14, what were the "rules" on returning with ordnance you didn't drop, fire, or shoot? Are there ever cases when pilots have to dump ordnance in the drink they didn't use for one reason or another?
Or is it possible to accomplish a carrier landing with stuff still mounted to the aircraft? Or is it just too risky?
Or is it possible to accomplish a carrier landing with stuff still mounted to the aircraft? Or is it just too risky?
I'm sure he's answered it multiple times. But I found this:
F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away
Originally Posted By: JimPghPA Years ago I saw something about the bomb load capacity of an F-14, and if I remember correctly it can carry more weight in bombs than a B-17, or a B-24 could. 42,000# empty weight. 44,000# empty weight with bomb racks and drop tanks. 16,200# internal fuel, 4,000#...
bobistheoilguy.com
Fun little discussion. He discusses dropping weapons a few times just to get the weight down. I kept on hearing that it was one of the reasons why the Phoenix load was typically so low. My understanding is that this load couldn't be landed on a carrier under any circumstances.
I would think an awacs is what you need
Yep, they are a bit rare and expensive, and their detection range is about the same as Russia's advanced SAM systems. I also wonder how well they do with stuff like slow ground hugging drones, and the hypersonic missiles?
Must be quite the modelling process going on in Ukraine and NATO countries, on how airspace is managed with Russia having all sorts of anti aircraft systems, far too many for Ukraine to take out with its air force, even if it was much larger. And then also trying to defend against drones, cruise missiles, and hypersonics, all at the same time?
Jackson_Slugger
$50 Site Donor 2022
Interesting website on the ML-U upgrades performed on NATO and allied F-16's: https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article2.html
Actually, when we upped the landing weight from 51,800 to 54,000, we could get back aboard with that load. Barely any fuel left, but we could do it. The empty weight of the airplane was about 45,000 with all of those AIM-54 rails installed. Add 6,000 for missiles, and you had an empty weight of 51,000, which left about 3,000 worth of gas.I'm sure he's answered it multiple times. But I found this:
F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away
Originally Posted By: JimPghPA Years ago I saw something about the bomb load capacity of an F-14, and if I remember correctly it can carry more weight in bombs than a B-17, or a B-24 could. 42,000# empty weight. 44,000# empty weight with bomb racks and drop tanks. 16,200# internal fuel, 4,000#...bobistheoilguy.com
Fun little discussion. He discusses dropping weapons a few times just to get the weight down. I kept on hearing that it was one of the reasons why the Phoenix load was typically so low. My understanding is that this load couldn't be landed on a carrier under any circumstances.
Tight, but doable.
Weapons are expensive.
When you load too many to be brought back aboard, it had to be with a reasonable certainty that they would be expended, because they would get jettisoned if they weren’t.
Sensors are an interesting discussion.
For radar, we are back to the F-16 airframe limitations. Power. Cooling. Antenna size.
Look, if you want a really sensitive long range antenna - you want one of these:
They’re each about 100 feet tall. And 28 of them make up the actual instrument.
Astronomers are building for sensitivity. An AWACS can’t see even a tiny fraction of what this thing does - but the AWACS antenna is small enough to fly. These would be able to see everything the Russians put up, down to a drone hundreds of miles away, but…
Better than an AWACS is this:
Much bigger antenna. Plenty of power. Lots of cooling. Lots of room for processors. One of these (USS Lake Erie) shot down a satellite in orbit.
But it’s a bit hard to get one where it would need to be for many of the threats.
For radar, we are back to the F-16 airframe limitations. Power. Cooling. Antenna size.
Look, if you want a really sensitive long range antenna - you want one of these:
They’re each about 100 feet tall. And 28 of them make up the actual instrument.
Astronomers are building for sensitivity. An AWACS can’t see even a tiny fraction of what this thing does - but the AWACS antenna is small enough to fly. These would be able to see everything the Russians put up, down to a drone hundreds of miles away, but…
Better than an AWACS is this:
Much bigger antenna. Plenty of power. Lots of cooling. Lots of room for processors. One of these (USS Lake Erie) shot down a satellite in orbit.
But it’s a bit hard to get one where it would need to be for many of the threats.
Last edited:
Politics decides what Ukraine gets.
It is a war, so normal expectations (frame life etc.) very fast go out if window.
MIG (any) doesn’t have even close life expectancy of an airframe like western airplanes do. However, they fly. Croatian MIG21 (soon to be replaced by Rafale) are way over their projected life span. Ukrainian MIG29’s are too. So, ways to extend life cycle will be found.
What will be the role of F16 will be determined by numerous factors on the ground. Astro pointed to several options: keeping Russian supply away, some strategic operations. How much CAS they will do is questionable considering very, VERY strong AA capabilities Russians have with their units. Current SU25 Ukrainians operate are not involved in as many CAS roles as one would expect, and their MI24/35 helicopters are trying to stay way back.
F16 will help, but again, this is ground grind. One cannot look at this war through our perspective and experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those were different wars. Air power was key in those wars. Here, it is all about artillery, tanks, MLRS, and people, bunch of people.
It is a war, so normal expectations (frame life etc.) very fast go out if window.
MIG (any) doesn’t have even close life expectancy of an airframe like western airplanes do. However, they fly. Croatian MIG21 (soon to be replaced by Rafale) are way over their projected life span. Ukrainian MIG29’s are too. So, ways to extend life cycle will be found.
What will be the role of F16 will be determined by numerous factors on the ground. Astro pointed to several options: keeping Russian supply away, some strategic operations. How much CAS they will do is questionable considering very, VERY strong AA capabilities Russians have with their units. Current SU25 Ukrainians operate are not involved in as many CAS roles as one would expect, and their MI24/35 helicopters are trying to stay way back.
F16 will help, but again, this is ground grind. One cannot look at this war through our perspective and experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those were different wars. Air power was key in those wars. Here, it is all about artillery, tanks, MLRS, and people, bunch of people.
- Status
Similar threads
