Decoy Targets

I think you should consider the difference between loosing an inflatable decoy and a real but no longer airworthy thing.
 
yahya said:
I think you should consider the difference between loosing an inflatable decoy and a real but no longer airworthy thing.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt a significant difference but there are probably some situations where a hard decoy (An F-16 airframe that is no longer airworthy , say one that has expired due to expired airframe-life) may bepreferrable. Something else that the UAF could do is the necessary engineering-drawings from LM and/or the USAF in order to make an externally accurate F-16 mockup (Basically a plywood and Al-alloy frame Al-alloy sheet-metal for skin), something that can be built locally.
 
It's indeed always a possibility. But even if an expensive weapon like an Iskander is used to destroy such a mock up, we should always consider that the other side has plenty of such advanced systems to spare. Thus, instead of allocating resources to build an accurate static replica of an F-16, one side of the conflict could as well invest them in making cheap $2k FPV drones, which can be more useful in the battlefield.
 
yahya said:
Thus, instead of allocating resources to build an accurate static replica of an F-16
Click to expand...

The Ukrainians have demonstrated in the past two-and-a-half years that they're good a building detailed, externally accurate decoys/mockup quickly and inexpensively.

yahya said:
one side of the conflict could as well invest them in making cheap $2k FPV drones, which can be more useful in the battlefield.
Click to expand...

The Ukrainians I do believe are rapidly expanding their drone production with an annual goal one million drones of all type IIRC.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
Something else that the UAF could do in regards to decoys is to obtain some early block F-16A/Bs that are no longer airworthy and use them as decoys too.
Click to expand...
they are probably much better for spare parts purpose, or maybe if they can still fly, they can turn into make shift cruise missiles
 
I agree.

And setting a real, but non-airworthy thing on the ground for certain destruction would for sure be propagandized as a huge success by the other side, which will claim a victory over a "real airworthy thing."
 
Ronny said:
they are probably much better for spare parts purpose
Click to expand...

I meant airframe that were not only un-flightworthy but also stripped of all useful spare-parts.

Ronny said:
maybe if they can still fly, they can turn into make shift cruise missiles
Click to expand...

That would be an interesting use but how many old, flightworthy F-16 airframes are there anyway?
 
Got to remember F-16s have hydrazine amongst other hazardous materials present. Even if the EPU had been removed I doubt most Air Forces want actual airframes, that when impacted would spew hazardous material and significant shrapnel, around their airfields as decoys. Better to stick to inflatable decoys and the like that don't contribute significantly to FOD and other clean up issues.
 
Ozair said:
Even if the EPU had been removed I doubt most Air Forces want actual airframes, that when impacted would spew hazardous material and significant shrapnel, around their airfields as decoys.
Click to expand...

Then have externally accurate plywood-and-sheet-metal mockups with a few real parts such as the landing gear, cockpit canopy and engine exhaust-nozzle.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom