Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon News and Developments

ComradeVortex said:
Didn’t they lose already a couple airplanes due to Gerans?

Both F-16s and Mirages, right?
Click to expand...
Yeah, also MiG-29s. Mirage was mechanical failure IIRC and I don't see a reason to doubt that one based on what's publicly known (after all they admitted it was due to drones in other instances).

I personally think the F-16 was still not a good pick for Ukraine, logstics this and that, yadadada. Ukraine doesn't have the infrastructure and expertise to operate an aircraft that was very much designed to operate most efficiently in the wider NATO and NATO-adjacent framework. Something like a Gripen C or F/A-18C/D would have suited their circumstances far more, after all available MiG-29s were already handed to them.

Imo the best bed would have been to give them F-16s after the war is over, fund and help them overhaul their infrastructure and then you can from the ground up integrate their operations and training into the wider western framework without pressure and the lost jets, lives and money. Because let's be honest, these F-16s aren't doing anything important right now either way. And that was to be expected with the circumstances at hand (rushed training, inexperienced ground crews, terrible environment to operate it, constant threat of drone, missile and air attacks). So I think we can't even be mad at them for not performing, because they never had a chance to utilize these jets in a meaningful way.

While handing them ANG or former USAF F-16 Block 50/52s after the war to familiarize them with NATO equipment, NATO standards, procedures, maintenance, infrastructure and systems would have been a more effective use of the available people, some of which have no sadly passed away with little impact. These people could have undergone the usual length, in-depth training, remained in the US, fly there training and exercises and could have trained a next generation of post-war pilots. It is in every way imaginable unfortunate.
 
eagle said:
Polish F-16 operate from highway: https://theaviationist.com/2023/09/19/route-604-exercise/
Similar to Taiwan and Singapore. All Vipers involved crashed due to FOD. Not.
Click to expand...
"First Highway Strip Exercise In Decades"
You are aware that a pre-planned exercise, with plenty of time to prepare the road, have several aircraft run on it before and not under the pressure of active war fighting isn't comparable, right?

The F-16 in particular is prone to this kind of damage, it's intake is low and from what I gathered has a tendency to create vortices that can suck up debris and lead to FOD ingestion:
an-engine-intake-vortex-forms-on-an-f-16c-fighting-47c065-1024.jpg

For comparison, the early MiG-29s had austere deployments from fields and road in mind, but also low intakes like the F-16. They counteracted this with louvers on top to allow airflow into the engine while the main intakes were closed so that no FOD ingestion could occur:
FpyulpeaMAA9Mmd.jpg
qmi7csg7r1m61.jpg

The Saab Gripen is a more modern example of that philosophy of having a very flexible aircraft that's meant to be operated from literally anywhere, it's intakes are fairly high up: gripen_hun_boden.jpg
 
Last edited:
EmoBirb said:
... I personally think the F-16 was still not a good pick for Ukraine, logstics this and that, yadadada. Ukraine doesn't have the infrastructure and expertise to operate an aircraft that was very much designed to operate most efficiently in the wider NATO and NATO-adjacent framework. Something like a Gripen C or F/A-18C/D would have suited their circumstances far more...
Click to expand...

So the roughly zero available surplus Gripen Cs would have been a better bet than those sub-optimal F-16s then being withdrawn from Dutch, Danish, and Norwegian service? Perfect. Enemy. Good.
 
Apophenia said:
So the roughly zero available surplus Gripen Cs would have been a better bet than those sub-optimal F-16s then being withdrawn from Dutch, Danish, and Norwegian service? Perfect. Enemy. Good.
Click to expand...
Well, other equipment was given to Ukraine without immediate replacement as well, British SPGs for example. But F/A-18C/Ds are more readily available and also more suitable, they can also handle rough landings. Ideal would be MiG-29s for the Ukraine, because they know them in and out. The Indians have couple of 'em, probably would have readily traded them against some Rafales, coalition of the willing, right?

Either way, the F-16 is far from the most ideal choice. And due to that, accidents will mount further than they already do. Luckily there's a thread for such news regarding that particular aircraft...
 
EmoBirb said:
You are aware that a pre-planned exercise, with plenty of time to prepare the road, have several aircraft run on it before and not under the pressure of active war fighting isn't comparable, right?
Click to expand...

You are aware that every runway needs to be prepared for operations? Doesn't matter if it's Heathrow or a highway strip.
If you don't do that, F-16s or any other aircraft will suffer FOD damage.
 
eagle said:
You are aware that every runway needs to be prepared for operations? Doesn't matter if it's Heathrow or a highway strip.
If you don't do that, F-16s or any other aircraft will suffer FOD damage.
Click to expand...
A genuine runway is a more heavily controlled environment specifically meant for the operation of aircraft. A shitty, terribly maintained Ukrainian countryside road is even with prep and several FOD walks less than ideal for a runway queen like the F-16.

It's rather self evident how that could lead to problems, in my opinion. We don't have to artificially inflate the thread with further replies regarding this topic though. Everything that needed to be said, has been said.

Cheerio.

Edit: I toned down the passive aggressive attitude, my apologies
 
Last edited:
Then don't bring it up in the first place. But I agree, no point in arguing.
 
GTX said:
From where exactly?
Click to expand...
Australia retired theirs and the USMC and USN also retired plenty in favor of the F-35. Spare parts situation can't be too terrible given that the type is still operated by the US, Finland, Switzerland, Canada, Malaysia, Kuwait and Spain (3 Operators in Europe).

But as I said, there's no point in arguing further on that front, everything has been said, all points were made.
 
EmoBirb said:
Australia retired theirs and the USMC and USN also retired plenty in favor of the F-35. Spare parts situation can't be too terrible given that the type is still operated by the US, Finland, Switzerland, Canada, Malaysia, Kuwait and Spain (3 Operators in Europe).
Click to expand...
You would be surprised. The spares situation is extremely tenuous.
 
EmoBirb said:
Australia retired theirs and the USMC and USN also retired plenty in favor of the F-35. Spare parts situation can't be too terrible given that the type is still operated by the US, Finland, Switzerland, Canada, Malaysia, Kuwait and Spain (3 Operators in Europe).

But as I said, there's no point in arguing further on that front, everything has been said, all points were made.
Click to expand...

Except there kind of is. Australia never operated the F/A-18Cs. The RAAF retired F/A-18As ... some which went to Canada (along with the spares GTX mentioned). With Canada-US relations are they currently are, there is virtually no chance that ex-RCAF CF188s would go to Ukraine (the will is there, the replacements aren't). Spain is in the same boat, only now seriously looking at replacing C.15s/CE.15s.

Of the other Hornet operators mentioned, who is offering surplus aircraft to Kyiv? No-one that I am aware of. So, we are back to availability again. When that is the case in an existential war, the attacked will fight with whatever they can get. So, UA will operate (and lose) F-16s ... just like the Dutch flew D.XXIs against Bf 109s and the Finns flew Brewsters against superior Soviet fighters. Not ideal but the nation under attack fights back back with what is available.
 
This comparison is strange. F-16 have a good fighting chance against the Su-35, who are the best Russia can offer in significant number to face them. Ukraine just need training in air operation with more than half a dozen of isolated pairs and focus on massive formation package. The M2K and F-16 have very good navigation instrumentation that allow for precise and coordinate deep strikes. Russia is not a nation you defeat on the FLOT with reciprocal attrition.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
This comparison is strange. F-16 have a good fighting chance against the Su-35, who are the best Russia can offer in significant number to face them. Ukraine just need training in air operation with more than half a dozen of isolated pairs and focus on massive formation package. The M2K and F-16 have very good navigation instrumentation that allow for precise and coordinate deep strikes. Russia is not a nation you defeat on the FLOT with reciprocal attrition.
Click to expand...
You're seriously comparing ancient F-16A MLUs, which don't even get the newest AIM-120s available, with a Su-35S that flies around with R-77-1s, R-77Ms and R-37Ms????

Yikes.

The UAF lost F-16s to Geraniums, I think that's enough said.

"Deep strikes" are a death sentence to the F-16 and Mirage. They can't do such a thing, which is also why they hang around in the rear (and still fall out of the sky regardless).
 
Last edited:
GTX said:
You would be surprised. The spares situation is extremely tenuous.
Click to expand...
How so? As in what led to this? Given that the Legacy Hornets are even still used by US (reply in appropriate thread or DM is also welcome).
 
EmoBirb said:
... The UAF lost F-16s to Geraniums, I think that's enough said...
Click to expand...

And are you seriously suggesting that one of your unavailable yet personally-preferred fighters would have stood a better chance while shooting down flying bombs with gun-fire? The RAF lost Spitfire XIVs and Tempest Vs intercepting your ancestor's V1s. Both were excellent aircraft ... unless forced to fire on wingborne explosives!

Personally, I've never been a big fan of the F-16 either. But instead of callously deriding the efforts (and deaths) of others defending their country from attack, you should, at the very least, put forward viable options. Why muse over remaining USMC F/A-18Cs still in service (or why parts are in short supply) when no-one is offering them to Ukraine?

Have you considered, instead, advocating for a German donation of Tornados to Kyiv? And while you're at it, perhaps your MdB should hear your views on donating Luftwaffe Taurus missiles too.
 
Apophenia said:
And are you seriously suggesting that one of your unavailable yet personally-preferred fighters would have stood a better chance while shooting down flying bombs with gun-fire? The RAF lost Spitfire XIVs and Tempest Vs intercepting your ancestor's V1s. Both were excellent aircraft ... unless forced to fire on wingborne explosives!

Personally, I've never been a big fan of the F-16 either. But instead of callously deriding the efforts (and deaths) of others defending their country from attack, you should, at the very least, put forward viable options. Why muse over remaining USMC F/A-18Cs still in service (or why parts are in short supply) when no-one is offering them to Ukraine?

Have you considered, instead, advocating for a German donation of Tornados to Kyiv? And while you're at it, perhaps your MdB should hear your views on donating Luftwaffe Taurus missiles too.
Click to expand...
It's not about personal preference whatsoever, I just stated what aircraft (More MiG-29s, Legacy Hornets or Gripens) would have qualities that make them infinitely more suited to the situation in Ukraine.

Using genuine fighter jets and their guns to shoot down low flying, low speed drones is just pure tactical failure and mismanagement and a disservice to the people that sit in the cockpit. Something discussed at length in the UA F-16 thread and the Anti-Drone thread. Ukraine (and Russia) have found that using helicopters against these low and slow flying drones is safer, cheaper and more efficient. Something like an F-16 has merits when you intercept a Kh-101, but even then you better use missiles for maximum effectiveness, success chance and safety.

Well Kiev allegedly denied an offer by AUS:
https://english.nv.ua/nation/ukrain...-f-a-18-fighter-jet-acquisition-50389361.html
 
Last edited:
FOD intake is an issue for jet aircraft, doesn't matter how low the intakes are. MiG29/Su27 are exceptions with the internal covers.
 

Attachments

  • R.jpg
    R.jpg
    55.9 KB · Views: 79
  • 514f785c96c0fa386c79f340b9cf5bcf--rolls-royce-engines-aircraft-maintenance.jpg
    514f785c96c0fa386c79f340b9cf5bcf--rolls-royce-engines-aircraft-maintenance.jpg
    104.2 KB · Views: 53
  • OIP.jpeg
    OIP.jpeg
    34.3 KB · Views: 76
Poland signs $3.8 billion deal to upgrade F-16 fighter jets:

Polish Defence Minister Wladysław Kosiniak-Kamysz told a news conference that the modernisation work would take place at the Wojskowe Zaklady Lotnicze Nr 2 military aviation plant in the northern city of Bydgoszcz.
"The current capabilities of the F-16 in the CD version are good, but after 20 years, they are insufficient against threats," he told a news conference."
"We must improve reconnaissance capabilities, communication, integration with F-35s, Abrams tanks, and Apaches, as well as the ability to operate in every domain."
Click to expand...

https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...on-deal-upgrade-f-16-fighter-jets-2025-08-13/
 
EmoBirb said:
Who would be the potential users of AShMs carried by F-16s?

I suppose Korea and countries in SEA?
Click to expand...
Bit late, but 'SEA' didn't cover the full potential set of users, which is anyone who has a maritime border. So: Ukraine, Poland, the Gulf States, Israel and Turkey, though Israel and the Turks will probably use something local.
 

Attachments

  • markup_1000031643.png
    markup_1000031643.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 85
  • markup_1000031644.png
    markup_1000031644.png
    4.3 MB · Views: 94
  • markup_1000031639.png
    markup_1000031639.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 88
  • markup_1000031637.png
    markup_1000031637.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 84
  • markup_1000031638.png
    markup_1000031638.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 82
  • markup_1000031642.png
    markup_1000031642.png
    4.3 MB · Views: 75
  • markup_1000031641.png
    markup_1000031641.png
    3.7 MB · Views: 84
Last edited:
EmoBirb said:
You're seriously comparing ancient F-16A MLUs, which don't even get the newest AIM-120s available, with a Su-35S that flies around with R-77-1s, R-77Ms and R-37Ms????

Yikes.

The UAF lost F-16s to Geraniums, I think that's enough said.

"Deep strikes" are a death sentence to the F-16 and Mirage. They can't do such a thing, which is also why they hang around in the rear (and still fall out of the sky regardless).
Click to expand...

the most modern Ukrainian F-16AM/BM is equipped with AIM-120C-5/C-7 and AIM-9X it,s was have like F-16 Block 50/52. R-77M is only used on the new Su-35 Series (Delivery in 2024/2025) and Su-57
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom