Ukrainian Air Force F-16

Status
Not open for further replies.
Even according to your own links , most of russian losses were of Soviet Era Su-25 and Su-24 and most happened in 2022 , what is being produced and supplied are Su-34 ,30,35 and 57, so fleet is effectively while not growing much in size definetly ,modernising considerably and its seems they are no where close to desperate , as they just started delivering 25 or so Su-35 to Algerians and supposedly couple of Su-57Felons are also meant for Algeria. If you claims would hold up ,these would end up in domestic service.

You are comparing apples and oranges , a country that is 110% reliant on our money for even basic state functions and our supply to keep it in the fight , both money and supply that can or maybe not continue being doled out ,the other one finances itself and develops and manufactures practically everything it needs domestically.


OiYsCLeFWkCpl76KL4fkYrmjgxYi14PqfY6NS5UZ.jpg
 
Last edited:
@Wotan Again this was an F-16 thread and you started posting garbage about Russia that didn’t have any relevance. Going back to the argument, Russia can produce 250-300 helicopters…again try my post carefully instead of repeatedly putting false words in my mouth. As to regards to fixed wing aircraft Russia produces around 30 or so fighters with SU-57 production ramping up, there are other aircraft such as transport or AWACs that are being produced and Russia gets most of its electronics from China, third party countries or produces some itself locally so your argument is void.

As for bombers, yes bombers can destroy F-16s as they carry cruise missiles that hit airfields.

As for the T-55 argument, that is just nonsense. Ukrainians and west west is saying Russia is producing hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles per year so your T-55 argument is a petty attack. Those tanks are almost none existent and used more as fixed artillery than a tank, same thing Ukraine does.
 
Mr.T said:
Even according to your own links , most of russian losses were of Soviet Era Su-25 and Su-24 and most happened in 2022 , what is being produced and supplied are Su-34 ,30,35 and 57, so fleet is effectively while not growing much in size definetly ,modernising considerably and its seems they are no where close to desperate , as they just started delivering 25 or so Su-35 to Algerians and supposedly couple of Su-57Felons are also meant for Algeria. If you claims would hold up ,these would end up in domestic service.

You are comparing apples and oranges , a country that is 110% reliant on our money for even basic state functions and our supply to keep it in the fight , both money and supply that can or maybe not continue being doled out ,the other one finances itself and develops and manufactures practically everything it needs domestically.


View attachment 776258
Click to expand...

On the other hand, we should see up to around 100 ukrainian F-16 next year in operation against the russian invader. if the "air superiority" Su-35 fighters of the russian air force were not able to impose air superiority over Ukraina when all that oposed them were some soviet era Mig-29 and Su-27, what will happen when a decent fleet of F-16 will opose them?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wotan said:
Around 100 russian fighter aircrafts have been destroyed, so 1 in 8 from the total strenght in 3 years.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/03/list-of-aircraft-losses-during-2022.htmlhttps://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-russia-sukhoi-destroys-2091940
Click to expand...

I wouldn't use Oryx as a serious source, given that some "sources" linked are sometimes tweets showing nothing, or pictures that don't show wrecks etc.

Fighterbomber keeps relatively well track of VKS fixed wing losses.
 
Wotan said:
On the other hand, we should see up to around 100 ukrainian F-16 next year in operation
Click to expand...

There aren't even 100 pilots in Ukraine left that would be qualified for the F-16 or comparable aircraft.

The russians aren`t in fact delivering anything, even to their major ally which helped with the Shahed drones...
Click to expand...

Go to the Su-27/30/33/34/35 thread and you'll see that Algeria received shiny, new Su-35s and Su-34s.

Also stay on topic, this isn't a Sukhoi or VKS thread
 
EmoBirb said:
Training takes a looooong time. Unless you want dozens of accidents because of inexperienced pilots (which has been the case so far with Ukrainian F-16s).
Click to expand...

I gather that a lot of the training is being done in Romania as the Romanian airforce has a substantial number of F-16s already.
 
EmoBirb said:
Training takes a looooong time. Unless you want dozens of accidents because of inexperienced pilots (which has been the case so far with Ukrainian F-16s).
Click to expand...
Yes, training a pilot from scratch takes about 2 years.

Conversion training of an already-competent pilot doesn't take anywhere near as long.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, training a pilot from scratch takes about 2 years.
Click to expand...

Also at this point in time hasn't Ukraine had some of its' pilots training to fly on western aircraft for the last two years? In addition to Romania IIRC Ukrainian pilots are also being trained in France and the UK.
 
Well, not considering the pilots trained in other countries, the training center from Romania started the preparation of 14 ukrainian pilots one year ago. Because this is a conversion training, this pilots are probably fighting in Ukraine.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyNk0j3fbWI


The effort is stepping up, over 20 F-16 are beeing asigned now for the training of new ukrainian fighter pilots.
https://www.romania-insider.com/netherlands-donates-f16-romania-center-june-2025
The lenght of the training period is dependent of the previous flying experience of the student. For conversion training it can be 6 months, for a rookie pilot 9 months or more.
https://www.twz.com/this-is-how-long-it-would-really-take-ukraines-pilots-to-convert-to-f-16s
"Yuri Ignat recently told Air Force Magazine that Ukraine has at least 30 pilots with sufficient English-language skills, as well as maintainers, ready to travel to the United States for training if an F-16 deal can be agreed upon.

“To learn the first stage of takeoff and landing and flying from point A to point B, it will take a few weeks, but to learn how to fight on it, to learn how to use missiles, we will take around six months,” Ignat said."

"The F-16 is relatively easy to operate safely, so it’s not too high a barrier to cross for the Ukrainian Air Force. An F-16 pilot told The War Zone: “In a matter of months it’s possible for a non-familiar aviator to be reasonably safe in a jet like the F-16. The systems are easy to operate, the jet is easy to fly, and it’s very intuitive to learn. The Viper is an easy transition for an experienced fighter pilot from a pure flying perspective, no matter what type they are coming from.”"

"The full F-16 Basic Course, also known as the B-Course, is typically a nine-month process for pilots fresh out of pilot training. Broadly it consists of academics, time in the simulator, and live sorties. In addition to B-Courses, the Formal Training Units (FTUs) also run transition courses for pilots with experience in other jets — these are typically far shorter than the full B-Course.

In the case of the B-Course, an initial four weeks of academics teaches students about the systems of the F-16 and emergency procedures. This is followed by around eight simulator sessions covering basic instrument flying and hands-on experience of the various emergency procedures before they progress to the two-seat F-16D for four live flights before a first solo mission. "
 
Last edited:
So, basically, until the beginning of the next year dozens of new ukrainian pilots will be ready to fly the new F-16 being delivered to Ukraine.

After all, I think that the big picture of the conflict and the way how the F-16 are being used in Ukraine is lost. These pilots are not going to wrestle the russian airforce in order to impose air supremacy over russian teritory, but will intercept the cruise missiles and drones which enter the ukrainian airspace, some distance from the frontlines. Flying over the front lines has become a suicidal thing for each of the two combatants.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, training a pilot from scratch takes about 2 years.

Conversion training of an already-competent pilot doesn't take anywhere near as long.
Click to expand...

And you think there are many "already-competent" pilots left just sitting somewhere? The ones that are available are flying Su-24s and 27s.

It's easy to assume that most Ukrainian pilots for the F-16 will be either fresh or previously seen with subsonic aircraft. Which doesn't translate seamlessly into the skill set required to fly something like an F-16 semi effectively.
 
Wotan said:
“In a matter of months it’s possible for a non-familiar aviator to be reasonably safe in a jet like the F-16. The systems are easy to operate, the jet is easy to fly, and it’s very intuitive to learn. The Viper is an easy transition for an experienced fighter pilot from a pure flying perspective, no matter what type they are coming from.”
Click to expand...

Is that why four already managed to fly head first into the ground?

It should be clear by now that rushing through the training regime, be it for pilots or ground personnel, results in unforced accidents and pilots who don't have sufficient experience. One can hardly blame the aircraft itself for this.

Trying to speed run something like fighter pilot training says a lot, and it doesn't say nice things. Especially when it's wholly unnecessary to risk the lives of promising pilots for a shortened timeline when in the grand scheme it's arguably one of the least important things to consider. A handful of old F-16s don't hold frontlines or can hold out under assaults. But vanity projects are certainly among their favorites, Krynky and not retreating earlier from Bakhmut an Avdeevka come to mind.

What that means is, that given the insufficient impact on the overall battlefield, the could just train pilots on a regular timeline and take their time to built a well trained cadre of pilots and ground crews which would lay the foundation for their post war air force. Which is still what they're doing, they're just killing more of their own pilots in the process for nothing.
 
Wotan said:
So, basically, until the beginning of the next year dozens of new ukrainian pilots will be ready to fly the new F-16 being delivered to Ukraine.

After all, I think that the big picture of the conflict and the way how the F-16 are being used in Ukraine is lost. These pilots are not going to wrestle the russian airforce in order to impose air supremacy over russian teritory, but will intercept the cruise missiles and drones which enter the ukrainian airspace, some distance from the frontlines. Flying over the front lines has become a suicidal thing for each of the two combatants.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the F-16 is to lay the foundation for a western oriented Ukrainian Air Force first and foremost. Making logistics and training easier.

If it's just about trying to intercept missiles or drones, there are several aircraft, even prop planes, who can do the same job.
 
Well, Ukraine is at war. The most important thing now is to protect the ukrainian cities and the people who live in them from the swarms of drones and missiles that the russians are throwing daily at them. In certain situations you can use prop planes or even helicopters to down drones (but not cruise missiles) but most of the time fast response time to the incoming threat, sensors good enough to detect small size targets and missiles able to detect small radar or heat signatures are needed. And in this case the F-16 is better than any soviet era aircraft that Ukraine has available.

And in a war situation speed of introductions of new weapons is very important. The russians are not going to wait with the launches of their weapons until all the ukrainian pilots become Erich Hartmann ace levels. A certain ammount of casualities is acceptable in case of war. In fact, only four aircraft losses in almost one year of operations against what used to be considered before the war the second airforce in the world is a quite good result.
 
Last edited:
Wotan said:
On the other hand, we should see up to around 100 ukrainian F-16 next year in operation against the russian invader. if the "air superiority" Su-35 fighters of the russian air force were not able to impose air superiority over Ukraina when all that oposed them were some soviet era Mig-29 and Su-27, what will happen when a decent fleet of F-16 will opose them?
Click to expand...

Its not Ukrainian air force that has at any point been denying air superiority. Its the ground based air defenses which we supply by striping most NATO members of any SAM they might have . F16 supplied to Ukraine are technically ''soviet era'' they are all 80's era early blocks .

So far more Ukrainian jets nosedived into the ground chasing drones than were shot down by Russians . Ukrainian pilots pre war had practicaly minimal flying hours , 3 month NATO flying crash course doesn't make proficient pilots , they will continue to die flying into the ground , this is like WW2 Japan or Germany end of the war poorly trained pilots dying not just from being shot down but from proficiency in flying . This is further compounded by low level sorties needed to catch drones , low level ops are also likely the reason why there are few succesfull ejections as they hit the dirt before they can eject.
 
Wotan said:
A certain ammount of casualities is acceptable in case of war. In fact, only four aircraft losses in almost one year of operations against what used to be considered before the war the second airforce in the world is a quite good result.
Click to expand...

Losing four aircraft and in some cases the associated pilot while engaging kite shaped drones and subsonic cruise missiles is not acceptable, it's not a good look either and certainly an utter waste of the resources involved.

How can one try to downplay losing 4 F-16s to Geraniums and Kh-101 with zero offensive pressure exerted against the intercepting aircraft?

Training pilots cannot be run through to the same levels as infantry, where they throw some guy at the front after 2 weeks. We're talking about incredibly complex, foreign machines. This is borderline negligence and a disservice to the people who have the will to sit in the cockpit for a country they deem worthy of their sacrifice to defend it.
 
Mr.T said:
So far more Ukrainian jets nosedived into the ground chasing drones than were shot down by Russians . Ukrainian pilots pre war had practicaly minimal flying hours , 3 month NATO flying crash course doesn't make proficient pilots , they will continue to die flying into the ground , this is like WW2 Japan or Germany end of the war poorly trained pilots dying not just from being shot down but from proficiency in flying . This is further compounded by low level sorties needed to catch drones , low level ops are also likely the reason why there are few succesfull ejections as they hit the dirt before they can eject.
Click to expand...

Exactly. These poor guys are put in the worst situation imaginable while not having been properly prepared for it.

This is just wasting pilots and jets that could have laid the foundation of their future air force. Yet they just throw these aircraft and people away for one or two Geraniums or missiles...out of several dozens coming in.

It's just not economic and too me it reeks of an operation to "boost morale". Essentially saying "look we use our F-16s for something, isn't that a mighty sign!?" when it's not effective and doesn't tip the scale in their favor whatsoever.

Geranium downed F-16s by simply existing ffs, that cannot be downplayed or presented in a pretty way. It's just really sad and as I already said, I think it's a disservice to the pilots who risk their life for nothing really. Truly another bad look at Ukrainian military leadership.
 
EmoBirb said:
Losing four aircraft and in some cases the associated pilot while engaging kite shaped drones and subsonic cruise missiles is not acceptable, it's not a good look either and certainly an utter waste of the resources involved.

How can one try to downplay losing 4 F-16s to Geraniums and Kh-101 with zero offensive pressure exerted against the intercepting aircraft?
Click to expand...
Well, what we have here is a terror campaign similar with the one made by the Nazis against Great Britany in 19944, using flying bombs. The Nazis used V-1 flying bombs, the russians are using Geranium drones and so on. The british leadership considered that their citizens and their homes must be protected at any cost, and subsequently deployed their best fighters, the Meteor and the Tempest, as interceptors.

During the V-1 flying bomb attacks on Britain, the RAF Fighter Command lost 72 pilots and aircrew members while shooting down almost 2,000 of the flying bombs. The V-1 attacks resulted in 6,184 fatalities and 17,981 injuries in London, Southampton, Portsmouth, and Manchester. Nobody said that those pilots lifes losses is not acceptable...
https://memorialflightclub.com/blog/march-1945-–-end-v-1-flying-bomb-campaign
In a similar period of time the ukrainians lost only 4 aircrafts while hunting for the russian flying bombs.
 
Wotan said:
On the other hand, we should see up to around 100 ukrainian F-16 next year in operation against the russian invader. if the "air superiority" Su-35 fighters of the russian air force were not able to impose air superiority over Ukraina when all that oposed them were some soviet era Mig-29 and Su-27, what will happen when a decent fleet of F-16 will opose them?
Click to expand...

Sorry but I must disappoint you.F-16AM ( just like Mirage 2000-5F) in any but any possible tactical/combat situation has no chance against Su-35S. RuA&SF fighters have absolute air dominance over front region ( front line is about 1200km) and there was no task to dominate of complete Ukr. air space even from the beggining of the SMO.

With constant patrols of the A-50U ( of course they are flying and patrolling) and with MiG-31BM, Su-35S,Su-30SM2 patrolling in the stratosphere (10-12 km) ,there is no or very little chance for survive of the higher flying UkrAF fighters .If you mean that UkrAF fighters can engage Russian combat aircraft from the bigger altitudes ,be convinced that it is an 'mission impossible'.

Wotan said:
Russians shot sometimess several R-37 missiles a day at ukrainian aircrafts, yet still no confirmed kills. I think this missiles are efficient only at big non manoeuvrable tankers or airborne radar aircrafts.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...an-air-force-to-a-standstill/?sh=373e8f7d2741
Click to expand...


For many military analysts and tacticians was very big surprise that one so heavy very long range hypersonic AAM type R-37M can be used against maneuverable air targets like 4th gen/9G-capable fighters.On Dec 2023 ,MiG-31BM shot down MiG-29 with R-37M where launch distance was 125km. On July 2024, Su-35S shot down another MiG-29 also with R-37M where launch distance was staggering 213km. On Feb 2025, Su-30SM2 shot down Su-27 with R-37M and launch distance was 130km.

Stories like F-16AM shot down Su-34 or even Su-35S are stories like about 'Ghost of Kiev' .

About downing the 4th F-16AM ,here are some details from the Russian source :

https://topwar.ru/267162-byl-podsve...nosti-likvidacii-f-16-vmeste-s-letchikom.html
Honestly, UkrAF F-16AM with that Dannish made PIDS+ and ECIPS+ are very capable but only in potential SEAD/DEAD combat missions or potential attacks with long-range stealthy low-flying cruise missiles ,especially with that AGM-158 JASSM.In any possible countering against RuA&SF fighters there will be no chance for the Ukr 'Vipers' ,even Ukrainians know that.
 
Wotan said:
Well, what we have here is a terror campaign similar with the one made by the Nazis against Great Britany in 19944, using flying bombs. The Nazis used V-1 flying bombs, the russians are using Geranium drones and so on. The british leadership considered that their citizens and their homes must be protected at any cost, and subsequently deployed their best fighters, the Meteor and the Tempest, as interceptors.

During the V-1 flying bomb attacks on Britain, the RAF Fighter Command lost 72 pilots and aircrew members while shooting down almost 2,000 of the flying bombs. The V-1 attacks resulted in 6,184 fatalities and 17,981 injuries in London, Southampton, Portsmouth, and Manchester. Nobody said that those pilots lifes losses is not acceptable...
https://memorialflightclub.com/blog/march-1945-–-end-v-1-flying-bomb-campaign
In a similar period of time the ukrainians lost only 4 aircrafts while hunting for the russian flying bombs.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the Geranium is a relatively small drone powered by a moped engine, right? Compared to the V-1 which was more so what we would consider a cruise missile and had performance that exceeded aircraft like the Spitfire in outright speed.

Again, no matter how you try to twist and turn this, it's a terrible look and the destruction of these four aircraft and the deaths of these pilots could have been easily avoided. Ironically enough, Ukraine actually engages the very same munitions in much smarter ways, by using helicopters like the Mi-8 and Mi-24 as well as prop driven aircraft where a gunner shoots at drones while the pilot flies.

So there is precedent for actually engaging such threats with well trained crews and adequate equipment set my Ukraine itself. Which helicopters also being able to loiter longer and overall being lighter on logistics than a completely new to them foreign jet fighter.

UA helicopters successfully engaging a Geranium:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/OKpjVQgw0F
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/EzOJEr6DJg
UA Yak-52 engaging RU drones:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/rOMur6zbta
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/nMPvpDyPdI
My last point on this topic will be that the smart decision would have been to keep the aircraft and pilots in allied countries, train the first guys up, get fresh guys and slowly establish a structure where not only foreign instructors but also your own guys can teach your freshmen, which also would alleviate aspects of the language barrier. Give them time to properly train, to properly get to know the aircraft and how to properly maintain it on their own. And then when all of that is done you could deploy them and they would be vastly more effective and confident. Don't utilize these jets for propaganda driven drone shenanigans, leave that to assets that are much better equipped to deal with these matters. That would have been the smart thing to do. But international backers are domestic actors are impatient and want these PR victories. This resulted in four aircraft lost for nothing and dead pilots. Unfortunate to say the least. God bless 'em.
 
Last edited:
stealthflanker said:
No. Even back in 1970's there exist thought to illuminate the target as late as possible and rely on mid course update to keep the missile on track. This is SARH era. S-300/400 series took the step further with SAGG and GAI scheme where they will only switch to fully illuminate the target maybe few seconds before impact (S-300V for example have mode which to only illuminate in 3-15 seconds before impact).

Then active radar missiles come. This add extra flexibility that you dont need to do continuosly illuminate the target as what it used to be with SARH and its deriviatives, no more one have to have to switch on specific modes for illuminating target as what was customary with SARH missile. Thus enemy RHAWS/RWR may not necessarily indicate "launch". It is of course still have to emit datalink for mid course update but datalink emmission is typically very small, only few Watts or even less, thus even harder to pick by ESM gear. Missile is then can be launched in say "search mode" like TWS then updated regularly, then it reach the range where the seeker goes active and home in. This "A-pole" Range is typically very close that target is expected to be late to react.

That would be how R-37 and R-77-1 or even general Active homing A2A missiles work. SAM with active homing work in similar manner except there will be horizon limit.

If The Su-35 providing designation for S-400 battery, odds are active radar homing 40N6 missiles are used for long range beyond the horizon shot. Su-35 providing designation and tracking, the S-400 then transmit mid course to the 40N6 from launch to when it cross horizon limit and activate its seeker to home into target. There is no need for a 2nd airborne platform.
Click to expand...

When we talk about data-link possibilities ,it will be enough to consider what was MiG-31 capable to do even 45 years ago. With combat mode 'Tandem' ,three MiG-31's in combat /patrol group could launch all of its R-33's in the complete radio-silence mode where only one would track/illuminate all possible targets.It is unknown for now what are the real capabilities of the S-107-1 comm complex with the OSNOD channel of the Su-35S. If I am right, heavy long range SAM type 40N6 is not in the arsenal of S-400 but of S-300V4 ?

Once again, newer AAM's like R-37M and R-77-1 have combined SARH and ARH in the terminal phase.ARH is the main/primary mode where SARH is additional/secondary mode. ARH is working in Ku-band while SARH is working in X-band. As we could see ,R-37M e.g. has RC-channel antenna,then TVM- channel antenna and missile-missile data link antenna.

Btw, it is interesting to note that ex -Dutch F-16AM were only full datalink capable fighters besides USAF F-15C/F-16C during NATO intervention on FRY in 1999.
 
Mr.T said:
Which ever way you spin it , it seems Ukrainan F16 pilot survival rates in accidents against drones are not particulary high , like one of them argentinian non servicable ejection seat issues.Ukrainian f16 are directly from the boneyard, hence practicaly everytime one goes down pilot gets killed.
Click to expand...
Or maybe they are in combat at low level against very small challenging targets with high probabilities of damage to one's own platform in the process.
 
Squirrel said:
Sorry but I must disappoint you.F-16AM ( just like Mirage 2000-5F) in any but any possible tactical/combat situation has no chance against Su-35S. RuA&SF fighters have absolute air dominance over front region ( front line is about 1200km) and there was no task to dominate of complete Ukr. air space even from the beggining of the SMO.

With constant patrols of the A-50U ( of course they are flying and patrolling) and with MiG-31BM, Su-35S,Su-30SM2 patrolling in the stratosphere (10-12 km) ,there is no or very little chance for survive of the higher flying UkrAF fighters .If you mean that UkrAF fighters can engage Russian combat aircraft from the bigger altitudes ,be convinced that it is an 'mission impossible'.

For many military analysts and tacticians was very big surprise that one so heavy very long range hypersonic AAM type R-37M can be used against maneuverable air targets like 4th gen/9G-capable fighters.On Dec 2023 ,MiG-31BM shot down MiG-29 with R-37M where launch distance was 125km. On July 2024, Su-35S shot down another MiG-29 also with R-37M where launch distance was staggering 213km. On Feb 2025, Su-30SM2 shot down Su-27 with R-37M and launch distance was 130km.
Click to expand...
As i just said before, the task of the ukrainian F-16 aircrafts is not to engage the russian airforce over russian teritory and assert air dominance. They are multirole/air defence fighters and their task as used by the Ukrainian Air Force is to defend the cities and military points of interest from the swarms of russian cruise missiles and drones. And, combined with the rest of the ukrainian air defence capabilities, they are doing rather well. The percent of of the attacking russian missiles/drones destroyed is superior for example to what the brits were able to achieve during the Nazi V-1 onslaught during WW2. Around of one quarter of the launched V-1 were hitting targets in populated areas, the rest being either destroyed by the british air defence of falling in unpopulated areas.
And destroying flying bombs was dangerous then and now.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ck-of-the-three-year-war-on-ukraine-kyiv-says"Ukraine’s air force said on Sunday that Russia had fired 477 drones and decoys as well as 60 missiles overnight. While 475 of these were shot down or lost, the onslaught marked the “most massive airstrike” on the country since Russia began its full-scale invasion in February 2022"

"Ukraine’s air force said an F-16 warplane supplied by its western partners had crashed after sustaining damage while shooting down air targets, killing the pilot. “The pilot used all of his onboard weapons and shot down seven air targets. While shooting down the last one, his aircraft was damaged and began to lose altitude,” the air force said on Telegram.

The pilot did not have time to eject, it added."
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf3dHfucoQk



The surprise regarding the AAM R-37M at over 100 km is nonsense. The americans and the iranians were able to obtain this results in the seventies and the eighties, using the AIM-54 Phoenix. Latest american AMRAAMS and european Meteors are able to surpass these results.

Also the affirmation that russian fighter aircrafts have absolute air dominance over front region is not true. Neither airforce has any dominance over the front line area. The modern long range air missile defense systems have made this task impossible. The aircrafts stay tens of km behind the front lines and they are lobing misiles and guided glide bombs from safe distances. Even the A-50 got shot down when they didn`t keep a very safe distance.
 
Last edited:
Wotan said:
As i just said before, the task of the ukrainian F-16 aircrafts is not to engage the russian airforce over russian teritory and assert air dominance. They are multirole/air defence fighters and their task as used by the Ukrainian Air Force is to defend the cities and military points of interest from the swarms of russian cruise missiles and drones. And, combined with the rest of the ukrainian air defence capabilities, they are doing rather well. The percent of of the attacking russian missiles/drones destroyed is superior for example to what the brits were able to achieve during the Nazi V-1 onslaught during WW2. Around of one quarter of the launched V-1 were hitting targets in populated areas, the rest being either destroyed by the british air defence of falling in unpopulated areas.
And destroying flying bombs was dangerous then and now.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ck-of-the-three-year-war-on-ukraine-kyiv-says"Ukraine’s air force said on Sunday that Russia had fired 477 drones and decoys as well as 60 missiles overnight. While 475 of these were shot down or lost, the onslaught marked the “most massive airstrike” on the country since Russia began its full-scale invasion in February 2022"

"Ukraine’s air force said an F-16 warplane supplied by its western partners had crashed after sustaining damage while shooting down air targets, killing the pilot. “The pilot used all of his onboard weapons and shot down seven air targets. While shooting down the last one, his aircraft was damaged and began to lose altitude,” the air force said on Telegram.

The pilot did not have time to eject, it added."
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf3dHfucoQk



The surprise regarding the AAM R-37M at over 100 km is nonsense. The americans and the iranians were able to obtain this results in the seventies and the eighties, using the AIM-54 Phoenix. Latest american AMRAAMS and european Meteors are able to surpass these results.

Also the affirmation that russian fighter aircrafts have absolute air dominance over front region is not true. Neither airforce has any dominance over the front line area. The modern long range air missile defense systems have made this task impossible. The aircrafts stay tens of km behind the front lines and they are lobing misiles and guided glide bombs from safe distances. Even the A-50 got shot down when they didn`t keep a very safe distance.
Click to expand...

I can’t find a single instance were in the Gulf War or Kosovo any kill was made beyond 60km with most being under 50kms and the longest range a Phenix was able to destroy an manned enemy aircraft was 90kms. Anything past that is fairy tales and war propaganda considering the radar technology and lack of real AWACS would have made any kill beyond 100km extremely unlikely at the time. Even in the Gulf War much more advanced missiles often failed to achieve kills well within 50km.

The longest R-37M kill is also well in access of over 200km not 100km.
 
Galaxy said:
I can’t find a single instance were in the Gulf War or Kosovo any kill was made beyond 60km with most being under 50kms and the longest range a Phenix was able to destroy an manned enemy aircraft was 90kms. Anything past that is fairy tales and war propaganda considering the radar technology and lack of real AWACS would have made any kill beyond 100km extremely unlikely at the time. Even in the Gulf War much more advanced missiles often failed to achieve kills well within 50km.

The longest R-37M kill is also well in access of over 200km not 100km.
Click to expand...
This long range kill might be as well propaganda...
The russians are a big weapons exporter. Painting nice the stuff might help with sales.
 
Well, the range of the kill still needs to be verified from an independent source. Other sources give the effective range at 80 miles or so. And the R-37M it is not very successful either, sometimes with multiple launches per day without kills, but it is a deterrent that helps keeping the ukrainian aircrafts at some distance beyond the frontline.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...ian-pilots-know-how-to-dodge/?sh=35fabbfc7efc
We need not to forget that these long range missiles are propelled by the means of a rocket engine, which means that after the initial acceleration the missile goes ballistic, not being able anymore to perform significant high-g terminal maneuvers. The significant exception is the european Meteor, which has a throttleable ramjet.

The R-37M victims were old soviet aircrafts which were missing the necessary warning and electronic countermeasure methods. The F-16 might have already be upgraded regarding this threat, the ukrainian have seized R-37M missiles sent them for analysis to the allied forces.
https://www.hngn.com/articles/24675...reckage-r-37m-russian-missile-used-attack.htm
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/ukraine-f-16-electronic-warfare-us-air-force/
The success period of the Mig-31/R-37M missile seems to be gone, the ukrainian aircrafts are back on the frontline since months, operating with impunity.
https://wesodonnell.medium.com/in-j...d-numerous-russian-command-posts-d20dd0b58b31
 
Locked. Pointless bragging and chestbeating from both sides largely unrelated to topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom