Summary: Troops around Kherson are getting hit by about 45 Russian glide bombs a week but Ukraine using F16s and AMRAAM C-5 and C-7 missiles which are 25 years old and widely stocked, could mostly deter them. Roll on the F16s!
Good solid analysis which is well worth reading.
Quote: So assuming Ukrainian air defenses set up around 5 kilometers behind the front lines, the “30 kilometer zone” into which Russian aircraft dare not fly into suddenly makes a lot of sense. The release point distance is not random. It is just at the edge of Ukrainian air defense range.
So how can Ukraine extend that range? The earth’s curvature is fixed, and Russia won’t fly its aircraft at higher altitudes. So the only other variable that can be manipulated is … the height of the radar. And that’s where F-16s come in.
Flying at tree-top heights (150 meters or less), F-16s can remain safe from enemy air defense while detecting Russian aircraft much further than any SAM battery. The difference is massive—tracking an enemy bomber flying at 30 meters, an air defense radar antennae would see the aircraft at a distance of around 40 kilometers, while the F-16 would detect it at 72 kilometers.
The answer now is to give Ukrainian sabotage forces enough advanced drones like Switchblade 600 or Altius 600 to attack the aircraft at their bases. We need to stop rationing these drones. The current state of affairs was entirely predictable. This is what comes from stringing out F16s. Screw stupid pootins F16 red line and screw self rationing.
Some of this article is a bit thin to be honest.
> So assuming Ukrainian air defenses set up around 5 kilometers behind the front lines
This seems unlikely, it would put them well within artillery range. I would expect them to be at least out of tube artillery range.
> Flying at tree-top heights (150 meters or less), F-16s can remain safe from enemy air defense while detecting Russian aircraft much further than any SAM battery. The difference is massive—tracking an enemy bomber flying at 30 meters, an air defense radar antennae would see the aircraft at a distance of around 40 kilometers, while the F-16 would detect it at 72 kilometers.
>
> Therefore, an F-16 flying combat air patrols 30 kilometers from the front lines (to avoid Russian air defenses) with a powerful enough radar would be capable of intercepting a Russian bomber 40 kilometers or more behind the front lines.
The assumption that they’re going to be able to remain safe from enemy air defences flying low-level 30km from the front is unsafe. **Ukraine** (not Russia) has reported losing multiple fighters at extreme low level over 150km away from SAMs, and very likely similar ranges from CAP with R-37.
Note too that flying at such extremely low altitude severely reduces the range at which missiles are effective – the article talks about the possibility of getting AIM-120-C5/7:
> Ukraine may have an easier time finding allies willing to part with their stocks of AMRAAM C5 and C7 missiles, which boast an engagement range of up to 105 kilometers.
But that’s the maximum range, meaning the launch platform would have to be extremely fast and extremely high to reach those ranges. A low level shot would have significantly reduced range – exactly how far is obviously not public information, but I’m sure someone could do the math and work it out…and whatever that reduced range hitting a target at the extreme limit of it is something of a tall order – the likelihood of scoring a hit at that reduced range against a target that dips into it and then immediately turns cold and runs for safety is very, very low.
I think that this is unfortunately an example of over-hype of the F-16’s abilities.
I fear that the use of F-16s is once again being hyped too much. I fear that the Netherlands and other partners will deliver F-16 MLU. Their radars aren’t bad but probably not good enough to hit planes 50km behind the front. Especially when they fly low.
5 comments
Summary: Troops around Kherson are getting hit by about 45 Russian glide bombs a week but Ukraine using F16s and AMRAAM C-5 and C-7 missiles which are 25 years old and widely stocked, could mostly deter them. Roll on the F16s!
Good solid analysis which is well worth reading.
Quote: So assuming Ukrainian air defenses set up around 5 kilometers behind the front lines, the “30 kilometer zone” into which Russian aircraft dare not fly into suddenly makes a lot of sense. The release point distance is not random. It is just at the edge of Ukrainian air defense range.
So how can Ukraine extend that range? The earth’s curvature is fixed, and Russia won’t fly its aircraft at higher altitudes. So the only other variable that can be manipulated is … the height of the radar. And that’s where F-16s come in.
Flying at tree-top heights (150 meters or less), F-16s can remain safe from enemy air defense while detecting Russian aircraft much further than any SAM battery. The difference is massive—tracking an enemy bomber flying at 30 meters, an air defense radar antennae would see the aircraft at a distance of around 40 kilometers, while the F-16 would detect it at 72 kilometers.
The answer now is to give Ukrainian sabotage forces enough advanced drones like Switchblade 600 or Altius 600 to attack the aircraft at their bases. We need to stop rationing these drones. The current state of affairs was entirely predictable. This is what comes from stringing out F16s. Screw stupid pootins F16 red line and screw self rationing.
Some of this article is a bit thin to be honest.
> So assuming Ukrainian air defenses set up around 5 kilometers behind the front lines
This seems unlikely, it would put them well within artillery range. I would expect them to be at least out of tube artillery range.
> Flying at tree-top heights (150 meters or less), F-16s can remain safe from enemy air defense while detecting Russian aircraft much further than any SAM battery. The difference is massive—tracking an enemy bomber flying at 30 meters, an air defense radar antennae would see the aircraft at a distance of around 40 kilometers, while the F-16 would detect it at 72 kilometers.
>
> Therefore, an F-16 flying combat air patrols 30 kilometers from the front lines (to avoid Russian air defenses) with a powerful enough radar would be capable of intercepting a Russian bomber 40 kilometers or more behind the front lines.
The assumption that they’re going to be able to remain safe from enemy air defences flying low-level 30km from the front is unsafe. **Ukraine** (not Russia) has reported losing multiple fighters at extreme low level over 150km away from SAMs, and very likely similar ranges from CAP with R-37.
Note too that flying at such extremely low altitude severely reduces the range at which missiles are effective – the article talks about the possibility of getting AIM-120-C5/7:
> Ukraine may have an easier time finding allies willing to part with their stocks of AMRAAM C5 and C7 missiles, which boast an engagement range of up to 105 kilometers.
But that’s the maximum range, meaning the launch platform would have to be extremely fast and extremely high to reach those ranges. A low level shot would have significantly reduced range – exactly how far is obviously not public information, but I’m sure someone could do the math and work it out…and whatever that reduced range hitting a target at the extreme limit of it is something of a tall order – the likelihood of scoring a hit at that reduced range against a target that dips into it and then immediately turns cold and runs for safety is very, very low.
I think that this is unfortunately an example of over-hype of the F-16’s abilities.
I fear that the use of F-16s is once again being hyped too much. I fear that the Netherlands and other partners will deliver F-16 MLU. Their radars aren’t bad but probably not good enough to hit planes 50km behind the front. Especially when they fly low.