How will F-16 impact the war in Ukraine?
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 07. 2023
- Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, Android or iOS:
💥con.onelink.me/kZW6/aip72z0d
Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days
Ukraine getting the F-16s is a matter of when, not if. But what sort of impact can the F-16 have on the battlefield? Our latest video will explore how might the F-16 be used against Russian forces. How might it do in air to air combat and in the air to ground domain?
Why is Ukraine unlikely to operate 100 F-16s?
• Why is Ukraine unlikel...
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestinic.com
If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.
More here: / binkov
You can also browse for other Binkov merch, like T-Shirts, via the store at our website, binkov.com
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / @binkov
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov
Suggest country pairs you'd like to see in future videos over at our website: www.binkov.com - Zábava
Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, Android or iOS:
💥con.onelink.me/kZW6/aip72z0d
Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days
Make video malaysia vs philippines
I feel endlessly bored watching the US send tanks to Ukraine with a jet once (try him to give 1 nuclear bomb) there will definitely be no more war
I'm so sick of people suggesting a Chinese military invasion is imminent on the US. Russia couldn't even successfully invade a country they share a border with. And Ukraine is only the size of Texas. Can you do a video on the absurd notion of imminent invasion.......oh😒and we are not under any form of Mexican occupation from millions of invaders.
With things like R37M, why can't we put an automatic engagement autopilot system which acts like a Phalanx AA system to intercept oncoming BVR missiles, on to fighter platforms.
Since evasion is unlikely, and human instinct is too slow. Let the computer do it. The guns on fighters are now going to be far more valuable.
They cannot supply Ukraine with enough artillery ammunition, let alone something else.
It's not the F16'S - it's the weapons systems that they can carry.
Exactly
however the weapons that it carries will be virtually useless without the necessary updated electronics and radars. Those weapons may miss its targets or may even hit as friendly fire
LoL, the planes 40 years old.
Crank up the factorys invincible dollar.
Not really. They jury rigged HARM missiles onto soviet aircraft for example, but this limits the capabilities of the missiles. The aircraft is an extension of the weapon it fires. Its hardware and software is what makes the weapon.
@@noneshereyeah Russians use this thing called “upgrades” which is why something like a T-80 isn’t using just T-80 tech anymore. F-16’s have also been upgraded. Just about everything inside that frame and even the frame itself is modernized.
F-16’s have many superior qualities to the current aircraft Ukraine uses. And with better integration and more variety in the ammunition it can fire the overall capabilities of F-16’s bring a lot to the table, not to mention that they can be replaced while Russian aircraft cannot be replaced or captured that easily from Russia (although looking at Russia’s track record of losing vehicles to capture, they might try).
But I think that is too nuanced for you.
The big problem isn't training pilots it is training mechanics and maintenance crews. Each plane requires a lot of highly skilled manpower to keep it flying that arguably is more demanding and time consuming to fill out the ranks of a single ground crew of specialized mechanics and maintenance personnel, and other specialists, and fully train them to a level of competency than it is a full squadron of pilots.
The real problem is f16's would be picked off the sky... There isn't a wonder weapon that can overturn this war. Russians dug deep in defensive lines and the best possible scenario would be for Ukraine to accept loss of territory and move on.
@@vanjamenadzer Well those guys in the trenches get to start trying to dodge artillery delivered cluster munitions now. So we will see how that goes.
@@socket_error1000 Same could be said about advancing UA troops.
The war is going to be over before the F-16 maintenance crews are ready. And even if they had the 20-ish pilots they think they can train on F-16s trained up and ready to fly tomorrow, they wouldn't be going on combat missions. Everyone is already looking ahead. Ukraine needs to switch over to NATO equipment in the post-war environment, and these F-16s will be the start of a training cadre. If they fly at all (would require foreign maintenance, so I doubt it), it will be in the northwest of Ukraine, away from the combat, getting in flight hours and experience with the jets so they can turn around and teach other Ukrainians how to fly further batches of F-16s after the war. There will still be a Ukrainian state after this, albeit a smaller one, and they will be using NATO hardware in the future so they must learn how to use it and be ready for the next war. Because we all know that Russia will invade again sometime after 2033, the next time there's a weak Democrat in the White House. Potentially Ukraine might actually be well equipped and able to fight when that happens, to prevent the further loss of territory. It will really depend on the political will of Europeans to keep offloading their older hardware to a country that isn't still being invaded. The next American president in 2025 isn't going to be sending billions Ukraine's way, so it will just be a European effort.
@@fakecubed Keep dreaming. You seem to think you know a lot about US politics but do you realize the GOP has lost the popular vote in every presidential election since 2008? Even Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million to Hillary Clinton! And more than 70 million to Biden! He is not getting back in the White House with felony indictments piling up against him.
In soviet times usage of roads as airstrips was part of road design. Near Kharkiv a part of highway built in 1980s was later well known for having suspiciously good quality and being perfectly straight 5 km long line almost exactly north-south. That one is too close to border, but there has to be others and many of them.
That's the highway to the border, right?
In the United States it’s called the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System and it’s for Strategic Air Command and landing B-52 bombers for nuclear delivery as a second strike option. 1 out of every 5 miles is perfectly straight.
@@PhilipCripe I meant circle around the city, west-northwestern part. But road to border may be another one, havent visited it too often.
@@tonyroberts7481source?
@@musicmann7891 source - trust me bro
This is one of the best in-depth analysis videos on the channel. Great job, guys.
Incroyable.
F-16's don't require a very long runway. I would deploy them on roads and highways for sure.
No. F16's would not be flying from roads, since they are simply not built rugged enough for this. Improvised airbases and F16 do not go well togheter. Ukrainian airforce has survived this long for two reasons, because they have gotten a lot of old Soviet planes from NATO countries and because its homebases are in countries like Romania and they use temporary bases only when going for a mission. The casualy rate of Ukrainian pilots (and thus also planes) is 80%, so i would not call this "surviving". More like limping on for a suicde mission every now and then.
The only semi-effective plane Ukraine still operates is the SU24 since it has been modififed by UK to fire storm shadow cruise missiles (thus UK is direct guilty party to this war and deserves anything Russia responds to it in the future).
@@user-dp4ok9ox5w"Russia responds " they couldn't even take on Ukraine and you think Britain is scared of them?
The west is hesitant to send F16 simply because they will be blown out of the skies by Russian formidable defense systems had this being a war against a lesser opponent like Irak or Afghanistan Nato would have no problem using this war planes,
I think the legacy F/A-18 Hornets from Finland &/or Australia are better suited for the particular conflict
>More missles
>More modern tech
>Stronger landing gear [Finish use them from Highways & long roads like the Swedish do with the Gripen]
>Lower radar signature
>Equal to the F16 in the air more or less, but better at ground attack
>Could potentially get updates or newer weapons still being made for the USN's new Super Hornets
Oh & less maintenance
& 2 jet instead of 1 like the F16
yea, but the F-16 is 'cheap'
But f18 is less available in Europe. And infrastructure for f16 is also way bigger in Europe
@@dindrmindr626are you going to elaborate, or just make snide remarks?
You seems to forget about the FOD on the highway. F16 intake is really low, MiG-29 and Su-27 can use auxiliary air intake on top of the plane for take off
If they have to sweep it first there are tractor attachments for that. And Ukraine is not in need of neither tractors nor farmers willing to show up when called upon.
Indeed FOD limitations of F16 will greatly reduce the number of airstrips suitable for the operation of F16 to couple of dozen at best
so ukraine can just put in a program of FOD removal. station tractors and sweepers in the trees along the highways. a sweeper is pretty cheap when talking about military vehicles. 50k for a sweeper is totally doable. and used ones might be very cheap. and ukraine has been paving alot of highways since 2014 in anticipation of their use as runways.
Airstrips will be a far smaller problem for ukraine then imagined by some people.
It's easy to say "well russia will simply destroy ukrainian airstrips" but nobody seems to concider if russia even has resources to spare to fly daily sorties to keep dozens of airstrips out of operation. If they can actually even touch them.
They certainly don't have the missiles to do it, concidering interception rates.
Or if it would even be worth spending their limited resources on for russia.
Airstrips are notoriously easy to repair.
Regardless of all this the F16 will change nothing
To little to late the lines are drawn
I don't think much will change in the air. F16 will mostly be a trucking platform to drop the vast array and amounts of precision ordinance available to it.
Relieving presure on things like storm shadow which still are limited resources.
They will engage targets of oppertunity when they get the chance ofcourse, but i doubt they will be used to try and create air superiority. At least while numbers are still limited and pilots and controlers are still relativly new to the system and it's tactics.
F-16 are needed to destroy ruzzia bases at mountains of Crimea and Donbass
@@toha1729 ..You think is that easy? you think Russians are afghan goat herders with nothing but rifles?
@@toha1729 I bet that the F-16s transferred to Ukraine will be destroyed in their hangars immediately after they are delivered, like any other equipment brought to Ukraine, Russia will not even have to fly into Ukraine to do this
exactly a lot of people think the pilots are being trained for dogfights, i think they will be told to avoid every dog fight possible they'll use them for ground and sea targets, especially for artillery storage facilities , this will force russia to push some of its storages and equipment way beyond the frontline which will cause a logistic problem.
Hey Binkov there is also talk of Ukraine getting the recently retired Australian F-18's.
Could you do a video comparing the pros and cons of those F-18's with a similar number of F-16's made around the same time period? Thanks!
Great Idea
F-18's have multiple advantages. They are easier to procure as there are a lot more not in use that have decent life left. They are far more suited to Ukranian airfields with more robust landing gear and higher intakes compared to big mouth F-16's. They are also easier to replace with super hornets which would allow them to modernize over time with the ability to acquire electronic attack aircraft as well. F-18's are a far more realistic acquisition for Ukraine
Spain will also retire 20 f18 soon
It's possible, but the unfortunate fact is that the F/A-18 is scheduled to end production before long (and that's the Super Hornet version, not the legacy edition) and it'll have a dwindling pool of spare parts and experienced maintainers available for their use.
@@zimbabwesteve4620Super Hornets are going to cease production soon unless India goes ahead. The Super Hornet was never a thought for Ukraine.
I think the bigger impact is freeing up air defense for front lines.
Russia regularly send random waves of cruise missiles at Ukrainian cities, forcing some UAF air defense to stay back.
But with fighters to chase cruise missiles, air defense can focus on the front.
Or vise versa, air defenses can be concentrated to protect infrastructure even further while strike aircraft can better support offensive pushes and take out artillery, hardened positions, logistic routes, and drone launchers.
It could be that the F16s that Ukraine is getting are based in Romania so Russia can't touch them. Only stopping on some improvised road airways to fuel up and re arm and when the sortie is done they return to the safety of a neutral airbase in Romania
Air defence will likely be the first type of mission it's used for as Ukraine starts to use the F-16, then using Aim-120's Ukraine can perform air patrols to try and force back the closer ranged standoff munitions russia uses. Hitting Su-24's trying to deploy gluide bombs, and Ka-52's performing sorties against Ukrainian columns. Then riskier SEAD using the full capabilities of HAARMS to destroy Russian SAM's near the front lines, especially those meant to stop HIMARS and storm shadows. Next frontline air support, done using Mavericks and Paveway's once Russian Aviation and SAM's have been pushed back.
This won't fix the risk of Russia's longest range missiles but those are likely similar in agility to the Phoenix and missile and dodgeable to any aware pilots.
@@Vepaman Even though their is precedent for such a thing happening in previous wars. Even though I would like to see that I am highly doubtful of that outcome due to how that would work geopolitically.
@@Vepaman that would make romania a legitimate target and russia would probably strike the air bases used to hit russian targets.
In the Documentary Iron Eagle the F16 can single handedly conduct SEAD, hostage rescue, and dogfighting with only 1 month of training for a teenager.
That is funny, and I believe it
its an excellent documentary
As former pilots have said before, the F16 can be a hot rod MIG 22 if you fly it as such.
I believe you 🤡
I think the single biggest impact the F-16 COULD have is in the SEAD/DEAD roll using the Harm Targeting System to slew targeting pods to the location of SAM sites for prosecution with either HARM or JDAM/SDB/CBU-105, etc... This "front line SEAD/DEAD" could mean better CAS for front line pushes.
This video completely skipped over that, but training Ukrainians to use their F-16's to hunt down Russian SAM sites is probably the single biggest thing they get out of them. If they can knock out enough of those air defense systems, they could start performing CAS the right way.
That's not a mission people will be volunteering for.
Feels like a suicide mission.
@@fatdaddy1996 I mean, no - it's inherently unsafe. You have to tease the SAM sites to turn on their radars. However, with the proper equipment, it would make a HUGE difference in Ukraine's ability to operate near the front.
Block 20 MLU Vipers do not have the HARM integration and RWR capability in the Block 50/52 models. So unfortunately, right now it looks we are not sending Ukraine Weasels.
They can use standoff weapons to take down SHORAD, but won't go play chicken with an S-400.
@that.schamp I don't know where you are reading that MLU can't use HARM or has a worse RWR... it uses the same exact AN/ALR56M RWR and has the same MMC as the Block 50/52 F16C...
The only real difference between a block 50 and a block 20 MLU is the 20 started life with less reinforcement of the airframe, which was added in later during the MLU upgrade. The whole point of the MLU program was to update block 15 and block 20 voters to the Block 50 standard without forcing European countries to pay for all new aircraft.
Hell, the MLU has two full color MFD displays while the original block 50s didn't.
It was reported that Australia the US and Ukraine were negotiating for a total of 41 F/A 18 hornets Which would be a great fit because of the robust landing gear would be good for landing on a highway
Source?
If the F/A-18s dropped like flies in the sky, I hope my country will not buy super hornets and opt for Rafales instead
@@ViolentCabbage-ym7ko F-18s have a long record of good performance, and how do you know that Rafales would do any better than F-18s in Ukraine?
@@Djamonja Just look at the specs. F/A-18 is a medium weight multirole fighter that was originally designed at a lower the cost to complement the expensive, heavy F-15 multirole fighter
@@ViolentCabbage-ym7ko Ok...
they have less and less su-24 every day, they need new more capable platform for storm shadow, for example
F-15EX would be the best replacement for Su-24 and Su-27. Block 3 Super Hornets to replace the rest.
@@stupidburp why would the US ever do that
WARTHOG FOR UKRAINE WARTHOG FOR UKRAINE
Like the HIMARS, the INLAWS, The Bradleys; The Stingers, the Patriots, the Cluster bombs, the Challengers, and all the other supposed game changer weapons, it really won't change much.
Himars, stingers, NLAWS, javelins, patriots certainly changed a damn load.
Himars completely rearranged Russian logistics and allows Ukraine to do long range effective counter battery fire
Stingers, nlaws, javelins are responsible for the massive amount of Russian vehicle losses and the effective Guerilla warfare in the beginning of the war.
Patriots, nasams and IRIS gave Ukraine the ability to intercept cruise and ballistic missiles, the interception rate is sky high compared to the beginning of the war. Hell they shot down 5 Russian aircraft within Russia in one day using a patriot battery.
Just because Ukraine isn’t in crimea already doesn’t mean Russia isn’t having a shitshow with this war.
You must be really stupid to assume that all those haven't changed the war 😂
An m2 bradley took out a t-90
A leopard took out two russia tanks, likely a bunch of t-72's
Shadow missiles are sinking warships, and those new french missiles are putting work.
@@greg1046про 5 самолетов это только украинцы сказали, у них чем хуже дела тем они больше са олетов сбивают
Love the no BS straight forward unbiased info.
Irony😂
@@pinworm9 Yes we can see the great success of Russian air force
Well US just approved cluster bombs, they will certainly be used with F16s.
Ukrainians cannot use bombs. Their planes are not allowed to the front. The Russians have too strong air defense and aviation.
And the Ukrainians especially the NAFO bots will play the victim card again if Russia bomb Kiev and Lviv with cluster munitions.
Guess what also will be used? S-300 and S-400 systems. It’s not the same as the sightseeing with the occasional bombs on villager’s from 10000 feet. But yeah, this time the F-16 will be a real game changer, right?
Other nations don't use cluster bombs
@@ironkcoony You do realise that a plane gets an audio warning when a missile is fired, and those SAMs are at least 200km away, by the time they get to the planes original position the plane will be long gone, unless the plane is inside the MAR there's little those SAMs are going to do.
you forgot one thing , russian Air-borne early warning radar aircraft also can cover most of ukraine landmass by just flying inside belarus border
So does the US , ours are better
@@peterbaker8443 Not really and the ranges are shorter for the Russians.
Thanks for the laugh it's raining here.
@@peterbaker8443 being better than something that already does almost at maximum coverage is irrelevant.
You can't even target a Himars lmfao
Consistently thorough information. Thank you. 😎
The impact F16's could have depends on a lot of factors. Things like the number of craft supplied, available ammunition numbers and types, the amount of trained ground crew and pilots and that is before looking at the availability of fuel, safe storage, logistical capabilities and runways.
And which Tech would be allowed to stay in these jets.. Israel was ready to give Ukraine their top of the line fighters, but the US said no can do without basically stripping them down to nothing
im wondering as atacms was promnised now and it could be attached to mig29 now in use there, that how critical is airframe alone? im thinking all manufacturing queues for everything western now, coz those are nice weapons but slow to produce in high numbers.
The US has centered doctrine around air power, there is no shortage of air weapons.
The west is hesitant to send F16 simply because they will be blown out of the skies by Russian formidable defense systems had this being a war against a lesser opponent like Irak or Afghanistan Nato would have no problem using this war planes....
U like so many seem to have missed a very big problem, Russia. Russia has some of the longest range and most capable sams in the world
Can't believe just moments ago I asked for you to address this very subject! Thanks. Major fan of you and your channel.
I know there just arent enough of them to make it possible, but i still believe the Gripen (especially the E) would be the perf3ct plane for Ukraine. From it's weapons package, ability to operate from small, primative runways, and their great EW systems, everything screams "Ukrainian hit-and-run" to me.
would be nice to send those with meteor missiles
@bensig13766 I totally agree. Unfortunately, Sweden only has approximately 95 of them.
No, because nato needs to support it, not just one nation, only USA can solo support anything
It's mostly a cost-benefit issue. F-16s aren't just more numerous, they're a fraction of the cost. Gripens currently cost even more than F-35s, not to compare to these old, used, ready-to-retire F-16s.
I agree, though. The F-16C is a highly capable platform, but the Gripen is basically a 4 1/2 gen fighter, far surpassing it. An equal number of Gripens would be a game changer.
I think Ukraine will get f16, f18, and gripen.
Mig-29s and SU-27s are dying, AFU has gotten all the remaining airframes and parts they are going to get from the allies. No matter the performance advantages, of any of the aircraft involved, the AFU gets a airframe that is plentiful, cheap (comparable), and very flexible (multi-role, variety of weapons systems, LINK), the point Binkov makes at the end. I don't think even the AFU thinks they are anywhere near air superiority, they just want to remain a thorn in RusAF side for the foreseable future. The clock is ticking on maintaining Migs and SUs in the AFU.
Ukraine may be retiring all solvent planes by the end of 2024.
Great video, I can only see “Growling Sidewinder” seeing this video followed by saying “hold my beer”🤣
Good comprehensive analysis. TY
Full functionality of agm 88 harm missiles is really significant from what I can gather. This opens up a whole arena for destroying russian Sam assets
I was kinda surprised how well the AGM-88 performed in Ukraine. I thought that they would only be able to harass russian air defenses but the Ukrainian proved me wrong. Turns out that the russians were exaggerating about the capabilities of their systems and decades old western technology was able to destroy some of the best stuff in the russian arsenal.
@@mr.nemesis6442 Where can I read more about this?
@@Oldsmobility98 there’s no official publication but the russians themselves have posted pictures of destroyed S-400 radars on telegram. There’s video of AGM-88s striking russian air defenses located in Belgorod and russian military bloggers themselves have claimed that AGM-88s have been a major headache for the russians. While you can wipe your ass with the kremlin’s statements, the russian military blogger have been pretty honest about the realities on the ground so far. They were complaining about Ukrainian military buildups around Kharkiv last year before the offensive.
@@Oldsmobility98Your mums house.
@@mr.nemesis6442 and keep in mind they were without most of their functionality because they couldn’t talk to the plane the way they are designed to. If agm88 is used with an f16 they will have their full capabilities. Best case scenario they wrestle out air superiority as a result.
F16 is like a giant vacuum cleaner. Those roads need to be in good condition to be used.
Fair point. I wish the Ukrainians luck
Good point
Sweeping attachments for tractors are a thing, and they're available in absurd quantities from the Nordics. The Ukrainians have no shortage of neither tractors nor farmers willing to answer when called upon. It is really the most stupid non-issue everyone likes to bring up. It's not like they suck in everything under a kg from 20 meters away.
With a 2.5m rotary brush on a tractor doing 40km/h it really doesn't take long to prepare a 1500 meter improvised runway. 4 trips back and forth in total, with a bit of path overlap and you have an 8 meter wide lane that is clear of everything except the tiniest grains of sand.
@@andersjjensen sweeping doesnt help when the f16 pulls up the pavement.
@@andersjjensen ok, good point, however, will these jets really make any difference at all to the conflict? Each pilot requires months of training and huge resources on the ground for maintenance and support etc etc… my feeling is that coke sniffing money grabbing Zelensky would be better off negotiating a settlement rather than dragging the rest of Europe into a nuclear conflict… glad I’m living in the South Pacific now 👍👍👍
Great video. Many thanks. From Ireland
There are two critical components lacking in the MLU Viper: Long range air-to-air and Weasel configurations. Without these capabilities, the impact will be limited. Beneficial, but limited.
The Vipers will have two key impacts : opening more opportunities for low level attacks near the front line by suppressing SHORAD with standoff weapons and pushing on Russian CAP. This makes them an important force multiplier for Ukraine's existing inventory. Vipers will also be able to effectively limit access to the front by Russian attack aircraft, including helicopters. The ability to cover advancing troops from behind the front may the the most important capability they bring right now.
There are two unsolved problems I see. The first is MIGs lobbing R-37's from behind enemy air defenses. The F-16's improved RWR will mean that they will have a _very_ low PK with each R-37, but very low isn't 0. Unless Russia runs out of R-37's, Ukraine will continue slowly losing aircraft to this threat. Just a single squadron of Meteor capable aircraft like Typhoon (or ideally Gripen) would heavily mitigate this problem.
And of course, the Block 20 vipers aren't going to go play chicken with an S-400. You need a 50/52 for that.
So we still will not see penetrating strikes that wreck enemy logistics and c&c, and we will still see slow attrition from long range interceptors. These old Vipers will be a huge help, but they won't be a game changer.
@that.schamp I was thinking too of Meteors! But can F-16 carry it?
@@ardeleandan7 No, the Meteor has never been integrated on the F-16, and I expect it would be difficult to integrate on any US jet other than the F-35.
For the MLU vipers Ukraine is likely to get, the old radar really isn't worthy of the Meteor, anyway. Not until you get to the Block 50 or other models with an AESA radar would it really be capable of tracking targets at the Meteor's outer range.
It's a shame that US jets are unlikely to get Meteors. F-15E's with their monster radar and Meteor missiles would be OP interceptors. The AIM-260 is cool and all, but the Meteor is a ramjet instead of a boost-and-coast missile, and that gives the Meteor a huge advantage and effective range against a maneuvering target.
It will impact the same way Leopards and Bradley's 'swept away' Russian defenses and reached Tokmak in a week and Melitopol in a month as was 'predicted'.
Nobody actually credible predicted this. A year of preparation and a mobilization doesnt make for an easy offensive, and no air superiority doesnt help.
@@frf5000
Guess all the CZcamsr videos about how X game changer would perform and smash through checkpoints no longer exist.
Prigozhin and his friends are coming, RU is going to be looking in the wrong direction
I believe any weapon given to Ukraine is a “game changer” just because it’s a weapon they didn’t have but that just how I think
@@ramblingthroughhistory so true. Not like men die in and around those things as they get wrecked.
F16s can't be flying high as well, Ukraine isn't the only one to have air defences, Russia might have air defenses near the border and occupied areas, but even in Belarus, they could also attack in a low flying manner from Belarus well within s400's cover, so there's still much less room for ukrainian airforce to breathe.
F16s handled s300s in Iraq quite well.
@@corvanna4438 a few export model s300 isnt comparable to the hundreds of thousands s300/s400 russia fields
@@akid1263 lol no s300 or s400 is any good. Those systems are being outperformed by Patriots, NASAM and IrisT.
@@corvanna4438 That is like saying the US handled the export T-72's in Iraq well. Ukraine isn't going to be against ancient cold war missiles, they will be up against the latest that the Russian's have, designed to shoot down US aircraft. The F-16 will not survive that environment. I don't even know why people think they will be a game-changer. We all saw how that worked out with the Leopard 2's.
@@SpenzOT the Russian equipment clearly is not performing better in Ukraine. Russian Air defense is getting shredded by Western made weapons. When Russian pilots, flying Russian jets, fought Isreal, flying American jets, the Russian jets got wrecked. Russian technology is inferior and always has been.
There is one thing you are not considering. If NATO AWACS planes are used for missile guidance that instantly turns them into legitimate targets as well. One thing is airspace surveillance and another completely different is missile guidance. NATO might not risk escalation and just remove or disable Datalinks from the F-16s.
No way Russia would risk it. By that same reasoning, Russia would have taken out NATO or US military satellites on day one. They didn't.
@@technokicksyourass one thing is surveillance, another completely different is missile guidance.
Already being used in that mode
@@bartunthegreat2999AWACS can do 2/3 of job
F16 can radar iviblevbut can see incoming planes Nd missy.
It can the start up radar and handle the last third part it can then disappear again
The Soviets aided North Vietnamese air defense TREMENDOUSLY! They guided the missiles as well. Their spy ships notified the North Vietnamese of incoming Naval all the time.
Someone needs to look into an air based airdefense/missile interceptor platform. Radar on the ground & drones carrying short range interceptors. This would allow interceptors to be cheaper & have better reaction times. A fleet of slow moving, high payload loitering over an area to supplement normal SAM.
Conbined arms kills in so many ways! The F=16 can haul a big load of weapons !
Russia used S300! It's super effective! F15 fainted!
24:14. It is not about pilots. It is about mechanics. You need 10 highly trained mechanics per f-16. If high fly rate it is 20 mechanics. So... where are these 2000+ mechanics training right now? The alternative is WW3 and we let the planes repaired, arm, and fuel in Poland. But that is the crazy nose dream.
There are enough crazy people in power around the world to entertain that nose dream.
@@tbirdpunk yeah bro, unfortunately..
You can get mechanics with CDI/QA by hiring contractors. To fully outfit 12 F16s with ground personal would take 200-300 intermediate, another 200-300 depot maintenance. Then the jet fuel infrastructure. We can do it, the United States do this all the time.
They have doubtless been in training since early in the war. As someone already commented here contractors can be hired and people have been practiced at maintaining the F16 for years.
It is an aircraft that has most certainly had the kinks worked out.
Maybe the most reliable of America’s active fighters.
All of these are available in Poland.
Good talk, i fell asleep fast asmr vid recommendation. Txs YT.
Great video!
Hey guys....
I've got some old inventory over here and I don't know what to do with it.
Any ideas how I can use it up?
Why yes we do!
"How much will pouring a glass of water on an inferno help?"
Not at all. Ukraine will lose this war. And the military industrial complex wants to suck up every bit of tax dollars it can.
Ukraine is winning the war Russia is in for it it's their Vietnam and after awhile they will not want to spend so much money and pution is losing his power
Waaaa
Thanks for sharing.
One thing not mentioned in this video is the possibility of needing some upgrading them to fly and fight in unprepared runways and fields.
Guerilla air bases…🤯 F-16s aren’t really perfect for Ukraine, but this kind of plan is really making great use of the size and versatility.
Sparrows are still very useful versions for short term weapons. In dogfights, these might be very effective with new brighteye laser tracking. Smaller can mean more and more effective for Ukraine.
great video, cheers.
“Get the hell out of dodge.” Somebody has been consuming good ‘ole USA media
We heard so much about Leopard tanks and we all know how it ended.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, denies it’s a duck, demands you prove it's a duck, accuses you of being a duck, says your dog is a duck, that your friend's cat is a duck & that all 3 'ducks' are Russophobic ducks paid to be crisis actors, it’s a Kremlin duck.
@@stevedegeorge726 That's a really weird way to say the Leopard tanks were next to useless.
@@berserkasaurusrex4233they're as useless against artillery and modern ATGM's as any other tank in existence except better crew protection unlike the Russian space programs.
It hasn't ended. They are tanks and still doing what tanks do on the battlefield, they are better than vintage Russian tanks but the difference isn't that consequential to the overall war effort.
I think one moderately overlooked aspect of the delivery of F-16's to Ukraine is that there are a large number of both Pilots as well as Maintenance Crews from NATO countries willing to go over to Ukraine and support and fly those jets.
Why would people go to ukraine to maintain F-16's when they would be setting ducks on the ground..
@@vip01 Comrade, you funny. If Russia is hunting Ukrainian air assets, how come they have not been able to find and destroy them 18 months after the start of the war?
Those Ukrainian air bases are the single most protected sites in Ukraine. Way more protected than even major cities like Kyiv. Also, those jets are moved and rotated regularly so that they are very difficult to find. They are never in the same place two times in a row. The reason people are going to go over there is because Russia NEEDS to be defeated. I can tell you that I have already fought in two wars and I am going to go over to Ukraine to fight in my third. I'm not young enough to fight on the front lines and would likely have been more of a drain on resources had I gone over there at the start of the war, but my skill-set is going to be in very high demand within the next 6 - 12 months (or so) and I will do my part to make sure that the Soviet Union (Russia) is finally destroyed once and for all. GO, GO, GO Ukraine!!!!!
@@yuckfoutube6245 If you think that Ukraine can defeat Russia, then you're naive beyond comprehension. Russia will win and NATO will choke with Russia's terms.
The cobra maneuver eas developed to render the radar lock missiles ineffective do to negation of doppler effect needed by radar guided missiles.
I heard a fascinating perspective on the cluster bombs being sent over. Supposedly, they are not great at clearing trenches so perhaps what would actually happen is they would be taken apart for their smaller munitions to be dropped by drone. Thoughts?
They will be used to deny reinforcements + hinder withdrawal 🤷🏻♂️
Even if those Soviet planes already sent are old and usually in very poor repair, at least the pilots and ground crews (everyone seems to forget the latter is at least as important) are familiar and trained to manage them. Unless we are talking a couple years from now or with NATO troops directly involved, those operating these will only be given a bare-minimum crashcourse and thus likely make these far less effective.
Not to mention the F-16s sent will likely be rather old and of dubious condition themselves if previous donations are anything to go by.
if NATO troops are directly involved - it won't matter, it will be a nuclear war
I know several people fighting and supporting operations in Ukraine. One thing they all say in common is that it is amazing how incredibly fast they learn. They are not training for a job when they learn a new system, they are absorbing their entire reason for being at that time. Not saying that it still doesn't take a good amount of time, but with their backs against the wall, they study very intensely and learn quickly. Even the few pilots they've sent abroad to get a feel for what it would take to train them all surprised their hosts with how quick they learned. It may still take a while, but the time table is likely to be much shorter than what standard pilots who have lives outside of the military usually take. Some of these people have literally lost everything and their immediate families. They are motivated to eat, drink and breath their training. It's incredibly sad and also just incredible.
@@seanurquhart3179 That's empty platitudes and canned speech. "Who have lives outside the military" do you even read what you said? Soldiers don't go home from work after a few hours of training to relax and take the weekends off, training is just as intensive for ordinary soldiers who aren't rushed through everything.
They are hypothetically being trained to fly fighter planes, some of the most difficult and complex training possible within the military and on top of that even for those who already have experience with Soviet aircraft: the instruments are completely different and read differently, everything is in a foreign language (why they have been looking for pilots with some knowledge of English but even that will only slightly mitigate the difficulties when trying to read a foreign language while under pressure in life or death situations), they are familiar with completely different handling, capabilities, and doctrinal use and need to forget what they are used to.
Look how well those fighters trained for NATO equipment in the past to see how well the training works. An utter joke filled with stupid mistakes and incompetent usage compared with those units operating old Soviet equipment they are familiar with. You can't rush training of such machines without catastrophic results and the higher complexity of an f-16 compared with a tank will only mean more frequent and severe mistakes.
Not even mentioning the already nightmarish problem of maintaining and repairing these vehicles which usually must be shipped out of the country even for relatively minor repairs.
@@tsp312disagree
Ukrainians have a good track record of using western equipment.
@@knoll9812 No they really don't. Look at Ukraine's use of Western equipment in their recent offensive and compare with past operations; both NATO soldiers using the same equipment in various theatres and the AFU's previous offensives in Kherson with mostly their own supplies.
This offensive was such a joke of mismanaged resources that they stopped even using Western weapons in large numbers after the first week for fear of losing everything needlessly.
Rusty old Soviet stuff from some neglected Polish warehouse served them better in almost all cases.
Having F18s and F16s to fly will give them better SEAD platforms as well. Even with out the HARM Targeting pod they would be better able to target SAM systems. This would allow more CAS missions to take place and or what CAS they are flying to be more effective.
Correction: no f18 will be there
That would require they're able to handle the platform, F16, to the fullest, have ground support and a functioning logistic. It's not that you fly a F16 to Grandma's birthday party. The whole ratstail behind a new platform plus tactics and operational abilities, plus trained ground personnel, plus combined fighting, isn't something a pilot and personnel learns in a few month when coming from a whole different "world"! Some air marshal said it right. Even training on the F16, coming from a other western jet, to operate and conduct certain operations needs a year for experienced pilots. Ukraine wants to have submarines and other suffisticated high-tech weapons straight out of the labs too. But they can't show how to do combined fighting on the battlefront. Or how to "hide" and protect a IRIS-T system when moving it to the frontline. Learning by doing is fine, but no one drives a Ferrari without a driver license in a Formula One race on the Nürburgring.
too much DCS dude...
Need to be high and fast to use air to ground munitions effectivly no UAF pilot is gonna be flying high and fast this would be suicide. F16 or
F18 are gonna have little effect and there only gonna get a few airframes. It will go the same way the leopards and Bradley went all to the scrap heap.
No nato country other than the us could effectively use dead in Ukraine tiger than the USA. What makes you think Ukraine can with a few dozen f16s
f117a and ea6b prowler might help in anti sam missions allowing f16 to fly high again
Considered one of the most advanced short-range missiles in the world in the mid-2000s, IRIS-T allows the Eurofighter Typhoon to engage air targets around the aircraft without having to maneuver into launch position.
It should be noted that Australia recently retired its F/A-18C's and D's for F-35's. As a result the Australians are looking at how to give them to Ukraine and train their pilots in their use.
Ukraine said they didn't want our POS equipment...too good for Australia's shitty hand me downs
Instead, they'll continue to subsidies the US in replacing their fleet of old stuff, at Ukraine's expense
Short answer.... they won't. It takes almost 2 years to fully train pilots to fly these advanced machines, let alone excel in combat with them.
Allegedly there's 3x main F-16 modules, for 3x types of combat and AFU where going to have a batch of their pilots focus on one module and the others the rest to speed up the F16 fighter training.
Training is one thing combat experience to run these complex machines is another task want be easy
The F-16 integrated with AGM-88 HARM is massively important
Binkov has an improved microphone compared to his early days
Old F-16s without modern E/W and without AWACS over watch is no better than a "modern MiG-29/35"... Not to mention the F-16 needs a lot more complicated/advanced ground support than it's Russian counterparts...
The F-16A MLU used by a lot of NATO nations and most likely on the table for transfer to Ukraine is an F-16A in name only... they are effectively all Block 50/52 F-16C's in avionics and capabilities...
F16s are definitely better than mig 29s and the weapons they can carry are much better as well and that's the biggest difference.
Not all f-16s are created equal. I can't see Ukraine getting the latest and best versions. SO, probably the F-16 impact will be limited.
They are getting F-16 block 20 with MLU. At least initially.
@@pogo1140 my point exactly. The old, practically obsolescent hardware Nato no longer works. Any aircraft are better then no aircraft, but block 20/mlu is older than the current russian front line stuff. Can't see them doing anything much.
@@FelixstoweFoamForge I'll be willing to be that the older stuff will be maintenance pigs!
@@FelixstoweFoamForge It's old, but it allows the use of modern AIM-120's, HARM, has an AESA radar and more modern warning systems that can detect and id the more modern radars and missiles
Just my 2 cents but I think a few dozen F-16's will be useful in 2 ways.
1. More platforms to launch long range missiles at fixed Russian targets
2. Limited air support for some Ukrainian assaults.
By no means will it crush the Russian army, but it could help Ukraine use its ground forces more effectively.
Very interesting thank you.
I am personally connected with someone involved in runway repair. I'm sure I could get you two talking if you'd like.
The next Wunderwaffe toy... 😂
No one claims F 16 to be wonderweapons, just battle tested reliable and advanced platform
Unlike Russian wunderwaffe like T 14 and SU 57 that russians won't shut up about western advanced weapons are real
Regardless of how they're used, they'll be better than what they presently have. Even the recent additional MiG-29s they were given were originally Eastern Germany's and those notoriously couldn't even fire their cannons in training, because of how prone they would be to malfunctioning, even cracking.
They versions of F-16 they get won’t be better enough in any significant way to provide them anything they didn’t already have which was mostly destroyed. Sure, more planes are better than none but it will be the same thing. They won’t last long. If they get within a few hundred KM of long range Russian AA batteries they will be shot out of the sky very quickly just like the planes they have already lost.
How long before Zelensky asks for soldiers? Are you willing to go and die for Ukraine? I sure am not.
They've probably been sitting in a shelter for 25 years. They're also export models. Definitely not what the Russians would be flying
The F-16 is junk.. they have/had SU-27.. arguably the best 4th gen fighter ever built
@@crevis12. Unreasonable
They'll be used to suppress those choppers with aarams . To cover the armor and kill cruise missles and plane that launch them
The US doesn't have hundreds of F16s; they have thousands. They were the mainstay of America's air might for a very long time, and when the US military puts equipment away for long-term storage, they don't just stick it in a barn and drop camouflage nets over them. They remain on a maintenance schedule that ensures they remain serviceable.
I guess in the end we don’t know what Ukraine will get in terms of numbers of planes and how modern they will be , this will be a long process either way , I think the F-16 of course won’t win the war out right but it’s just something to continue to close the military gap between Russia and Ukraine, it will be tough as always to integrate these but once I think they are , it could lead to some fruitful results for Ukraine but again it will be most likely a year before we see that !
By the time they get them it will be too little too late. This offensive was really their last chance to try to take away terrified Russia annexed. They have gone through two full armies and have already lost a significant portion of the third. The best they can realistically hope for is a freeze to the conflict where Russia maintains what it has which may not be recognized as Russian by international community. They have blown their chance to ever get the annexed territories back nowz
@@TheGrindcorps i completely disagree, how have they blown through 3 armies ? Even Putin himself has stated that a majority of the combat power hasn’t even been committed, so I’m not sure where your information is coming from on that
We know they will likely get F-16A MLUs, which are similar to F-16Cs. They unfortunately have really limited radar capability.
@@ramblingthroughhistory I’m talking about Ukraine. Obviously Russia has only committed a small amount of the military. In Ukraine they are now calling up entire towns and taking them forcefully in kidnap vans if they won’t go. They have had general mobilization since Feb 2022. They are very low on officers and their new troops are trained for 4 weeks for those who enlist. Those who are conscripted are trained far less.
@@TheGrindcorps lol any proof of “entire towns” being called up? And more proof of them being “kidnapped” ? And once again proof for the lack of training ? All of those I doubt you can prove or your gonna say “ they are hiding it “ but I’m sorry it’d that all happening really then the Ukrainian soldiers would’ve given up all by now lol, Also it’s getting tiring saying “ they are only using a tiny fraction of their military power” is it true that Russia is not putting as much men as possible in the field yes but their is a reason why they haven’t done another mobilization the last “partial mobilization “ has thousands running from Russia , they really can’t do that and again Russia has lost a actual shit load of equipment and a lot of their newest apcs, tanks , helicopters, and much more are being used so let’s stop with that excuse
The F16 won't make a whole lot of difference. Let me explain, the F16 though hyped up aren't that better than fighters already donated.
Most F16 are outdated and only a few were ever updated to for military combat use and most of them are operating with obsolete software.
While there will be a huge number of surplus will be available most nations will likely deny donating much of it because of how expensive the replacements (F35) is to not only purchase but MAINTAIN. The next issue is the F35 is a logistical nightmare due to how many parts have to be replaced after a few deployment likewise the replacement parts are twice as expensive and don't get me started on how slow production by their parent companies operate.
Doesn't matter if not much better than Ukrainian planes. This soviet planes are wearing out or being destroyed
It has been reported that the range and radar of SA and AIR TO AIR missiles would be a problem for F-16
Yeah, The invaded lands are full of anti air. S300/400 would have no problem shooting down F16. They are going to burn through them much faster than people are ready to accept.
F16 is the better choice than the MiG 29's they have now. MiG 29 is excellent in flight performance, but it's radar is subpar compared to the F16. Datalink and Ukraine having access to AMRAAMS increases it's air to air lethality. The only thing is training. F16 is more modern and i'm sure it'll take awhile for the pilots to be trained properly.
Why is F16 better than MiG29? MiG29 can operate on those shitty airfields in Ukraine. An F16 would vacuum the runway until it FODs out the engine... probably wont get a single flight outta one.
@@fanglethorpe lol...:)))))) you're illiterate..
The problem is Ukraine isn't receiving the latest F16 bloc. The ones that will be donated will be from the early 90s to early 00s period. They will be inferior to most of the modern Russian jets, with a worse radar. They will be able to take most NATO missiles so that is a benefit but they won't be able to tangle with a Mig 35, SU 30, or SU 34
@@fanglethorpe F-16 would be fine
@@huntergatherer7796
...or get close enough to the front to fire a missile. Thats been the problem, from the outset.
another game changer like the leopard 2 😂
can see you shaking in the boots already so it's definitely something.
Prigozhin and his friends are coming, RU is going to be looking in the wrong direction.
@@Numaaaaaa1 the analysis clearly indicates that there is nothing to shake for,a random mig-31 in belarus patrolling could easily pick up the f-16 and shoot it down let alone s-400 radars located in belarus
I work with satellite image processing software and you can process an image in minutes or even seconds so data processing should not have to delay the kill chain
I was under the impression that the main advantage of F-16s was the Ukraine would be able to hit targets that are currently out of range. Its still not clear to me that is the case. Suppose I'll have to wait and see.
Ukrainian offensives have faced some trouble with Russian helicopters and strike aircraft. Having F-16 and Western munitions would allow Ukraine to push Russian aviation bit further from frontlines making things easier for ground troops. Shooting down a low flying aircraft with anti-air is hard as curvature of Earth gives it cover and so you need fighter planes to first detect and then shoot them down. Mig-29 has only medium range AA-missiles and as such Russians can just keep lobbing their longer range missiles from the safety of their own AA network to keep them away from frontlines. With F-16 things will get more even allowing Ukraine to shoot back and to push Russian aviation bit further.
yes helicopters have been a big threat for ukrainian tanks and fighting vehicles pushing on the front lines.
By the time they get them they will simply have no capacity for any offensive ever again. They have had 2 armies destroyed and have gone through a good portion of a third. The F-16s will be too little too late even if they were to get them operational in Jan 2024z. That is hopelessly optimistic as even if the pilots could magically all be ace American level pilots it will take years to have the training in maintenance and even then Russia will just continually destroy maintenance infrastructure and any basing of F-16 in Ukraine. To even have the slightest chance they would have to fly out of Poland or something absolutely crazy which I doubt NATO would be interested in.
😂😂 those of F 16s will be blown up as soon as they land, most of won't even get the chance to take off ground.
They are going to burn like everything else they sent so far...
😅
I'm surprised the deadliest and most advanced weapon that can be fired from an F-16 wasn't mentioned in the video.. Or maybe I've missed it.. Of course I'm referring to the JASSM cruise missiles in its various forms (ER, XR, LRASM, etc..).
JASSM is a long range cruise missile that's much newer than the Storm Shadow while also being way stealthier with more advanced targeting technologies.
See whats happening with the allegedly infallible StormShadow, it's getting downed more often. America ain't risking top tech in ukraine. also you'll be surprised on how scarce are the number of available and usable F-16 world wide.
And all responders have forgotten that NATO jets can all carry that long range deadly air to air missile and guided laser bombs.
Binkov, you should fly DCS. You can even use it to recreate battle content for your videos.
DataLink could be the point! There are even ground based radars able to provide Link16 data. Hensoldt radars for example, which are used for the delivered Iris-t SLM. This could add even more headaches for russia.
I feel that the F-16 would be more useful in a air to air roll for the Ukrainians. Ground attack? Maybe more of a missile launching platform. I can see the Ukrainian pilots getting trained on on air threats and maybe delivery of air launched missiles for ground targets.
As far as dog fighting that is for very seasoned pilots with hours of flight time in the F-16 and all it’s avionics. Training for air combat take a very long time and a lot of schooling. You can’t just drop pilots in an unfamiliar aircraft with limited training time to be useful in air to air. This airframe isn’t a Mig-29. It’s all going to be new to the Ukrainians.
Close air support is also another area of expertise and training. Ground units must communicate with the pilots and pilots with ground units. The Marine Corp has the most excellent way of training their pilots in close air support. The pilots that are being trained are embedded with a ground unit to understand how the ground unit and the CAS pilots operate. This gives them a better view of how ground units operate in calling in air missions. At present I don’t see Ukrainian pilots operating on the level.
For Ukraine the F-16 will play a limited roll on the battlefield at this time.
I don't think the problem will be the pilot's capabilities, but the capabilities of Russian air defense. Dogfights won't happen anyway, but the F-16 versions that Ukraine will get have very poor radar performance and are thus not suitable for long range air-to-air combat. Russian SAM and fighter thread will also relegate F-16s, and any other jet, to low flying missiles and stand off ground strikes using JDAM-ERs. CAS is thus not possible.
My favorite part about binkov's videos is the toxic comment section full of Russian and Chinese trolls and the people arguing with them.
It's lower than before because Wagner's troll army media company got disbanded due to coup attemped.
same :-)
yeah, only russian and chinese... the western puppets always tell the truth, 0% western propaganda BS right?! hahaha
Show me a comment section on YT that isn't toxic regardless of where the bots come from... #everyonesabot
@@gags730that they immediately make exaggerated claims “the West” has made and also downright lies?
For example this video says the F-16’s offer more capabilities but constantly reminds us the F-16, especially earlier blocks, won’t instantly turn the tide and require careful management to get the most out of their expanded capabilities.
The comment section already has a bunch of people proclaiming “the West” thinks they are invulnerable (just the next wunderwaffe!) or that the F-16’s are useless canon-fodder. Which is a pretty grand statement for people supporting a country that is sending increasingly old and unupgraded tanks and other equipment into the war. And anyone smart will say that an old T-54 might have many downsides, but at the end of the day it still packs enough punch to kill the 90% non-tanks out on the field.
We might need to start looking in the top draw for once.
It can bring weapon systems. The aircraft is just the platform.
Australia has 48 F-18 F/A Hornets we could transfer to Ukraine. They are just as capable as the F-16's in the roles they would fill, and their landing gear is built for deck-landings, so they could land on rougher strips than the F-16's. I'm not sure that they are as easy to fly as the F-16, but they are cheaper to maintain and more reliable due to their twin engines.
Russia has 1000+ airplanes
You won't do anything with a dozen of modern aircrafts
@@antoniovianello9663 Sure the Russians still have many aircraft, but air-to-air combat is rare, and they can't gain air-superiority. 2 squadrons of Hornets could hunt Russian SAM and artillery radars more effectively than current Ukrainian MiG's. That would make a difference.
Don't forget the large amount of former F-16 pilots who are now civilians who might be interested in flying against Russia. Imagine all those conscripted ground pounders facing some former pilots with 2,000+ hours in the F-16. Also the current AGM-88 was designed for the F-16, the current Wild Weasel platform.
Are they tired of life?
So they are not afraid that any ukranian jet without high range weapons like cruise missiles has 50% to be show down every task on frontline.
😂, those "2000 flying hours" pilots is not going anywhere near Ukraine knowing their enemies can fire back unlike the poor goat herders in the Middle East.
Those jets would start to crash to the ground by themselves. The level of cleaniness they need to avoid ingesting debris while taking off/landing is unbelievable.
Just one pebble the size of a dime is more than sufficient to fatally damage the engine.
Combine this fact with the observations that ukraine jets have to use normal roads to avoid being targeted by russian missiles/drones, and you have the scenario...
It will help as much as those Leo 2s
Ukraine is gaining land right as we speak. Cope.
@@anonymous-hz2un lol keep gargling n@zi c@ck
@@anonymous-hz2un20 square km 😅😅😅
US cluster munitions have a far lower dud rate than the ones Russia has been using for over a year. Giving these weapons to ukraine now will help them drive out the Russians faster. This will mean that overall, by the end there will be less dud cluster bomblets in ukraine.
So basically they won't change anything, apart from knowing that any US self-restriction doesn't worth shit - as they drop it even in a war they don't participate in?
Are their WMD self-restrictions then any different?
@@igorshenderski8107 if TerroruSSianz talk moralic... tjats DISGUSTING!
@@gooldii1 I think it should be Ukrainian concern how not to mine their own population?
Unless they don't treat it as such, of course.
But then said population shall be saved from Kiev control.
That's from your sick Biden crap. You just blindly believe to any anti russian fake. You don't have any proves about rate of dud of russian ammo. same about american one
The F-16 integrates with AWACS. This means the F-16 has a 400 km (four hundred kilometer) RADAR range. That's right - the AWACS radar info is shared directly with the F-16. This also means that the F-16 can turn off its own RADAR and rely on AWACS. This means the F-16 is now invisible to anything looking for a transmitting antenna in the sky. The F-18 can also (of course) do this.
He did say it in the video.
AWACS are a radar beacon, to which missiles can and will be guided, especially when you consider the massive radar cross-section of those planes (converted airliners).
AWACS and aerial refueling, would be shot down by R-37's.
This is why combat range of fighters in the west needs to increase, between the R-37 and PL-21 ... they have become unfeasible.
@@Milo-id9qd You get this wrong, not Ukraine AWACS but the Nato ones around Ukraine could, lets say on accident, stream their data over Link 16 that the F16 will have. And russia can´t engage the AWACS.
And thats why western ranges have already increased, he talked about the missiles ukraine will get not the ones Nato has.
AIM-120 D has around 180km Range
MBDA Meteor 200 km
But the R-73 is primary made against Bombers and AWACS and not agile fighters. Thats an advantage for the 120D or Meteor.
@@graysun9108 a an awac gives information _by accident_ they become a legitimate target and russia might shoot them down.
but you're probably not in america and want the us and russia to have a direct confrontation.
@@user-ot3wq2ru5d and they would prove that how? And yeah because a war between US and Russia would affect no one Else like europe....
F-16s opponents won't be just Russian fighter jets, but Russian helicopters nearing the frontline. It's here where F 16's will help war efforts the most.
The man knows how to say Suhoj! liked.
If they were delivered in 2014, they would have made an impact now. At present it won't make a significant difference.
It really depends on how long this war lasts. I don't think any of us know the answer to that.
If they had been delivered in 2014 they would have been shot down over the past year just like every other type of aircraft. So chances are, they would be whining for NATO to send more in the same way they did for other jets they had in the inventory.
Ukraine was a mess in 2014. In upheaval , with Russian captured institutions ie intelligence, military, etc. Run by political oligarchs just like Russia 🇷🇺 today & there was a political vacuum after the Maidan revolution. It was impossible to militarily support Ukraine then like it’s being done now!!!!!!
The reason they weren't delivered in 2014 is because you don't get rid of old airframes until you have something in budget/production to replace them. F-35 production delays were a factor. And now we see the F-15EX going into production to deal with short production goals from previous airframes that were supposed to replace all F-15 and F-16's in the USAF fleet.
I think they will, I sadly see this war going on for another 1-2 years at minimum, it will take along time to get the F-16 integrated better , so in the long run I think it can make a bigger difference
"The F-16 is again just a new game changer=but for decoration only." In reality F-16, he wouldn't fly Ukrainian skies for long, considering various Russian air defense. There is too much confusion about the importance of the F-16, but eventually Ukraine will learn that the hard way.
Ukraine is still flying old unupgraded soviet migs, Russia could not establish air superiority
With better planes Ukraine will push Russians even further
They gonna hide them pretty gard lmao, once they are airborne then all bets are off 😂. This will be the first war where F16 will have more losses than kills
@@petrsukenik9266 The F-16 is a myth, just like the Turkish Bayraktar TB2 used to be: today it practically disappeared as if it didn't exist on the Ukrainian battlefield! We all know very well, why the TB2 no longer flies in any combat operations.😷
@@petrsukenik9266 Russians are not worried of the MiG-29's, they just respect the Ukrainian S-300's, because they know the capabilities of that system.
@@drmaxhattan its both, you need both air and ground assets to keep sky clear
Also, its not the S 300 Russians are most worried about
The Ghost got some new toys.
XD the magical gost of kiev bro u so funny XD
This is one way to dispose of old air frames.
Agreed, just keeping Ukraine in the air war is the most significant contribution F16s will make, this against the backdrop of the Russian airforce has been incapable of gaining air superiority except temporarily in local areas.
russia has gained air superiority ukraine has no airforce because russia destroyed it
No one can have a true superiority in the presence of air-defence. But F-16/18 would not help much because Russia is manufacturing more anti-air missiles than the whole world, combined. All such planes can do is shot long-range missiles from afar, not nearing the actual front line. So they can not really help to advance much.
@@tatianaes3354 i agree
@@tatianaes3354 We shall see, there's recent news photage showing Ukraine flying their current fleet over the battle lines.
But it's baffling that Russia wasn't capable at quickly defeating and crushing Ukraine's air assets and larger AA systems. This should've been done at the start of the war, but the Russian airforce seemed to be other stuff. And, obviously, it's too late.
Compare it to operation dessert storm. Iraq at the time, was a potent military power with a lot of "modern" Russian equipment. And it got absolutely destroyed, and air power was an important part of the coalitions strategy.
@@maghambor bro dont play it like military expert we all know that f16 will get crushed by s400 , even the game changer leopard cant move in that fields , dont bias just think
Very good video. Well done. I've always considered the F-16 the Ferrari of the skies. Very agile, quick, and fast; and a good pilot can get the F-16 and himself enough time for a mistake by the enemy pilot to be made and exploited almost regardless of the type of other aircraft. It's a damn good plane.
Are more better SU-30 and SU-35, they are really more better than F-16
Number one the pilots intelligence and operations know how
No such thing as a magic weapon that can alter the outcome of the war. Weapon systems are integrated and must work independently if it must but at the same time support the whole overall structure of different weapon systems used for the expected positive result.
I am not sure if you mentioned this, but F16 would also greatly aid in defending against Russian Cruse missiles and Shahid drones.
That's what it's primarily for and to do some occasional SEAD, people who think anything under f-16 block 70 can fight Su35 or Su30SM's(on paper) are delusional
@@ashblythe9598 bit hard when S400s are available, you cant get close to front line without stealth.
even worse mig 31 at high altitude with R37, plus mig 31 has a HUGE POWERFUL RADAR
@@oldfashionedwrx3574thank you. Ukraine would need F-35s to actually help them. The F-16s are going to be old variants and will face the same face as all the mugs and old Flanker variants they have lost. Sure, having more planes is better than not having them but it doesn’t provide them with anything they didn’t have which they lost and will lose fairly quickly again. Not just that but the training is going to be bare minimum so realistically, even if F-16 is marginally better than planes they were flying, they will be worse for their air force than the old Soviet planes they had because they will be using them much less effectively.
They also can’t afford to wait till 2024 to fly them even with such poor and expedited training. By the time even one F-16 flies things will be completely unsalvageable for Ukraine. The best they can hope for is a negotiated peace which is very much less in their favor than what Russia was offering in negotiations of March 2022. The best they could hope for is a frozen Korea style situation where they got some sort of security guarantees while NATO rearmed them if they are forced to recognize Crimea and recently annexed Russian territories. Russia will simply never accept that threat of them being rearmed so it will get even worse for them.
It depends. Sorties will be limited and i think it's ground attack capabilities are of more value to ukraine at the moment. In the end it will be used for all roles eventually but i do think it's main job will be precission strikes. Things like storm shadow are a limited resource. F16 has many simmilar ordinance available to it that also have big stockpiles available troughout nato countries.
@@oldfashionedwrx3574 the tool of choice for weasels is the f16. Their only mission is to seek out systems like s400 or any SAM system used by the enemy and smacking them right between the eyes.
This is a high skill ability and does require larger strike packages so i doubt ukraine will be using them for this purpose. But f16 is certainly able to defeat any sam system russia might have deployed.
they will end up like the leos - as burning wrecks on a open field
Yeah at some place yeah...but before they will turn many russian systems into wrecks. Thats the thing you Kremlins don´t understand because you are used to the 'its all invincible' propaganda of your hero putler and his friends: nobody says that the systems are invincible or something. They offer options and some new capabilities, they offer numbers to continue the fight. People like you are the only ones who belief in wunderwaffen
You mean like the many sukhois of the Russian Air force 🤣 probably shot down by friendly sams
The F16 with the upgraded radar can see Su35S at 190km away and fire the Amraam 160d missile with a 180 plus km range.
That new radar is almost as powerful as the F35s radar. Plus it can use the Harm missile with a 90km range at full function!
Soviet/Russian planes can land and take off from unequipped lanes and road surfaces. I do not know why, but in the West they considered this as a disadvantage.