Again, you have no clue about European geography.
Ukraine - Russia Conflict
- Thread starter randomradio
- Start date
No. I already told you, we don't do multiparty dialogues. Our stance during the talks were, whatever Russia agrees for, we will go along with it. We were quite literally on the same page over Afghanistan.
Russia drags Indian in CAR as a counterweight to China. That's also how we got into the SCO.
So? What's that go to do with India? The US announced a US-led trade bloc in a US-led summit... And they dragged India into it. You are arguing my point.
Give me an example of an India-led initiative in the QUAD that included SEA.
We are not neighbours with Ukraine or Poland. Russia's weapons sales to Pakistan is part of their own security needs concerning Tajikistan and certain elements in Iran, Georgia and Azerbaijan where Pakistan has some influence.
The Chinese are said to be way ahead of what you've assumed.
Nope. The Americans offered more ToT on F414 to counter France's equivalent offer. Or the initial contract only had 60% ToT.
The situation during the Arihant's time was totally different, we were not signatories to major pacts with America, and we were not part of other international groups. But they are offering the B-1B now. How many US partners have a supersonic bomber on offer?
The Russians are planning on two supercarriers.
India's position depends on how badly Russia is pushed into a corner, and how rapidly China expands its nuke propelled navy.
So there's no drawback with Russia. With others, they can turn against you on a dime.
It's not a decade old. It's basically begun only a few years ago.
So America will offer their tech only if we fight who they think we should fight. Nice argument. Hence GLONASS. We can fight whoever the heck we want, even America, with it.
Most of Russia's forex is frozen.
India will only keep buying oil as long as EU is willing to buy it off us. Remember, India is not a consumer of Russian energy, we never were. We are essentially a refining & transshipment hub. And we will only remain as such till the time the likes of Qatar don't scale up their LNG export infrastructure (they're rapidly working on it now to tap the European market).
LNG supply deals with European customers likely after summer: Qatar's minister
“Agreements with several European destinations... are very close to being finalised,” he said at a media event at the QatarEnergy headquarterswww.zawya.com
Once that is in place, EU will not longer be compelled to buy Russian energy via the Indian proxy. At that point the sanctions regime can & will be expanded to anyone buying Russian oil period. And that's when we will stop the buying.
Remains to be seen what China will do, but as far as India is concerned, we have no interest in endangering our own economy for Russia's sake.
If China decides to do the same (after all, the West is China's most important trading partner, not Russia...plus they have their own designs on Russia), the Russians are essentially screwed - on autopilot toward the same situation as 80s USSR because the revenues from oil and gas-related taxes and export tariffs account for 45% of Russia's federal budget as of 2022. I would not stake my reputation on whether there will actually be a collapse or not (probably not, to err on the safe side) - but it would be foolish to think their conditions & options on the international stage will remain the same as they were going into the war.
The problem is, the Russians did not go into this prepared for a long-drawn war. They were hoping for a smooth, bloodless takeover like in Crimea - at most minor action against non-mechanized units like Azov & some fighting around Kiev before the Ukrainian leadership was forced to sign a surrender. Yes, some sanctions lasting about a year or two before they leverage their position as biggest supplier to EU to tide over it. And that's what their reserves & stockpiles were designed for.
Everything that happened since the airborne attack on Kiev failed, is essentially the Russians moving on autopilot. The longer the war lasts, the worse it gets for Russia. Not in terms of their outlook on the battlefield (I still think they will eventually win, provided they manage to see the war through instead of abandoning in the middle of it due to trouble back home like in WW1), but in terms of their national outlook & economic health - and as a result, the desperation of their foreign policy.
Whoa, whoa. India is buying almost 2m bpd from Russia and exporting only 360k bpd to Europe. India's oil imports from Russia today is nearly 45% of total consumption.
Russia and China are merely scratching each other's backs 'cause of cheap energy. Once China's reliance on fossil fuels decrease, they will quickly turn against Russia.
Their domestic consumer market alone is bigger than America's. In just a few more years, China will become the sanctions superpower.
And due to America's new protectionist policies, the Europeans have begun favouring the Chinese market.
This war makes Russia even more vulnerable and much more motivated to arm India against China.
Okay. So what you're trying to say is if we send Ukraine Milans, the West will then give us SSNs, stealth bombers, nuclear batteries, stealth ISR, satellites etc?
'Cause they are not enemies today, and by the time they become enemies, these weapons will be obsolete. So it's just business.
It has nothing to do with the Russians.
With America, it's their way or the highway. They merely have less leverage on India.
They are well within their rights to do all of the above. They are not our servants.
As for QUAD, yes, we are also on the same page as Russia is. They don't see it as a military bloc, the same as India. And their claim of QUAD being created to contain China is also the reason we have given to prevent it from turning it into a military bloc. We are literally speaking the same language here. As I said before, it's in India's interest that a Western bloc is not formed in the Indo-Pacific outside traditional American allies, like AUKUS. We want to create our own security bloc in time.
Their space cooperation with China is meant to be in competition with the US, ie, the aforementioned exotic space tech India lacks. The current programs and agreements are non-binding, participants can change as technologies change. Participation via Artemis Accords doesn't stop our own independent programs in the future, like how our participation in ITER doesn't stop us from making our own fusion reactors. It's an example of how the US is offering tech in order to prevent us from looking to Russia for the same.
Anyway, you can be sure the Russians will arm India over Pak or China in a war.
So we were okay with getting out of Afghanistan? Come on buddy.
Primakov doctrine is long over. The Russians no longer have that much bandwidth to manage China.
They don't want you in Afg, or in CARs. The whole area (except for Kazakhstan), as far as Moscow in concerned, has been ceded to China's sphere of influence. As of before the war, they were only okay with economic influence, but in the next few years who knows.
Russia certainly has no military bandwidth to intervene in CSTO conflicts anymore, much less Afghanistan. A treaty ally (Armenia) was attacked unprovoked by a non-member (Azerbaijan) late last year, and Russia had to sit & watch. They cannot even mediate to stop member infighting (Tajikistan-Kyrgyzstan conflict).
India is now more or less totally cut off from the region. Who does that leave?
You have to connect the dots.
Vaccine diplomacy was our idea and we got them to fund it. Which they did.
We did vaccine diplomacy in several parts of the world bilaterally. But in SEA we did it through QUAD. What does that tell you?
Wow. Let me just replace names of the countries and see if you think Russia would agree with it:
India's weapons sales to Ukraine is part of their own security needs concerning Pakistan where US has some influence (would even make sense, US can pull enough strings to make sure we don't end up in a two-front war).
You are pretty much doing a Russian diplomat's job. Not an Indian diplomat's. Your world view is Russo-centric.
F414 was already chosen for Tejas Mk-2 over a decade ago and its CDR is certified for that engine alone. There's no way we could have changed the design to accommodate a different engine at this point without incurring a significant delay. Besides, the M88 is not powerful enough for that requirement (even back when Mk-2 was just enlarged LCA, today's MWF version is way heavier). There's no way we could have replaced it with a French offer even if the Americans hadn't agreed for that level of ToT - the French had no proven engine of equivalent thrust to provide (95-100kN).
So no, that wasn't the case.
The purpose of the high level of ToT is merely to entice India to pursue a closer relationship with the US against a common potential enemy - not different to the Soviet line of thinking.
Plus, you are not considering our side of the situation. We don't see any merit in tying up with allies that have no capacity to help us in a hot war due to one reason or the other. The US is capable of pursuing full-blown adversarial relations with China - France/EU may or may not be. Macron & Scholz in fact want amicable relations with China even in the event of a Taiwan invasion.
And why weren't we a signatory to the pacts?
Because our interests were not aligned. We saw Pakistan & China as enemies whereas US saw them both as allies against the USSR. It did not matter that in the long-term US viewed Communist China as an enemy as well. We did not think that since there might be long-term convergence, therefore we must not do anything US did not want us to (like intervening in Bangladesh). That's not how foreign policy is shaped. Our short & medium-term outlook dictated our alliances. Long-term outlook was something to be kept at the back on one's mind, but not something to be acted upon until the time comes.
That is exactly how we act today. And how we are supposed to act. How Russia acts.
But for some reason you want us to be apprehensive of the long-term (which may or may not come to pass), and ignore making moves in the short term (which is happening now) which in turn could prove beneficial in the medium term (which is almost certain to happen).
How many US partners need a supersonic bomber?
Because official allies by definition will get access to their services via Mutual Defence anyway.
To use where?
You are not drawing a line between the USSR of 1971 and Russia of today, that's the problem.
The USSR would have been willing to invade Manchuria if China had intervened in '71 war. And actually capable of annexing the whole region. Remember PRC had no nukes back then.
Today's Russia is a different story - at best, they will supply both sides (us & China) in the event of a war. At worst, they will supply just China. That's if their situation allows any supplies that is. Right now that is not the case.
We can come back to Russia once that long-term comes to the fore (if they survive till then, that is). But it's mindless to accommodate their interests in the short/medium term, where they don't align with ours.
The program officially began ~15 years ago. Granted it was just a concept back then.
But it's been over 6 years since Zircon's first test and still we got zilch from the Russian side for our program.
That's a given for anyone. You think Russia will give us GLONASS if we act against them in CARs?
So why did we waste millions building NaVIC? Why don't we put GLONASS receivers on our Pinakas instead of NaVIC?
In a few years, the Chinese will accrue enough leverage to get them to turn it off in the case of a war. We are well aware of that eventuality which is why we developed our own system.
NaVIC has also been codified by the US as an Allied navigation system under last year's NDAA. Alongside Galileo & QZSS.
The official figures are skewed because there is too much rebadging of oil involved when it comes to Russia. This is an example of how that happens:
What it says on the manifest about where it's from/where it's going is not the whole story. We don't sell all the oil directly - there are several EU states that are apprehensive of dealing with India directly because by now everyone knows this is Russian-sourced. We use several proxies (or rather, the EU tells us to use proxies and we oblige cuz it's their money).
The key is to look at India's imports from MidEast. In December 2021 we used to import around 1 mpbd each from KSA & Iraq. In December 2022, we were still importing roughly 800k bpd from Iraq and 700k bpd from KSA. The difference of 400-500k bpd we can say we have substituted with Russian oil because there's a nice discount to be had.
But what's the additional 1.5 mbpd from Russia for? Our domestic needs did not skyrocket out of nowhere nor did our population double overnight.
The oil trading business is highly irregular right now. The bottom line you need to remember is that Russia was never a part of our energy security calculus. We only used to buy Russian oil on the spot market to fill gaps here & there as needed (even US did that). The sudden surge in purchase of Russian oil was due to the initiative of our refineries & traders who saw an opportunity to cash in due to the flexibility the sanctions allowed.
Once that flexibility stops (which will happen once EU has found a reliable supplier of LNG, whether that is Qatar, US or a combination of the two), the sanctions regime will become tighter and no enterprise of ours will touch Russian oil.
So why don't they supply weapons to Russia? If they're not afraid of sanctions?
China's median age is now almost 40. In about a decade's time their consumer base will collapse (aging people don't drive consumption, young people do - and PRC doesn't have enough young people to replace the older generation), and so will their labour pool.
They will grow old before they grow rich. It's China's worst nightmare - and the reason why they're making risky wolf warrior geopolitical moves all of a sudden. They don't have an eternity to wait before they run out of time to be able to do what they want to. Not that different to why Russia decided to invade Ukraine when it did. Longer they wait, worse it gets for them.
Damn, you are becoming detached from reality my friend.
They will give us what we need to secure our interests in the short/medium term. Which are incidentally the kind of things which we cannot make ourselves at a large enough scale because we did not invest in a Private sector MIC and our PSUs suck donkey b@lls.
The rest of the exotic stuff, what we already have is sufficient in the strategic sphere with regard to technology for the medium term.
If you're worried about the long-term, keep in mind that in the long term Chinese R&D capabilities will supersede Russia's (in some aspects they already do). At that point the countries that can help you are in the West, not Russia.
Single-hulled submarines with advanced hull forging & electric drive for example - which we can only possibly acquire from France/US going forward but not from Russia cuz they don't have them.
Applies perfectly to us vis-a-vis Russia & China as well. Not like a bunch of ATGMs would upset the balance of power in Europe.
But we are theirs?
Um, no. The Russians see no practical difference between QUAD & AUKUS - they call both of them Asian NATO.
US Plans To Integrate Quad AUKUS Into NATO, Says Russia
During his ongoing visit to India, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said in New Delhi that the West, particularly the US, is creating a ‘front’ to contain China.
Which is surprising because QUAD is indeed not a military bloc unlike AUKUS. Equating the two even though they are different was the Chinese line. The Russians have adopted the same line.
You must understand that Russia has no independent view on the Pacific. Their view is the same as China's - which means it's not the same as ours.
I don't know if you know this, but Russia openly opposed the very concept of the Indo-Pacific (just like China did). They wanted the Asia-Pacific to be separate from the Indian Ocean. Suits PRC just fine, as they can bully their eastern & western theatres independently without their enemies being able to help each other.
The US adopted the worldview which was more advantageous for us - the PACOM was rephrased as INDOPACOM purely because of India. The US wanted to signal bringing all enemies of China under one roof.
Same same. Which means that if Russia gets into a confrontation with the US & China assures support in exchange for ditching India, the Russians will happily oblige.
There is already precedent for this exact series of events during the Cuban crisis & '62 war. And back then Russia was the big brother & could dictate terms if they wanted to - in the world about to shape up, Russians will be a junior partner to PRC.
I don't see why you think they'll choose us over PRC. The Russians aren't crazy. They value the importance of short & medium terms, they know you can't get to X, Y & Z unless you cover A, B & C first.
I wish I had your endless optimism.
Like I said, at best (if they're not desperate enough) they will sell to both sides and profiteer. At worse, they will choose PRC exclusively.
Last edited:
"80% of Russians under the age of 35 are against the 'SMO'." While old warmongers who don't have to fight want victory.
"When you can't overcome poverty, you should achieve greatness instead."
en.wikipedia.org
"When you can't overcome poverty, you should achieve greatness instead."
Dmitry Muratov - Wikipedia
Last edited:
An excellent write up from Abhirup Sengupta (as usual) on the topics of F-16 for Ukraine. Raj should not read this it may cause harm to your delusional mind..... Btw Sengupta is of the Indian species so you can't disagree with him... or you're racist!
Q: How are a few dozen obsolete F-16s in Ukraine going to fight against hundreds of top 10 fighters like the Russian Su-35?
A:
It’s funny how those hundreds of top Russian Fighters have been unable to achieve Air Superiority against some 82-odd Ukrainian Fighter aircraft and 40 year old Soviet Air Defences with roughly 1/8th the SAM density of 1991 Iraq (430 vs. 3,679 SAMs).[1] Ukrainian S-300PS dates back to 1985; Buk-M1 1983, making them about just as old as Iraqi Air Defences in the Gulf War.
Right now Ukrainian Mig-29 & Su-27 are using HARMs in Pre-briefed (PB) mode where the missiles are programmed on the ground to fly over suspected Russian SAM sites in lofted trajectory, being completely reliant on the their own seeker to acquire a target (Russian radar). Both Mig-29 and Su-27 lack the necessary data buses to fully communicate with HARM (or Western munitions in general). The rudimentary integration only allow the missiles to be launched in flight with the targeting data being preloaded on the ground before.
The F-16s with ASQ-213 HARMs Targeting pod (HTS) can geo-locate Russian SAMs in-flight and pass on their GPS coordinates to HARMs before launch in real-time, so that merely turning off the radar won’t be nearly as effective. The F-16 with HTS also has the ability to choose a specific radar type. You can have the pilot designate say S-300 or S-400’s Search radar(s) over SHORADs (Buk-M2, Pantsir-S, Tor-M) depending on the mission. The advantage of able to shoot HARMs at specific threat radar(s) instead of a random one in PB mode can’t be overstated.
All of these make F-16s vastly more capable in SEAD than Mig-29 using the same missiles. Also, F-16s have access to a wide range of ECM pods from American to Israeli and even European, some of them like ELL-8251 (escort-jammer) with significant jamming capability. This combined with much greater Situational Awareness in cockpit allows the F-16 to operate at medium to high altitudes and suddenly you’ve the HARMs launched from F-16s having double the range (~100 km) than Mig-29 operating at low altitudes and only making a short climb before launch (~50 km). So you can have the F-16s conduct SEAD operations from further behind the front lines. The F-16 will also be used alongside decoys like MALD. Ukraine already started using MALD-B decoys last month [2] and with F-16 they can be more extensively deployed as well as controlled in-flight based on real time intelligence.
F-16 carrying a MALD-J during testing
MALD decoy is basically a long-endurance UAV able to mimic the radar signature and flight envelope of attacking aircraft. By acting as a bait they protect the strike package as well as stimulate the enemy Air Defences, making them go ‘active’ and thereby, visible to HTS on F-16 for example. Because the F-16 with HTS can actually track emitters in real-time unlike Ukrainian Mig-29 or Su-27, they can make far more effective use of MALD.
You don’t necessarily need brand new Block 70 F-16 for SEAD, even 30 year old Block 20 F-16A with Midlife upgrade (MLU) and HTS pods can have serious SEAD capability with HARMs. Ukrainian Mig-29 & Su-27 are barely scratching the surface with HARMs, with F-16 the threat to Russian Air Defences will be so severe that there will be instances where Ukrainian pilots merely announcing ‘Magnum’ (HARMs launch code) on radio will have Russian SAMs turning off their radars and leave the airspace vulnerable to F-16 strikes. Now, this is not to say that you’re going to see Ukrainian F-16s running massive SEAD campaign like Desert Storm, no. They simply don’t have the resources. Nor would you see Ukrainian F-16s quickly achieving Air Superiority over the front lines. The Russian SAM-density over most region is simply too high for a dozen or so F-16s Ukraine would be receiving and given the lack of external support, they can’t be running SEAD campaign as effectively as Western Airforces could.
Instead you’re going to have Ukrainian F-16s generate ‘gaps’ in Russian Air Defences over the front lines. You see, today the front lines stretches over 1,400 km from North to East and the South. Russia simply doesn't have the resources to reinforce the entire front with long-range SAMs. Last year we already saw Russia deploying S-300 from its second larges city, St. Petersburg to the front lines in Ukraine. Add Ukraine’s recent drone attacks in Moscow and Russian oil refineries, which are only going to increase over the next 6 months and you’re going to have a scenario where Russian Air Defences would be in high demand both inside Russia and in Ukraine.
The current front line in Ukraine spans to over 1,400 km from the North to South
With Ukrainian F-16s picking out Russian Air Defences near the front lines, Russia will be forced to make sacrifices on which areas it would reinforce. This would leave large gaps over the front lines vulnerable to Ukrainian Airforce and subsequently their Armed forces. It will be a long SEAD campaign spanning over several months, unlike anything we have seen before but over time Russian SAM density on the frontline will decrease dramatically.
The F-16s also have significant Air-Ground capability, especially with extended-range: JDAM-ER enabling stand-off attack from over 74 km. The F-16 can provide in-flight targeting data to JDAMs unlike Ukraine’s Su-24 or Mig-29 limited to merely launching them with the targeting data being preloaded on the ground before. The F-16s also have a number of modern Targeting pods like LITENING or Sniper ATP that gives the pilot ability to see near-visual imagery (in IR spectrum) of ground targets from significantly longer range. Here’s a footage of Sniper ATP tracking a car from over 60 km while geo-locating its position in real time.
Sniper ATP footage. Left: Wide angle; Right: Magnified view.
Such long-range detection and targeting capability would allow Ukrainian F-16s to locate and target Russian forces especially mobile targets across the front line, something both UAF and VKS have been struggling to do lately. The F-16s will also be able to use GBU-39 SDBs that have a 110 km range with a 93 kg penetrating warhead which is about the same as GMLRS that Ukraine has been extensively using since last year. You can have the F-16 carry 8 SDBs quadpacked on two pylons, far exceeding the firepower of a M142 HIMARS (6 GMLRS). And the F-16 can do so while carrying 2 HARMs and 4 AIM-120s on the rest 4 pylons and wingtip launchers allowing it to combine SEAD with strike missions. This is the kind of flexibility F-16s bring to the table and one of its advantage over others like Gripen-C, having about 50% greater weapons payload in real world.
The F-16’s strike capability isn’t limited to PGMs but also in long range strikes with weapons like JSOW-C and Harpoon AShMs. Ukrainian uncrewed surface vessels (USV) have already been creating serious nuisance for Russia’s Black Sea fleet based in Sevastopol, Crimea. Having seriously damaging a number of Russian ships and occasionally harassing them in the Black Sea. The F-16s significantly changes the calculus as Ukraine can put their existing Harpoon AShMs on F-16 and use the increased range to strike Russian ships in Sevastopol and the Black Sea with actual AShMs instead of a slow tug boat loaded with explosives.
A ROCAF F-16 with two AGM-84 Harpoon AShMs
If Ukraine were to ever take back Crimea then it needs to remove the viability of Russia using Sevastopol as a warm water port in Black Sea and there’s nothing better than F-16s to do that. Living under the constant threat of an AShM attack from Ukrainian F-16 and loosing a few ships in the process significantly reduces the militarily value of Crimea. Sooner or later Russia will be forced to remove its fleet from Sevastopol. The F-16s will also open the possibility of Ukraine receiving AGM-84 SLAM-ER that are based on Harpoons. The SLAM-ER have similar range as the Storm Shadow (270 km) Ukraine started using lately, but are relatively cheaper and more widely available which will likely result in Ukraine receiving them in greater numbers. Together with Storm Shadow it will be used to attack Russian bases in Crimea and given last year’s attack on Saki airbase that destroyed more than 12 Russian aircraft on the ground, we know just how well Russian Air Defences would fare against them.
Air-Air
The first batch of F-16s Ukraine is likely to receive will be from Denmark, Netherlands and other European operators. They’re Block 20 F-16AM having undergone MLU with modest radar upgrade, addition of JHMCS (Helmet Mounted Cueing System), larger multifunctional colour display in cockpit in addition to other software and hardware upgrades to facilitate integration of more capable pods (HTS R7) and modern weapons (AGM-88D/E, AIM-120C/D, JSOW-C, JASSM, SDB, etc). They carry older APG-66v2 Mechanical radars with modest upgrades (new processors to increase computing power) expanding the ability to engage 6 targets with AIM-120 which is quite significant considering their age and actually more than N011M on Su-30 (4 targets).[3] While it should be able to take advantage of AIM-120C5, it’s unlikely to fully exploit the envelope of AIM-120C7. Although given the threat environment in Ukraine it’s highly likely that sooner or later Ukrainian F-16 will be retrofitted with APG-68(v)9 radars from 2004 designed for Block 50/52+ F-16. The APG-68v9 is a Mechanical radar as well but with greater range and better Air-Ground modes (0.6 m SAR maps), enabling the F-16 to better exploit AIM-120C7’s envelope.
The AMRAAM will give Ukraine a massive boost in capability. Consider that Ukrainian Mig-29 & Su-27 have been flying with R-27 having semi-active radar homing (SARH) requiring the launch platform to keep ‘painting’ the target until the very end which puts them at a huge disadvantage against Russian aircraft using R-77 with active guidance and the ability to disengage after missile launch.
The AIM-120 is also significantly more capable than R-77, not just in terms of being more resilient to jamming (AMRAAMs have been consistently upgraded throughout its service life with 7 major upgrades since introduction while R-77 had just one) but also in terms of range. While the actual envelope of any AIM-120 remain classified, even Russian estimates show the older AIM-120A/B having at least 30% greater range than R-77.
Russian estimate of AIM-120A/B (Lines) and R-77 envelope (Coloured region inside). Overlap credit: Garrya
The AIM-120C5 had almost twice the range of AIM-120B (105 vs. 55 km) whereas the R-77–1 only had a modest 37% increase over its predecessor (110 vs. 80 km). As a side note their ranges are apples to orange as evident from the chart above – the AIM-120A/B can achieve its 55 km range at 32,000 ft. whereas the R-77 can only achieve its 80 km range above 50,000 ft.
Also, Russian aircraft aren't just handicapped by shorter range of R-77 but also their fire control radars. While Irbis-E having 350 km range against a 3 m^2 in cued-search sounds impressive in first glance, what many don't realise is that Irbis-E has a maximum engagement range of 250 km even against a B-52 Bomber, similar to how Its predecessor N011M Bars on Su-30 had a 200 km maximum targeting range.
KNAAPO’s Su-35 brochure
Irbis-E isn't going to track a Fighter-sized aircraft beyond 100–120 km, something also evident from its flight test video where it tracks a target from less than <100 km despite having detected the same target from 268 km.[4] This is because Russian manufacturers love to market ranges in Velocity Search mode unlike Western manufacturers publishing Track While Scan (TWS) figures. Thailand’s joint exercise with PLAAF involving Gripen-C and J-11 in 2015 Falcon Strike highlighted just how far behind Russian aircraft lag in BVR combat. Take a look at the number of kills scored by both sides at 50 km, 30 km and visual-range.
Number of kills at respective ranges by Gripen-C/D (Blue) and J-11 (Red)
You can see how Gripen-C with AIM-120 completely dominated the BVR spectrum against J-11 (Su-27), with the latter only having an advantage in WVR engagements because of HOBS missile (R-73) as Thailand was using the older AIM-9M on their Gripen. Part of this is because of AMRAAM’s superior envelope and part of it due to Russian radars significantly lagging behind Western counterparts. Notice the disproportionate ratio of kills even at 30 km. Granted the Su-30 and Su-35 carry more capable radars today but so would Ukrainian F-16AM.
How well Ukrainian F-16s will be able to handle Russian aircraft will ultimately depend on what radar they will be having and the AIM-120C variant supplied. Over the year we’ve seen US being bit more relaxed in terms of sending advanced weaponry to Ukraine and there are very good reasons to retrofit Ukrainian F-16s with more capable sensors (radar, HTS pod, etc.) given the serious SAM threat they would be facing, never mind the aerial threat. Even in worst case scenario these “obsolete” F-16AM will have roughly comparable air-air capability as the latest Russian Fighters and that completely changes things for the VKS.
-------------------------
It’s worth mentioning that you’re not going to see Ukrainian F-16s directly confronting Russian Airforce, they simply won’t have the numbers. Instead we’re more likely to see ambushes aimed at disrupting Russian aircraft’s stand-off attack near the front lines as well as their combat air patrols near Ukrainian border, especially around Black Sea (where you’ve little Russian SAM coverage). Mig-31BM is one of the only Russian aircraft that pose a serious threat to Ukrainian F-16 because of their ability to launch R-37M from significantly long-ranges. Individually R-37M will have poor pK against manoeuvrable targets but when used routinely to attack enemy Fighters, the risk increases quite dramatically.
Although it’s also worth remembering that Ukraine have been spending a lot of efforts in forward deploying some of the Western Air Defences near the front line. We already saw Ukrainian SAMs threatening Russian aircraft some 50 km inside Russian border when VKS lost a Su-35, Su-34 and 2 Mi-8 helicopters on a single day in Bryansk Oblast, north of Ukrainian border (May 13, 2023). As the airspace near the frontline becomes increasingly contested, you won’t have the Mig-31 able to engage Ukrainian aircraft as easily as they’ve been able to so far.
The F-16 is going to have a huge impact in this conflict, perhaps more so than just about anything else. The capabilities it brings to the table, not just as a platform but also the ability to employ a large arsenal of very capable weapons far exceeds anything that’s available to Ukraine. Most people fail to understand what Air power brings to the table, especially when they’ve spent a year watching two opposing Airforces fight with horribly outdated equipment and weaponry. The F-16s isn’t a joke that Russian fanboys make it out to be. There’s a reason Russia resorted to extreme measures to prevent the transfer of advanced weapon system to Ukraine, in particular Western Fighter aircraft. Unlike the trolls Russian military leaders understand the consequences of Ukraine operating F-16.
Since the Russian invasion what Ukrainian Airforce have been able to do with its small and seriously outdated Russian fleet is nothing short of remarkable. They’ve been remarkably patient and persistent in their efforts despite overwhelming odds. Having looked at their performance over the year, I can only imagine what they’d do with their future F-16 fleet. As an aviation enthusiast it’ll be really interesting to see how things unfold at the end of this year and beyond.
I told you not to read this, Raj! How are you holding up?
Q: How are a few dozen obsolete F-16s in Ukraine going to fight against hundreds of top 10 fighters like the Russian Su-35?
A:
It’s funny how those hundreds of top Russian Fighters have been unable to achieve Air Superiority against some 82-odd Ukrainian Fighter aircraft and 40 year old Soviet Air Defences with roughly 1/8th the SAM density of 1991 Iraq (430 vs. 3,679 SAMs).[1] Ukrainian S-300PS dates back to 1985; Buk-M1 1983, making them about just as old as Iraqi Air Defences in the Gulf War.
Right now Ukrainian Mig-29 & Su-27 are using HARMs in Pre-briefed (PB) mode where the missiles are programmed on the ground to fly over suspected Russian SAM sites in lofted trajectory, being completely reliant on the their own seeker to acquire a target (Russian radar). Both Mig-29 and Su-27 lack the necessary data buses to fully communicate with HARM (or Western munitions in general). The rudimentary integration only allow the missiles to be launched in flight with the targeting data being preloaded on the ground before.
The F-16s with ASQ-213 HARMs Targeting pod (HTS) can geo-locate Russian SAMs in-flight and pass on their GPS coordinates to HARMs before launch in real-time, so that merely turning off the radar won’t be nearly as effective. The F-16 with HTS also has the ability to choose a specific radar type. You can have the pilot designate say S-300 or S-400’s Search radar(s) over SHORADs (Buk-M2, Pantsir-S, Tor-M) depending on the mission. The advantage of able to shoot HARMs at specific threat radar(s) instead of a random one in PB mode can’t be overstated.
All of these make F-16s vastly more capable in SEAD than Mig-29 using the same missiles. Also, F-16s have access to a wide range of ECM pods from American to Israeli and even European, some of them like ELL-8251 (escort-jammer) with significant jamming capability. This combined with much greater Situational Awareness in cockpit allows the F-16 to operate at medium to high altitudes and suddenly you’ve the HARMs launched from F-16s having double the range (~100 km) than Mig-29 operating at low altitudes and only making a short climb before launch (~50 km). So you can have the F-16s conduct SEAD operations from further behind the front lines. The F-16 will also be used alongside decoys like MALD. Ukraine already started using MALD-B decoys last month [2] and with F-16 they can be more extensively deployed as well as controlled in-flight based on real time intelligence.
F-16 carrying a MALD-J during testing
MALD decoy is basically a long-endurance UAV able to mimic the radar signature and flight envelope of attacking aircraft. By acting as a bait they protect the strike package as well as stimulate the enemy Air Defences, making them go ‘active’ and thereby, visible to HTS on F-16 for example. Because the F-16 with HTS can actually track emitters in real-time unlike Ukrainian Mig-29 or Su-27, they can make far more effective use of MALD.
You don’t necessarily need brand new Block 70 F-16 for SEAD, even 30 year old Block 20 F-16A with Midlife upgrade (MLU) and HTS pods can have serious SEAD capability with HARMs. Ukrainian Mig-29 & Su-27 are barely scratching the surface with HARMs, with F-16 the threat to Russian Air Defences will be so severe that there will be instances where Ukrainian pilots merely announcing ‘Magnum’ (HARMs launch code) on radio will have Russian SAMs turning off their radars and leave the airspace vulnerable to F-16 strikes. Now, this is not to say that you’re going to see Ukrainian F-16s running massive SEAD campaign like Desert Storm, no. They simply don’t have the resources. Nor would you see Ukrainian F-16s quickly achieving Air Superiority over the front lines. The Russian SAM-density over most region is simply too high for a dozen or so F-16s Ukraine would be receiving and given the lack of external support, they can’t be running SEAD campaign as effectively as Western Airforces could.
Instead you’re going to have Ukrainian F-16s generate ‘gaps’ in Russian Air Defences over the front lines. You see, today the front lines stretches over 1,400 km from North to East and the South. Russia simply doesn't have the resources to reinforce the entire front with long-range SAMs. Last year we already saw Russia deploying S-300 from its second larges city, St. Petersburg to the front lines in Ukraine. Add Ukraine’s recent drone attacks in Moscow and Russian oil refineries, which are only going to increase over the next 6 months and you’re going to have a scenario where Russian Air Defences would be in high demand both inside Russia and in Ukraine.
The current front line in Ukraine spans to over 1,400 km from the North to South
With Ukrainian F-16s picking out Russian Air Defences near the front lines, Russia will be forced to make sacrifices on which areas it would reinforce. This would leave large gaps over the front lines vulnerable to Ukrainian Airforce and subsequently their Armed forces. It will be a long SEAD campaign spanning over several months, unlike anything we have seen before but over time Russian SAM density on the frontline will decrease dramatically.
The F-16s also have significant Air-Ground capability, especially with extended-range: JDAM-ER enabling stand-off attack from over 74 km. The F-16 can provide in-flight targeting data to JDAMs unlike Ukraine’s Su-24 or Mig-29 limited to merely launching them with the targeting data being preloaded on the ground before. The F-16s also have a number of modern Targeting pods like LITENING or Sniper ATP that gives the pilot ability to see near-visual imagery (in IR spectrum) of ground targets from significantly longer range. Here’s a footage of Sniper ATP tracking a car from over 60 km while geo-locating its position in real time.
Sniper ATP footage. Left: Wide angle; Right: Magnified view.
Such long-range detection and targeting capability would allow Ukrainian F-16s to locate and target Russian forces especially mobile targets across the front line, something both UAF and VKS have been struggling to do lately. The F-16s will also be able to use GBU-39 SDBs that have a 110 km range with a 93 kg penetrating warhead which is about the same as GMLRS that Ukraine has been extensively using since last year. You can have the F-16 carry 8 SDBs quadpacked on two pylons, far exceeding the firepower of a M142 HIMARS (6 GMLRS). And the F-16 can do so while carrying 2 HARMs and 4 AIM-120s on the rest 4 pylons and wingtip launchers allowing it to combine SEAD with strike missions. This is the kind of flexibility F-16s bring to the table and one of its advantage over others like Gripen-C, having about 50% greater weapons payload in real world.
The F-16’s strike capability isn’t limited to PGMs but also in long range strikes with weapons like JSOW-C and Harpoon AShMs. Ukrainian uncrewed surface vessels (USV) have already been creating serious nuisance for Russia’s Black Sea fleet based in Sevastopol, Crimea. Having seriously damaging a number of Russian ships and occasionally harassing them in the Black Sea. The F-16s significantly changes the calculus as Ukraine can put their existing Harpoon AShMs on F-16 and use the increased range to strike Russian ships in Sevastopol and the Black Sea with actual AShMs instead of a slow tug boat loaded with explosives.
A ROCAF F-16 with two AGM-84 Harpoon AShMs
If Ukraine were to ever take back Crimea then it needs to remove the viability of Russia using Sevastopol as a warm water port in Black Sea and there’s nothing better than F-16s to do that. Living under the constant threat of an AShM attack from Ukrainian F-16 and loosing a few ships in the process significantly reduces the militarily value of Crimea. Sooner or later Russia will be forced to remove its fleet from Sevastopol. The F-16s will also open the possibility of Ukraine receiving AGM-84 SLAM-ER that are based on Harpoons. The SLAM-ER have similar range as the Storm Shadow (270 km) Ukraine started using lately, but are relatively cheaper and more widely available which will likely result in Ukraine receiving them in greater numbers. Together with Storm Shadow it will be used to attack Russian bases in Crimea and given last year’s attack on Saki airbase that destroyed more than 12 Russian aircraft on the ground, we know just how well Russian Air Defences would fare against them.
Air-Air
The first batch of F-16s Ukraine is likely to receive will be from Denmark, Netherlands and other European operators. They’re Block 20 F-16AM having undergone MLU with modest radar upgrade, addition of JHMCS (Helmet Mounted Cueing System), larger multifunctional colour display in cockpit in addition to other software and hardware upgrades to facilitate integration of more capable pods (HTS R7) and modern weapons (AGM-88D/E, AIM-120C/D, JSOW-C, JASSM, SDB, etc). They carry older APG-66v2 Mechanical radars with modest upgrades (new processors to increase computing power) expanding the ability to engage 6 targets with AIM-120 which is quite significant considering their age and actually more than N011M on Su-30 (4 targets).[3] While it should be able to take advantage of AIM-120C5, it’s unlikely to fully exploit the envelope of AIM-120C7. Although given the threat environment in Ukraine it’s highly likely that sooner or later Ukrainian F-16 will be retrofitted with APG-68(v)9 radars from 2004 designed for Block 50/52+ F-16. The APG-68v9 is a Mechanical radar as well but with greater range and better Air-Ground modes (0.6 m SAR maps), enabling the F-16 to better exploit AIM-120C7’s envelope.
The AMRAAM will give Ukraine a massive boost in capability. Consider that Ukrainian Mig-29 & Su-27 have been flying with R-27 having semi-active radar homing (SARH) requiring the launch platform to keep ‘painting’ the target until the very end which puts them at a huge disadvantage against Russian aircraft using R-77 with active guidance and the ability to disengage after missile launch.
The AIM-120 is also significantly more capable than R-77, not just in terms of being more resilient to jamming (AMRAAMs have been consistently upgraded throughout its service life with 7 major upgrades since introduction while R-77 had just one) but also in terms of range. While the actual envelope of any AIM-120 remain classified, even Russian estimates show the older AIM-120A/B having at least 30% greater range than R-77.
Russian estimate of AIM-120A/B (Lines) and R-77 envelope (Coloured region inside). Overlap credit: Garrya
The AIM-120C5 had almost twice the range of AIM-120B (105 vs. 55 km) whereas the R-77–1 only had a modest 37% increase over its predecessor (110 vs. 80 km). As a side note their ranges are apples to orange as evident from the chart above – the AIM-120A/B can achieve its 55 km range at 32,000 ft. whereas the R-77 can only achieve its 80 km range above 50,000 ft.
Also, Russian aircraft aren't just handicapped by shorter range of R-77 but also their fire control radars. While Irbis-E having 350 km range against a 3 m^2 in cued-search sounds impressive in first glance, what many don't realise is that Irbis-E has a maximum engagement range of 250 km even against a B-52 Bomber, similar to how Its predecessor N011M Bars on Su-30 had a 200 km maximum targeting range.
KNAAPO’s Su-35 brochure
Irbis-E isn't going to track a Fighter-sized aircraft beyond 100–120 km, something also evident from its flight test video where it tracks a target from less than <100 km despite having detected the same target from 268 km.[4] This is because Russian manufacturers love to market ranges in Velocity Search mode unlike Western manufacturers publishing Track While Scan (TWS) figures. Thailand’s joint exercise with PLAAF involving Gripen-C and J-11 in 2015 Falcon Strike highlighted just how far behind Russian aircraft lag in BVR combat. Take a look at the number of kills scored by both sides at 50 km, 30 km and visual-range.
Number of kills at respective ranges by Gripen-C/D (Blue) and J-11 (Red)
You can see how Gripen-C with AIM-120 completely dominated the BVR spectrum against J-11 (Su-27), with the latter only having an advantage in WVR engagements because of HOBS missile (R-73) as Thailand was using the older AIM-9M on their Gripen. Part of this is because of AMRAAM’s superior envelope and part of it due to Russian radars significantly lagging behind Western counterparts. Notice the disproportionate ratio of kills even at 30 km. Granted the Su-30 and Su-35 carry more capable radars today but so would Ukrainian F-16AM.
How well Ukrainian F-16s will be able to handle Russian aircraft will ultimately depend on what radar they will be having and the AIM-120C variant supplied. Over the year we’ve seen US being bit more relaxed in terms of sending advanced weaponry to Ukraine and there are very good reasons to retrofit Ukrainian F-16s with more capable sensors (radar, HTS pod, etc.) given the serious SAM threat they would be facing, never mind the aerial threat. Even in worst case scenario these “obsolete” F-16AM will have roughly comparable air-air capability as the latest Russian Fighters and that completely changes things for the VKS.
-------------------------
It’s worth mentioning that you’re not going to see Ukrainian F-16s directly confronting Russian Airforce, they simply won’t have the numbers. Instead we’re more likely to see ambushes aimed at disrupting Russian aircraft’s stand-off attack near the front lines as well as their combat air patrols near Ukrainian border, especially around Black Sea (where you’ve little Russian SAM coverage). Mig-31BM is one of the only Russian aircraft that pose a serious threat to Ukrainian F-16 because of their ability to launch R-37M from significantly long-ranges. Individually R-37M will have poor pK against manoeuvrable targets but when used routinely to attack enemy Fighters, the risk increases quite dramatically.
Although it’s also worth remembering that Ukraine have been spending a lot of efforts in forward deploying some of the Western Air Defences near the front line. We already saw Ukrainian SAMs threatening Russian aircraft some 50 km inside Russian border when VKS lost a Su-35, Su-34 and 2 Mi-8 helicopters on a single day in Bryansk Oblast, north of Ukrainian border (May 13, 2023). As the airspace near the frontline becomes increasingly contested, you won’t have the Mig-31 able to engage Ukrainian aircraft as easily as they’ve been able to so far.
The F-16 is going to have a huge impact in this conflict, perhaps more so than just about anything else. The capabilities it brings to the table, not just as a platform but also the ability to employ a large arsenal of very capable weapons far exceeds anything that’s available to Ukraine. Most people fail to understand what Air power brings to the table, especially when they’ve spent a year watching two opposing Airforces fight with horribly outdated equipment and weaponry. The F-16s isn’t a joke that Russian fanboys make it out to be. There’s a reason Russia resorted to extreme measures to prevent the transfer of advanced weapon system to Ukraine, in particular Western Fighter aircraft. Unlike the trolls Russian military leaders understand the consequences of Ukraine operating F-16.
Since the Russian invasion what Ukrainian Airforce have been able to do with its small and seriously outdated Russian fleet is nothing short of remarkable. They’ve been remarkably patient and persistent in their efforts despite overwhelming odds. Having looked at their performance over the year, I can only imagine what they’d do with their future F-16 fleet. As an aviation enthusiast it’ll be really interesting to see how things unfold at the end of this year and beyond.
I told you not to read this, Raj! How are you holding up?
Bridge between occupied Crimea and Kherson region was damaged in a missile strike
Владимир Сальдо
Преступный киевский режим совершил варварский обстрел гражданских объектов — мостов на административной границе между Херсонской областью и Крымом вблизи Чонгара. Киевские террористы хотят запугать херсонцев, посеять панику среди населения, но у них этого сделать не получится. Мосты мы...
t.me
Russia says it was a Storm Shadow. Given that the bridge is still in place, I say bollox.