Su-34 vs. F-16: can the Falcon claw the Duckling with impunity?
Here they know how in the West to give nicknames to aircraft, since the Second World War, it has gone on and on. There is something so sacred in this. The name is not only a shaking of the air, it is also a certain meaning. Tuning both his own and others.
"Aerocobra", "Thunderbolt", "Thunderbolt", "Black Witch" - well, wow, not names? Yes, they are catching up with us, there are all sorts of “Carnation”, “Peony”, “Hyacinth” (it is true, it was somehow changed into “Genocide”, but this is a matter of taste, of course), “Acacia” ... There are also normal names from a military point of view, but we are not talking about that now.
Are we talking about how much the desired appearance of the "Fighting Falcons" that the F-16 will be able to change the situation in the air?
Moreover, a lot has already been written about the very characteristics of the Falcon, today we are most interested in the aspect of the confrontation of the F-16 both as a fighter and as a bomber.
I said, I say, and I will not get tired of repeating: the advantage in the air is a very complex matter. This is the balance in the first and second queues. Here much depends on who and whom will shoot down and whether they will shoot down at all.
Now I (as usual, however) will plunge into history. And let me remind you how one belligerent power completely spat on its bombers and attack aircraft, and started producing exclusively fighters. Which, according to the concept, were supposed to destroy enemy bombers, demolishing military factories in this country to the ground.
However, the fighter pilots were not properly prepared for such a war and got busy shooting down what was easier. That is, enemy fighters. In the end, everything ended sadly: the country (Germany) was left without a military industry, and the heroic fighter pilots had simply fantastic accounts of downed enemy aircraft. But this did not affect the course of the war at all.
Moreover, while the German aces were chasing Soviet fighters, the attack aircraft literally plowed up the front line of the German defense. Well, you all already know the ending. Of course, the not entirely correct attitude of the German aces did not become such a critical reason for the defeat of the Luftwaffe in the air, but the weight was thrown on the scales of the war.
Today, in the "Poditryanye Forces", in my opinion, they also treat the idea of using the F-16 with too much.
It seems that here, they will bring "litaks" and everything will go as planned. Yes, having received the "Haymars", the Ukrainians really gained a certain advantage in certain conditions. But no more.
Having received the F-16, apart from a headache in the early stages, they will not receive anything. All these stories about six-month training courses for advanced Ukrainian pilots - it's better to look at them the way ours look at them. And our pilots say simple things: three years of practice after school - and you are good for something in terms of combat.
Of course, a pilot who has hundreds of hours of flight behind him is a somewhat different matter, but ... But everything is not as rosy as we would like. We will have to re-learn all the materiel, and before that - a foreign language. I don’t know if the speech informants were translated into Ukrainian on Ukrainian Air Force planes, but I’m sure that “Whining Betty” will still be bored in English in “Falcon”.
The second part is technical, that is, it requires infrastructure and trained personnel. And logistics.
Of course, it can be assumed that the Pratt-Whitney engine will calmly eat kerosene, say, from the Kremenchug oil refinery? No, he would prefer kerosene from Marathon Petroleum's Garryville Refinery. But since the Kremenchug refinery was shut down last year (the last of the Ukrainian refineries), kerosene will have to be transported from the USA or from somewhere in Europe. The main thing is not from the Bulgarian factories of Lukoil.
Who is fundamentally interested: American kerosenes (for example, military JP8) differ significantly in density, viscosity and combustion temperature from our essentially Soviet-style kerosenes. That is, their JP8 is not at all like our RT, T-6 or T-8V. Different bases, different additive packages, different degrees of purification.
I suspect that they have a higher degree of purification there, which, oddly enough, gives advantages to our technology. A separate topic is the possibility of using civilian grades of fuel. In the United States, military aircraft engines are being tested using Jet A fuel, ours, by the way, can also safely use T-1 / TC-1, but the question is - why, if there is enough normal specialized kerosene for military aircraft?
It is clear that this does not apply to Ukraine. In this regard, everything is fine with them, that is, they do not have their own kerosene. Meanwhile, it takes several hundred tons of kerosene a day for an F-16 squadron to act like something out of combat. Import - yes, no question, take it. But if anything - and all the "Falcons" will be on the ground with incomprehensible prospects.
Absolutely the same applies to oils, hydraulic and other fluids.
And more about gluttony.
It is known that the F-16 does not differ for the better in combat radius, which is due to the same engine characteristics. Translation: eats like crazy. Therefore, with two conformal hanging tanks of 5 thousand liters each, already familiar from the photo, the combat radius of the Falcon is just over 1500 kilometers. And even less without tanks. Because of this, in the best case, the fighter will be able to carry a pair of AGM-88 radar missiles, but there is no talk of several large-caliber adjustable bombs declared in the performance characteristics.
Well, it’s not very nice to compare like that, but the Su-35, with which the Sokol will have to deal, hung with missiles for the very thing, without hanging tanks, easily flies 2 kilometers. Yes, without acceleration in afterburner and combat maneuvering, but nevertheless, with a full combat load.
I must say right away that I agree with those who say that the comparison is incorrect, but I doubt that our technicians will remove “extra” rockets and drain kerosene so that the duel is chivalrous. To hell with jousting, whoever is stronger is the winner. That's all.
But we will take the most optimistic option: the planes were brought in, kerosene and oil in barrels are in warehouses, Calibers or Iskanders did not fly over them, there are technicians and pilots from among the “vacationers”, outrageously similar to mercenaries from NATO countries. Well, yes, a certain number of Ukrainians who have seized upon the Sokolov.
Well, just so that someone on the air on "Red two I'm red one, we start rebuilding according to the variation With ..." would definitely say "Yeah, let's get the giblets out by accepting ...". Well, to hear their own, and not quite their own.
Ukrainians, saying that they really need planes to intercept missiles and "shaheeds", to put it mildly, are disingenuous. No country in the world has used airplanes for this for the past 30 years. Yes, in the early days of Spitfires they chased V-1s and did it successfully, but today there are anti-missiles to intercept missiles that do it much better and more clearly from the ground .
The aircraft is needed to destroy air targets such as aircraft and helicopters, as well as to work on ground targets, depending on its specification.
We have already assumed that the most likely hit in the Ukrainian Air Force is the F-16 Block 50/52.
The modification is not new at all, it appeared in 1990 and its main feature is the AN / APG-68V5 radar, which is designed to provide operation with AGM-88 missiles. Let me remind you that we have anti-radar missiles. And the presence of a separate complex of pulse-Doppler radar is a great help in detecting, and, most importantly, processing enemy radar signals.
Today, American HARM missiles are programmed on the ground and launched from Ukrainian MiG-29s almost at random, approximately at the target area, in the hope that the missile itself will detect a working radar and aim at it.
The F-16, which, unlike the MiG-29, can “speak” with missiles, will be able to give HARM missions in flight and thereby significantly increase the efficiency of air defense work.
True, there is one more nuance here. This is the cost. The F-16 in the Block 50/52 version starts to cost more than $55 million, in contrast to the base version, which "weighs" only 30 million.
In the United States, too, they are by no means fools, and they are well aware that the Ukrainians will not chase the Shaheeds, respectively, the Falcons will face real fights in the sky with Russian aircraft and air defense systems. And here, not the most beautiful options in terms of losses are already possible. So they are in no hurry to please their wards in Kyiv with the supply of aircraft.
Well, it's very expensive.
Well, the Falcons have arrived, poured kerosene, oil, etc., is it time to fight?
To begin with, consider the shock capabilities of the Falcon.
JDAM attached to a conventional bomb Mk.82, Mk.83 and Mk.84.
The system is very good and has proved its usefulness in practice, but there is one point: you need a height. That is, where the JDAMs were most effective (Iraq and Afghanistan), there was no air defense at all. Rare launches of old Stinger models - sorry, it’s not worth counting.
In Ukraine, everything is somewhat worse in terms of the presence of a very large number of air defense systems in the Russian army. Therefore, this one:
“During the test, an F-22 fighter flying at an altitude of 50 feet (approximately 000 meters) at a speed one and a half times the speed of sound dropped a 15-kilogram JDAM aerial bomb on a target located at a distance of over 000 kilometers”
- this will not happen. Well, they just won't let the F-16s have fun like that.All of the above applies equally to the Paveway family of ammunition.
The fact that the enemy has completely modern fighters and missiles plus air defense systems closes the issue of high-altitude use of the F-16 once and for all.
AGM-154JSOW
A bomb that can be attached to an engine and turned into a rocket. It’s already more interesting than JDAM, it doesn’t depend so much on the height, but the cost ... And for the time being, this name has not flashed in releases about the transfer of weapons. Apparently, we need it ourselves.
In addition, here it is worth considering one more thing: according to the American concepts of use, the F-16 is used not as an independent unit, but as part of a combat mechanism in which the F-16 plays the role of a fighter, and there is also an F-15, F -22, and AWACS, without which you can't go anywhere at all.
Well, AWACS helps today too, flying either in the Romanian space or on the Black Sea, this is understandable. They will help, because without an AWACS aircraft, the Sokol detection range of air targets drops by half, to 120-150 km. Ours see much further, and our AWACS planes, although not the most perfect, are also there and the guys know how to work there.
It is unrealistic to organize a full-fledged air group in Ukraine, which means that 9 suspension points for weapons in the F-16 will be used approximately ... never. And with a couple of bombs, there’s nothing to even try to portray something so meaningful.
But there are missiles that, as we have already said, can work on radars and can work on aircraft. And here it is an option, the Falcon flies with air-to-air missiles and is looking for the same Duck, which they have the Hell Duck.
AIM-9 Sidewinder
This is a classic in the sky, like an AK on the ground. AIM-9 for almost 70 years of operation have riveted so much (more than 200 thousand) that the question here is only what modification of the missile can get into Ukraine.
AIM-9X, the latest version of the rocket, has a very good photodetector, improved resistance to "cheating" by heat traps, thrust vector control significantly improved the maneuverability of the rocket, missile control was integrated into the JHMCS helmet-mounted display. In general - just wonderful weapon. The range of the AIM-9X is already about 40 km, the predecessors, respectively, less. One of the best short-range missiles in the world.
Only the price is terrible: 600 thousand dollars apiece. Rockets of the first modifications AIM-9B, for example, cost then, in those days, about 15 thousand dollars. So if this charm goes to Ukraine, then definitely not in the hundreds.
AIM-120 AMRAAM
This is already a medium-range class, the missiles are heavier, and more impressive in terms of capabilities. The range of the latest AIM-120D modification is about 180 km, but if something goes to Ukraine, of course, it will be older and cheaper. Not for 500 thousand dollars apiece, but for 300-320 and with a flight range of up to 120 km.
Is it a good rocket? Excellent. The first missile in the middle class equipped with a radar seeker. A fairly reliable weapon that shot down modern aircraft such as the MiG-29 and Su-24.
In general, a kind of musketeer is drawn: easy to climb (12 tons of takeoff weight), fast (1400 km / h at low altitudes and 2000+ km / h at high altitudes, if they let you climb), 9 suspension points, of which half can be used, if you need to fly a little further than 500 km, very good missiles and, most importantly, avionics, if not yesterday, then not very old.
Now the Su-34.
Excuse me, this is Dobrynya Nikitich. With a club. Take-off weight - 45 tons, of which 12 tons is fuel in internal tanks. Funny, right? The F-16 weighs like fuel for the Su-34 on takeoff, but that's what it is, that is. And without suspended nonsense, the Su-34 flies up to 2000 km in one direction. Having on 12 nodes from 4 to 8 tons of various useful things.
At an altitude of 10 meters, it will be difficult for the Su-000 to get away from the F-34, the Sokol is faster there. Downstairs, they are almost equal in speed. But who will climb to a height, where the air defense systems will be very happy about this?
What do we have at "Duckling" in order to offend "Falcon"?
Well, in general, EVERYTHING that is produced by the domestic defense industry for aviation. But if we are talking about a mid-air collision, then the set of guided air-to-air weapons looks like this:
- 6 missiles R-27RE (TE, R, T), medium range, up to 110 km;
- 8 R-77 / RVV-AE missiles, also with an average range of up to 110 km, but a more modern product than the R-27;
- 8 R-73 missiles, short range, up to 40 km.
A typical version of the Su-34 equipment for solving air-to-air missions may look like this: 6 R-27/RVV-AE missiles and 4 R-73 missiles. Or, a Su-34 flying on a mission can have 2 R-77s and 2 R-73s “just in case” if enemy aircraft activity is detected in the area of work.
As for long-range missiles of the R-37 type, it is possible that their use will be quite normal, but in general for a bomber, which is the Su-34, this may be redundant.
The most important question: who will see the enemy first?
There are many options here. Is there an AWACS aircraft behind you, or should you rely only on yourself? If there is AWAKS, the Falcon is in order, they will prompt / guide him. No - alas, but 120-140 km is the maximum that can be squeezed out of the F-16 radar.
The Su-34 is much better in this regard, because 200-250 km is the distance at which the crew of the "Duckling" "sees" without the help of the same A-50. And with the help of even more, up to 400 km.
In general, if a pair of AWAKS + F-16s is approximately equal to one Su-34, then without the help of the “big brother”, the Sokol is a candidate for pate.
Moreover, even with instructions from AWACS, approaching the Su-34 is not as easy as we would like. The aircraft has a rear-view radar, which can not only detect an enemy aircraft or missile launch, but also provide target designation data to the air-to-air missile guidance system and the electronic warfare complex. Moreover, missiles can turn around and work out just in the rear hemisphere.
Once again, I draw your attention to the fact that in a year and a half of the NMD, not a single Su-34 was shot down by the “window forces” of Ukraine. All losses were from air defense systems and MZA, which worked at close range by the standards of aviation. Not a single missile launch from an aircraft reached the target, although there were launches.
And the last. Crews. Ukrainian pilots hastily retrained as part of a six-month program are mincemeat. Recruited around the world who know how to F-16 - this is very serious. Everything really depends on the experience of the flight crew and the ability to use all the strengths of their combat vehicle.
Communicating with our Su-34 pilots, I have long been firmly convinced that they know their business. But what will happen with the F-16 is hard to say, it is a variable.
We can continue this hypothetical comparison for quite a long time, but: we really do not know which Falcons and with whom in the cockpits will end up in the sky of Ukraine. And it remains only to sum up.
Can the F-16 fight on a par with the Su-34?
Yes. Subject to a pilot with the proper level of training.
The F-16 is lighter and smaller and more manoeuvrable. Will this give him an advantage in the battle with the Su-34?
No. The times of "dog dumps", when planes flew at a distance of 200-500 meters and watered each other with cannons and machine guns, ended a long time ago. Today, the distance of "close combat" is 20-40 km. And missiles, which are problematic for everyone to get away from. Although they leave, using for this everything that is in the arsenal of the aircraft, from IR traps to electronic warfare. Considering that the Su-34 will see the F-16 long before it can launch its missiles, the issue does not seem to require special consideration.
Is the advantage in speed important in such a fight?
No. Especially considering that both the Su-34 and F-16 practically fly at the same speeds. Here is the opportunity to “hang” in the air not for an hour, but for four - this is more important. The cavalry attack of the F-16 will end with the fact that he will be forced to leave, as the fuel will start to run out, and here - catch the “hello” from the Su-34 in the engines. But in general, in combat, it is not so important what speed you have, 1,4M or 1,8M. The rocket still has more, 4-5M, so it’s clear who will have a headache.
Missiles: how much of an advantage can they provide?
Given that in terms of air-to-air missiles, Russia and the United States are approximately equal, and it is doubtful that the latest missiles will be delivered to Ukraine, there is an opinion that our pilots will have an advantage. Not a critical advantage, but it will be.
Guns, calibers, shells?
Absolutely not. Modern air combat is missiles and only missiles. The gun is drone or a ground target, nothing more.
The morale of the pilots?
A little. Here you need to understand the following: either Ukrainians will fight against our pilots, whose morale is really higher than the stratosphere, or mercenaries who don’t care at all. Process and payment are important. Ukrainians are really motivated, but the level of training will let you down. Mercenaries are trained, but motivation is a problem for them.
As for our…
Everything is very complicated here. I spoke with more than one, and I want to say that in fact this is a very difficult to understand caste - bomber pilots. They have such their own understanding of the world around them and themselves in the world (especially in the cockpit), that I will not undertake to clearly evaluate them in bulk. But I will say one thing - it will be very difficult to cope with these people. Very, you know, its own philosophy of combat and life, and you won’t understand what is more, combat or life.
In general, I really sympathize with those who really think there that the F-16 is a panacea for all problems. No, not from everyone. And the delivery of these aircraft is only the beginning, but what will happen in the future ...
My opinion is that the F-16 is a very good aircraft. Indeed, in its class, perhaps even the best. But in order to fight against the Su-34, he is not good enough. These are aircraft of different classes, but the Su-34 class is higher.
Information