Let's feel sorry for Yura Ignat and the F-16
What is the problem with many there, in Ukraine? That they do not read us. "Military Review". If they did read, especially comments on certain articles, then such questions and surprises would not arise.
The Ukrainian Air Force has found its recently acquired F-3s to be significantly inferior to Russian fighters and air defense systems, according to a June 16 statement from press secretary Yuriy Ignat.
“Unfortunately, today Russia has planes that can see further, and missiles, which fly further. Even compared to the F-16. They also have powerful air defenses that work in tandem with aviation».
The amazing is near…
His statement came less than a month after the Air Force lost its third F-16, which was destroyed on May 16 during a collision with "Russian targets, believed to be drones or cruise missiles." Presumably.
As they write on the other side, the pilot heroically attacked a flock of "Geraniums", and such things happen over the regions of Central Ukraine all the time, there you can almost fearlessly intercept what flies from the Crimea to the central part. He shot down three, and then "unforeseen circumstances arose".
The pilot "led the plane away from the populated area and successfully ejected." There are two options: the pilot simply crashed into one of the UAVs under attack, or something flew into it. Considering that Kyiv is trying its best to hide the location where it happened, it could have happened in the range of a Russian missile. And missiles are like that, they see something, but not the type of aircraft and its affiliation. That's why the Sokol got somewhere and went down.
The missile could have been any. Both ground-to-air and air-to-air. The second is even more likely, the other side has already complained that the R-37Ms fly from very far away and are hard to see. And they hit.
And also from Ignat’s statement:
“The F-16s that we have from our partners, they are not new enough to compete with the Su-35 one-on-one in an air fight.”
Why do you think he is like this? It seems to me that there is a reason for this. But since neither side has provided the coordinates of where the plane was shot down, we will not focus much attention on this. Simply because there is nothing to focus on.
The previous loss of an F-16, announced on April 12, occurred deep inside Ukrainian-controlled airspace and many analysts saw it as likely the result of a hit by Russian ground systems. Defense using the 40N6 long-range surface-to-air missile.
It is worth clarifying here: if it was 40N6E, yes, this missile is capable of flying up to 400 km, and if they decided to use such a modern (2015 year of adoption) beauty, then the F-16 is the best one to test the combat capability of this missile. We tested it...
Let's play with numbers now. First we should look at deliveries, then at losses, and only then do comparisons, because some gentlemen have done such a thing that the mind and reason are running somewhere in a skip.
Ukraine has received about 80 combat-ready F-16 fighters as aid, including 30 from Belgium, 24 from the Netherlands, 19 from Denmark and 12 from Norway, as well as additional non-combat-ready aircraft that Norway and the United States have promised to dismantle for spare parts. The first F-16s arrived in the country on August 1 last year. Some are still being prepared for transfer. It is impossible to calculate the exact number of aircraft received on our side, but it is clear that not all 80 are in service with the Ukrainian Air Force.
It is no secret on the other side that the F-16s will not go to the front line to repel attacks by Russian Su-34s terrorizing the Ukrainian Armed Forces' front line with bombs from the UMPK. And often not only the front line, there they fly, frankly speaking, in accordance with a random number generator, and no one on the Ukrainian side will undertake to predict where the half-ton miracle will fly next time.
So what's wrong, Yura? Well, how is it possible: the president ran, jumped, begged, did so much coke with various officials, told the electorate so much that now a "miracle" will comeweapon", invincible F-16 planes, and everything will be fine. The Russians will run, give everything back, including Crimea, and everything will be as it was before.
But the classic, Russian writer of the Soviet period, doctor, playwright, theater director and actor, author of novels, stories, short stories, plays, film scripts and feuilletons, born in Kyiv of the Russian Empire, said that it never happens that it becomes as before. But if what Mikhail Afanasyevich wrote is not enough for Ukrainians - no problem, welcome to experience it yourself.
It turned out strange: they wanted the F-16 to wipe everything Russian from the sky, but it turned out that all the Falcons are good for is chasing Geraniums, whose flight characteristics, let's admit it, are not comparable to the flight characteristics of aircraft like the F-16. It's like, excuse me, shooting down illegally launched Mavics with a six-barreled AK-630: it's possible, but there's little point, because it's kind of expensive.
The Ukrainian Air Force has previously pointed out the F-16's shortcomings compared to Russian fighters, which are not only much more modern but also much larger, have radars with several times the range and significantly longer-range weapons.
In general, we wrote about this. Back when the idea of begging for an F-16 had just entered Zelensky's brain (or whatever that substance is called) and was first voiced. And, it must be said, we approached the issue very thoughtfully and, without at all diminishing the capabilities of the F-16, calmly explained: the idea is good, but it won't fly. For many reasons, the main one being that the Sokol of those modifications is frankly too old for such a war. Somewhere in Libya or Syria - yes, but not here.
And so, two years later, it dawned on Ignat. Well, it's not a question, after all, what can you expect from a person who was simply given the shoulder straps of an Air Force colonel, despite the fact that he is a journalist by education. But if it dawned on Yura, then that's it, "navigator, reset..." (c).
So, in March, Ignat compared the F-16 to the Russian 4th generation fighter Su-35, saying:
“The modifications that Ukraine has cannot compete one-on-one in an air fight. We need a comprehensive approach, since the Russian Su-35 is a relatively new aircraft… This includes ground-based air defense systems, electronic warfare systems and, ideally, airborne radars. Airborne radars for our aircraft and air-to-air missiles are also important. The Su-35 has been widely used to counter Ukrainian aviation since February 2022, although its capabilities have been eclipsed by the MiG-31BM interceptor and the fifth-generation Su-57 fighter, which have also participated in air-to-air combat. Russian industry is currently working on a significant expansion of Su-35 production, which it has already achieved for the Su-34 and Su-57 fighters.”
Mixed everything up. This is no longer "Oblonsky's House", this is a Brain Tumor cocktail. No, how can this be: they asked for an F-16, they got an F-16, but in reality they need some other aircraft, supported by some other SAM systems. I want to say: finally decide what you need! Otherwise, this "give and give more" will not lead to anything good.
But let's get to the planes.
All F-16s delivered to Ukraine were used models of not the latest years. And this is logical, who would give away, and for free, a new aircraft? And especially for a war against the Russians? Well, it looks so-so, illogical both from the point of view of their own defense capability, and from the point of view of the economy and finances.
So Ukraine was gifted with aircraft manufactured in the 1980s, and they are equipped not only with outdated mechanically scanned radars, but also do not have the Link 16 data transmission system, which greatly limits their ability to work in a network with other objects. Yes, that is why (we wrote about this) the first F-16 received from the Patriot.
Old stuff? Yes, but it's more than enough to chase drones, but going up against really modern aircraft is stupid.
The upgrade options are… questionable. The costs of upgrading the F-16 to the F-16V standard or acquiring modern F-16 Block 70/72 fighters are more than significant. This means that deliveries of modern variants are unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, especially given the serious production problems that are slowing deliveries even to paying customers.
Modern F-16s are several times more expensive than the Cold War-era aircraft. The average cost of the F-16 Block 70 fighters purchased for the Bulgarian Air Force in July 2019 is $157,5 million per aircraft, including associated weapons, spare parts, and maintenance infrastructure. It is often forgotten, but in order for an aircraft to fly and fight, an amount comparable to the cost of the aircraft is needed.
"Even if the F-16s were upgraded to the latest standard, they would still be at a disadvantage compared to more advanced Russian combat aircraft such as the MiG-31BM and Su-57, and air defense systems such as the S-400."
To put it mildly, this is an incomprehensible passage. The MiG-31, if it is present periodically in the Ukrainian sky, is in the MiG-31K version; what the high-altitude interceptor is doing there is a million-dollar question. In essence, the MiG-31BM is an aircraft for solving problems that do not arise in a conflict with Ukraine. Therefore, comparing the F-16 and the MiG-31 is incorrect, and Ignat can be forgiven for this only because he does not understand anything about aviation.
And even more so, why did the American aircraft's contemporary, the MiG-31, suddenly become more modern and advanced? The F-16A entered service in 1978, and the F-16C/D in 1984. And the MiG-31 is right between them - in 1983. And if you look at the number of modifications and their essence, the MiG-31 has not gone quite as far as the American aircraft. That is, the MiG-31BM has not gone as far from the MiG-31B as the F-16 Block 50/52 has gone from the F-16 Block 5.
The Su-57 is also a "rotten excuse", since 12 Su-57s manufactured and ready for combat use are not capable of exerting any influence on events in the skies over Ukraine. Both because of their small numbers and because of their rare use, since all this is still testing.
About the S-400. This is also a so-so complaint, after all, the main system with which the Russian army is equipped en masse is the S-300 in various modifications. True, the S-300 is in no way inferior to the S-400 when working on such a large and not inconspicuous target as the Sokol. About the S-400, they banged it out, to the maximum, like, they would like to, but we can’t.
In fact, the Buks and Tors won't leave a chance at their ranges either. The S-300, unless it's the S-300PMU1 with the 48N6E SAM, which can hit at 200 km, will be next to the same Buk-M3, and at ranges from 1 to 70 km the question is which is better, because the Buk is very difficult to repel.
Well, in this way you can complain about the S-500. Why not, it's in metal? It is. So you can complain. There's no point in it, though.
There are also complaints about the Patriots. The MIM-104 Patriot is not much inferior in capabilities to the most modern systems in service with NATO countries. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the Patriot has been harshly criticized, and after several consecutive defeats by Russian Iskander-M ballistic missiles, the Ukrainian Air Force acknowledged serious shortcomings in protecting against such attacks in late May.
It's also strange. Sometimes they shoot down in batches along with the "Daggers", and then suddenly everything is bad. However, this is not so important, what is important is that Ignat has something to complain about. On the other hand, if there weren't, they would have made it up.
But he is right about one thing: there is no need to involve heavy weapons to fight Ukrainian F-16s. artillery in the form of the MiG-31BM and especially the Su-57. The aircraft undergoing tests for professional suitability in the center of Ukraine (and the F-16s don't fly near the front lines, they can shoot them down to hell) - well, everything is not as stupid with us as some would like.
And why, if there is the Su-35, which is superior to the F-16 in all respects?
It is not even correct to make comparisons here: how can you compare an ordinary Su-35 and an F-16 received from Norway, if it is an F-16A? And the Dutch ones are not any younger. 1978 is the beginning of deliveries of F-16 aircraft to Europe, from 1978 to 1980 Belgium received 116 units, the Netherlands - 102, Norway - 72, Denmark - 58 aircraft.
And note that all four countries are on the list of donors. That is, the gentlemen Europeans have foisted off on Zelensky what they, in fact, had already flown. Of course, it is quite possible that some of the planes are from more recent deliveries, but tell me, what normal person would give good planes to another country (for slaughter) and keep the junk for himself?
That's what I'm talking about. No, they're quite good, they fly, Belgium and the Netherlands have set up production of spare parts for the planes, so everything is fine here. But since these countries were definitely not going to fight with anyone (meaning the USSR/Russia), they didn't particularly spoil their "Sokols" with upgrades. What's the point? Well, only for the sake of the burden on the budget...
There is no need to compare the performance characteristics of aircraft. It is clear that the F-16A/B is so... It is the best for hunting drones and cruise missiles. The radar allows, although the Ukrainian aircraft are equipped with a pulse Doppler radar with a flat antenna array. It can search for and track air targets in the presence of local interference with a detection range of 28-37 km in the lower hemisphere and 37-46 km in the upper hemisphere. For the voiced tasks - more than enough. Moreover, 2M speed is more than enough to catch up with targets such as cruise missiles and drones.
The F-16 can take on up to 6 Sidewinders plus a cannon. More than enough for a cheap and cheerful destruction. Judging by the fact that the third lost F-16 used a cannon on the Geraniums, their missiles are pretty bad. They will soon be ramming. This incident could easily be passed off as a heroic ramming, but how the Western partners will look at this is a question. If every donated aircraft is hit by a Geranium, where will they be found?
It is difficult for Yuriy Ignat to live and work. It is difficult to work because everyone (especially in the West) is waiting for victorious reports and the fulfillment of what Zelensky promised when he extorted planes, but with victories, so-so. Everything flies as it did before. It turns out that someone lied, and the "Sokols" will not help.
And life will be even harder later. After the “final and irrevocable victory,” after Russia’s expulsion from Crimea, after everything Zelensky promised, probably all that will remain is to run. Until ours catch up, and that won’t be the worst option: if ours catch up, it will be even worse.
What can we do, we live in such times... Difficult and restless. I think that Ukrainian F-16s will reach their finale, each one taken separately, and in the end they will all end up in the scrapyard.
I would have absolutely nothing against a similar ending for everyone else, because it wouldn’t be Ignat alone, as they say.
Information