Russia invades Ukraine

[ainsworth74]

The biggest issues aren't just availability of aircraft. Rapid training of sufficient pilots and ground crews to service them will be vital and they need secure bases from which to fly.

F-16s are going to be easier to train Ukrainian pilots on as they'll be converting from single seat ex-Soviet fighters to single seat NATO fighters. Probably quite a straight forward learning curve. You're quite right that ground crews will need training as well but if there's one thing that Ukraine has proven adept at it's taking NATO equipment and learning how to keep it working. They will also need secure bases, of course, but I've not seen any suggestion for a while that Russia has been able to undertake significant operations against UAF airbases or dispersal sites since the early phases of the war. They're all factors but none of these things are especially insurmountable.

 

[GusB]

The biggest issues aren't just availability of aircraft. Rapid training of sufficient pilots and ground crews to service them will be vital and they need secure bases from which to fly.

F-16s are going to be easier to train Ukrainian pilots on as they'll be converting from single seat ex-Soviet fighters to single seat NATO fighters. Probably quite a straight forward learning curve. You're quite right that ground crews will need training as well but if there's one thing that Ukraine has proven adept at it's taking NATO equipment and learning how to keep it working. They will also need secure bases, of course, but I've not seen any suggestion for a while that Russia has been able to undertake significant operations against UAF airbases or dispersal sites since the early phases of the war. They're all factors but none of these things are especially insurmountable.

Let's not forget that we're talking about fighter pilots here - they are already highly skilled people and converting from aircraft type to another will probably be something they've already done at some point in their careers. Likewise with ground staff; provided there's sufficient support in terms of parts, documentation etc., they should have no problems adapting to a different aircraft type. It's not something that can be done overnight, certainly, but it's not an insurmountable problem.

 

[edwin_m]

There's a risk that the Russian missiles currently landing on energy and civilian facilties could be re-targeted at air bases, whose locations will be known to Russia. They probably don't bother with those targets now, as Ukrainian fast jets aren't much of a threat, but this would change with more and better aircraft. Ukraine can stop a high proportion of these missiles (at least if their own accounts are to be believed) but by no means all.

 

[DustyBin]

There's a risk that the Russian missiles currently landing on energy and civilian facilties could be re-targeted at air bases, whose locations will be known to Russia. They probably don't bother with those targets now, as Ukrainian fast jets aren't much of a threat, but this would change with more and better aircraft. Ukraine can stop a high proportion of these missiles (at least if their own accounts are to be believed) but by no means all.

This is why I think Gripens would be ideal; they’re designed to operate away from air bases and with minimal support. This is moot if they’re not actually available however!

Any concentration of aircraft will I imagine become a target, but I’m sure this will have been considered and defences put in place.

 

[edwin_m]

This is why I think Gripens would be ideal; they’re designed to operate away from air bases and with minimal support. This is moot if they’re not actually available however!

Any concentration of aircraft will I imagine become a target, but I’m sure this will have been considered and defences put in place.

Defences can be put in place but we've seen from the city attacks that Ukraine can't currently stop all incoming missiles and drones. Maybe the answer is to fly all the aircraft off when something is detected heading their way, if indeed it's detected at all.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Defences can be put in place but we've seen from the city attacks that Ukraine can't currently stop all incoming missiles and drones. Maybe the answer is to fly all the aircraft off when something is detected heading their way, if indeed it's detected at all.

Worth noting however that the Russians have had just as much incentive to destroy the Himars - yet have, so far as we are aware, been unable to do so. That's despite that the Himars were around months ago, at a time when Ukrainian air defences were likely to have been weaker, and Russian missile stocks bigger, than they are today.

 

[takno]

Worth noting however that the Russians have had just as much incentive to destroy the Himars - yet have, so far as we are aware, been unable to do so. That's despite that the Himars were around months ago, at a time when Ukrainian air defences were likely to have been weaker, and Russian missile stocks bigger, than they are today.

I thought the whole point of the Himars was that you could shove them on the back of a truck and keep moving around. Harder to do that with an airfield

 

[najaB]

I thought the whole point of the Himars was that you could shove them on the back of a truck and keep moving around. Harder to do that with an airfield

Indeed, airfields don't tend to move around too much. Aircraft on the other hand are notably quite mobile.

 

[edwin_m]

I thought the whole point of the Himars was that you could shove them on the back of a truck and keep moving around. Harder to do that with an airfield

They are a truck! Potentially as soon as they launch the missile will be detected by Russian radar, but even if the Russians can launch an immediate retaliatory strike the launcher will be somewhere else by the time it hits. They'd need to get lucky with spotting them on the move with either a piloted aircraft or a camera-fitted loitering munition. I'd guess Himars only moves (therefore only fires) at night and is very effectively concealed during daylight hours.

 

[DustyBin]

Defences can be put in place but we've seen from the city attacks that Ukraine can't currently stop all incoming missiles and drones. Maybe the answer is to fly all the aircraft off when something is detected heading their way, if indeed it's detected at all.

True, but it’s worth noting that point defences can protect an airfield far more effectively than they can a city (or several cities). The problem currently is that Russia is indiscriminately targeting built up area across Ukraine. There are too many potential targets spread across too big an area to defend them all 100% effectively.

 

[Annetts key]

Indeed, airfields don't tend to move around too much. Aircraft on the other hand are notably quite mobile.

Unless that ‘airfield’ is a aircraft carrier at sea… Yes, I know Ukraine does not have any.
We’ve not heard much news, but since the initial invasion last year, I don’t think the Ukrainian Air Force away from the ‘front lines’ and occupied areas, has come under any serious attack from the Russians.

 

[AM9]

Unless that ‘airfield’ is a aircraft carrier at sea… Yes, I know Ukraine does not have any.
We’ve not heard much news, but since the initial invasion last year, I don’t think the Ukrainian Air Force away from the ‘front lines’ and occupied areas, has come under any serious attack from the Russians.

Which raises the question, what is the working range of (say) an F16 when fully armed?

 

[najaB]

Which raises the question, what is the working range of (say) an F16 when fully armed?

I believe it's around 300 nautical miles without conformal tanks. With those the range is extended by about 100 nautical miles, give or take.

 

[Annetts key]

Which raises the question, what is the working range of (say) an F16 when fully armed?

It likely depends on which version/variant and the weapons load, as well as if it’s fitted with extra fuel tanks.

This web site says:

In an air-to-surface role, the F-16 can fly more than 500 miles (860 kilometers), deliver its weapons with superior accuracy, defend itself against enemy aircraft, and return to its starting point. An all-weather capability allows it to accurately deliver ordnance during non-visual bombing conditions.

 

[edwin_m]

We’ve not heard much news, but since the initial invasion last year, I don’t think the Ukrainian Air Force away from the ‘front lines’ and occupied areas, has come under any serious attack from the Russians.

There are plenty of air defence assets on both sides that can down the other side's aircraft (but few that can shoot down missiles). So Russia probably doesn't have any need to go after them on the ground.

 

[AM9]

It likely depends on which version/variant and the weapons load, as well as if it’s fitted with extra fuel tanks.

This web site says:

[In an air-to-surface role, the F-16 can fly more than 500 miles (860 kilometers), deliver its weapons with superior accuracy, defend itself against enemy aircraft, and return to its starting point. An all-weather capability allows it to accurately deliver ordnance during non-visual bombing conditions.]

The US 'Air Force' website is of course praising the F16 and although those figures are probably acheivable under test/simulation conditions, a 30y old aircraft is more likely to be limited to a practical 'strike and return' distance of 5-600km, given the need to keep below radar for much of the journey. So from a relatively secure central Ukraine base like Bila Tserkva, Donetsk would be at the extreme limit but land within an arc from Kharkiv to Kherson including all the land on the left bank of the Dnipro would be within range.
Another issue would be the level of EW kit installed, - the AN/ALQ184 pod was a standard for the bulk of the F16 aircraft, and I doubt that Russian installed ECCM would be that sophisticated, so an air to air reception might be attempted by the Russians. Thus the agility of the F16s (and their pilots) might give them a fair survivabiltiy at the limits of their delivery sorties.

 

[Giugiaro]

I'd guess Himars only moves (therefore only fires) at night and is very effectively concealed during daylight hours.

And they also have decoys.

 

[Yew]

Indeed, airfields don't tend to move around too much. Aircraft on the other hand are notably quite mobile.

The more I think though, the more I wonder if old Harriers would be an interesting option. With thrust vectoring, and strip of road can become an airfield.

 

[Annetts key]

The more I think though, the more I wonder if old Harriers would be an interesting option. With thrust vectoring, and strip of road can become an airfield.

Unfortunately the Harriers require considerably more training compared to F16 aircraft. And by now I doubt that any significant airworthy airframes complete with engines, instruments and electronics will still be in existence. The RAF jets were sold to the U.S.A. as a source of spares for their version.

 

[birchesgreen]

If you want to use the roads as runways option Sweden will be able to help you out.

 

[ainsworth74]

The Gripen isn't the only aircraft capable of operating from a suitable piece of straight roadway....

 

[Yew]

Unfortunately the Harriers require considerably more training compared to F16 aircraft. And by now I doubt that any significant airworthy airframes complete with engines, instruments and electronics will still be in existence. The RAF jets were sold to the U.S.A. as a source of spares for their version.

Apologies, I was putting a hypothetical 10/15 years a go hat on.

 

[the sniper]

The biggest issues aren't just availability of aircraft. Rapid training of sufficient pilots and ground crews to service them will be vital and they need secure bases from which to fly.

I'm under the impression that Gripens are thought to be the only feasible option if Ukraine are going to operate them themselves under the circumstances they're currently in, in terms of their maintenance and operating requirements being somewhat feasible.

 

[DustyBin]

The Gripen isn't the only aircraft capable of operating from a suitable piece of straight roadway....

True; some soviet era aircraft were designed with this in mind, and I believe Finland operates its F18s from roadways. I’m sure there will be others too.

 

[najaB]

I'm under the impression that Gripens are thought to be the only feasible option if Ukraine are going to operate them themselves under the circumstances they're currently in, in terms of their maintenance and operating requirements being somewhat feasible.

How many Gripens are available on super-short notice though?

 

[the sniper]

How many Gripens are available on super-short notice though?

I think that's one of many questions. Though I don't think they'd be in a position to handle them (or F16s) particularly soon, that is unless either the US or Sweden are willing to be actively involved in running them, which would seem a step beyond where either country (at least publicly) wish to be seen to be.

 

[Annetts key]

Yes, there are other military aircraft that can or should I say, could operate from roads or rough runways. But hardly any are available.

This is also a numbers game. Both in the available airframes that are, or can be in an operational state. And the the cost of running the aircraft. Ukraine wants and needs operational aircraft, that are relatively easy to operate and maintain, and which are not too expensive to operate and maintain.

That only really leaves the F16…

 

[the sniper]

I think 'the west' will be watching to see how the integration of the tanks is managed before any potential commitment to supplying jets, unless circumstances substantially change. There will surely be lessons learnt from that process.

 

[kristiang85]

Our media isn't reporting it for some reason, but Isreal launched air strikes on Iran overnight, purportedly hitting military production facilities (e.g. drones). Although this is likely in retaliation for Iranian support of the terrorists that attacked a synagogue the other day, I daresay the US are likely in full support too, and obvioulsly this helps Ukraine.

 

[DustyBin]

Our media isn't reporting it for some reason, but Isreal launched air strikes on Iran overnight, purportedly hitting military production facilities (e.g. drones). Although this is likely in retaliation for Iranian support of the terrorists that attacked a synagogue the other day, I daresay the US are likely in full support too, and obvioulsly this helps Ukraine.

I saw this too. In Iran it’s not uncommon for such facilities to “spontaneously combust” apparently, we just don’t hear about it. It’s relevant to the war in Ukraine though as you say, and the latter is very much headline news.