VorZakone
What would Kenny G do?
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 35,813
A lot of internal criticism in Ukraine regarding leadership. Common argument is that the military is still too Sovietized and they should be fighter smarter/more resourceful than the Russians but it's not happening enough.
Do you think that the F-16 have the potential to be a game changer?We've known about this for a long time.
The command and control structures, the NCO culture, the lack of C3i infrastructure and the top down hierarchy culture makes transforming the AFU to a modern western standard fighting force very difficult in the short-medium term.
Do you think that the F-16 have the potential to be a game changer?
Promote and empower a "Command Group" or "Command Team" concept atall levels, within National and NATO leadership levels, to demonstrate unity anddetermination of the Officer/NCO relationship. This enables critical thinking andunbiased communications, in order to provide an NCO perspective in the decisionmaking processes, and execute direct communications up, down, and across theCommand and Control spectrum.
This last one refers mainly to non-combat activities, but the purpose of this is so in combat, the NCO's show the same initiative.Plan and Lead Unit Activities
Use your initiative. NCOs plan and conduct all types of unit activities with and without officers
Massive thanks as always for the thorough and very, very informative reply.No.
Individual weapon platforms need to fit a proper cohesive doctrine as a small cog in the overall fighting strategy of a military. Rarely do individual 'wunderwaffen' work in a broad battlefield context (barring exceptional circumstances, like African tribesman armed with Spears and Shields charging lines of Maxim Guns). The F-16 is a very small piece of the overall NATO doctrine developed in the 1980's called Airland Battle, and later modified to something called 'Full spectrum dominance'. A singular fighter jet, in low numbers, no matter how good, is unable to shift the battlefield on its own without a full integration to its own battlefield needs with specific designs to fit those needs. Sorry if this sounds like word jumble, let me try and explain with examples.
The F-16 was designed as the 'lo' aspect of the 'lo-hi' calculus in the US air force. The 'hi' being the F15. Hi-lo is basically the idea that you have a smaller, limited amounts, of very high quality aircraft that is designed to take control of the skies in rapid time followed by the 'lo' (cheap, more disposable aircraft that have a wider utilization use at more bang for buck), which then supports ground troops. In Modern times the 'Hi' aspect of the US Air force is the F22 (and in the future, the NGAD/FA(XX)/whatever the new air force one is designated as), with the 'lo' being the F-35.
From a strategic perspective, the first and most important mission is SEAD/DEAD (Suppression/denial of enemy air defences). This is a combination of Air superiority 'Hi' fighters (F15C, F-15E/EX, F-22), stand off munitions (TLAMs, JASSM's), anti-radar assets, stealth penetrators (B-2's), going at full operational velocity, before further degradation is completely with more vulnerable assets with higher firepower (B1's, B52's, etc). Once this phase has been completed, the 'Lo' aspect of the mission profile really kicks in. F16's providing mobile air support, air cover, CAS missions, Tactical bombing etc etc, all the while the sky is dominated by the 'Hi'. That's not to say the F-16 cannot do Air to air combat missions, it's very good at doing so, especially since Block 72.
The key part to all of this is real time battlefield command and control. F-16's have great electronic suites, again especially since the latest blocks, but it's not enough to dominate a battlefield on it's own. It requires AWACS and AEWC&C as well as ELINT aircraft in the sky, after the initial SEAD/DEAD phase to provide real time battlefield intelligence to all the constituent parts. The real important part here is command, control and intelligence. US battalions have dedicated, fully trained, communications units with top range C3i equipment to communicate seamlessly with all the other assets on the ground, in the sky, and beyond. F-16's can be raised into the skies to provide CAS/Tactical bombing support and be given real time missions that are not briefly until after take off, with real time intelligence being communicated to the squadrons to assist where it need be. Again, communication is king.
A unit that has been bogged down, suppressed or needs general fire support, cannot make a request, wait for it to be passed down up and down the chain, until a fighter is scrambled, sent to the location to provide assistance. It might be too late then. One of the F-16's job is to provide real time support when and need be. One other really important thing here is "battlefield intiative", which is really dependent on a very well organized, high moral and very well trained NCO group. You cannot wait to escalate up the chain or to ask permission, you have to make decisions in real time, on the spot, without asking for permission. This is what NATO (not all of NATO but western europe and USA) really excel at. Decades and decades of a culture of NCO initiative, fostered by a no-blame culture and instilling that belief in NCO's.
I can give an anecdote from 2003 Iraq War invasion. A Sniper gets bogged down North of Basra and he is under fire from Iraqi's troops. He and his spotter cannot escape and are completely suppressed. The spotter contacts his CO HQ requesting artillery support. His CO HQ responds that there are no artillery units within range of his position to provide support. Rather than escalate to his superior, the radioman at the CO HQ immediately contacts the Air force command to ask for assistance for any assets in the vicinity. The answer is no, but the Air force radioman asks for the Ground force radioman to wait, as he contacts an E-3 Sentry patrolling in the skies above. The E-3 Sentry confirms to the air force radioman that there are naval assets in the region, and in turn the Ground force radioman contacts the USS Theodore Roosevelt with a request for assistance with broad co-ordinates. The USS Theodore Roosevelt radioman contacts an in air E-2 Hawkeye, who commands two patrolling F-18 Hornets to the location of where the sniper is being suppressed. 3 minutes later the F-18 hornets arrive and bomb the troops firing on the Sniper, allowing them to escape.
The entire chain of: Sniper team -> CO HQ -> Airforce -> E3 -> Airforce -> CO HQ -> USS Roosevelt -> E2 -> F18: Took a grand total of 88 seconds. 88 seconds to communicate between three different branches to command and control air support for a sniper team.
Now, why won't this work for Ukraine? So many reasons:
1) No 'Hi' in the calculus to control the skies.
2) Limited SEAD/DEAD to supress and destroy the air defense assets. Ukraine would have to use F-16's to do this, or Mig29's or SU-25's which are not suitable for this purpose.
3) F16's exist to be the 'Lo', high in quantity and allows for tactical sortie flexbility. Ukraine does not have anywhere close to enough to achieve this.
4) No C3i infrastructure to allow for tactical and strategic level asset communication in seconds.
5) No Battlefield intelligence platforms like E3/E2, ELINT or command and control assets.
6) No homogenous NCO culture that allows for on the spot decision making without hesitation.
7) All these factors mean the F-16 will be an order of magnitude less effective in Ukrainian hands than it would be in NATO hands.
If the anecdote was transposed to Ukraine it would go as follows.
Sniper calls in for air support, there are russians around his position. CO HQ says there's no support. Sniper begs. Radioman says he will ask his superior office. Superior officer says he will make a call to the Air force regional commanding officer. Air Force commanding officer has no idea what assets are available. Says feck it, lets scramble a jet (doubt he would even do that to be honest). Jet takes off into the air. By the time it arrives, Sniper is dead. Plane is now intercepted by AA missiles. Plane shot down.
Massive thanks as always for the thorough and very, very informative reply.
After doing my own digging, I kinda concluded that the F-16s alone wouldn't never be enough, but your post paints a much clearer picture. What type of missions could these F-16s realistically fulfill given the current state of the Ukrainian army? It can't just be a PR exercise.
Do you think it's possible that they will get AN/ASQ-213 pods for some of the aircrafts? They won't be able to do any large scale SEAD/DEAD operations either way but at least having a handful of aircrafts equiped with the targeting pods should increase the precision of the HARM missiles quite a bit.It definitely "helps" the war effort and is not just a PR exercise. But how much it helps really is up for debate.
To answer your question first of all:
1) F-16's have hardpoints that are compatible with practically most NATO missiles that are of relevance. This means stand-off munitions such as JASSM could be used, to strike at pre-determined Russian positions from hundreds of KM's away.
2) They can provide pre-determined low-flying/ in-out tactical bombing runs close to the frontline. Again, mostly on pre-defined positions and co-ordinates.
3) On large scale engagements, they can provide CAS operations, but this will have a survivability problem as the air is very contested and no SEAD/DEAD has been done.
4) They can provide long range intercepts of enemy missiles and enemy aircraft that stray too deep into the frontlines.
All of this will be done at a relatively low sortie-cadence and the effectiveness of such tactical level engagements won't change the strategic overview of the battlefield all that much.
Think of this analogy. Imagine you are a Gaullic tribal leader Vercingetorix fighting Caesar's army at Alessia. The battle is lost but at a razors edge. Afterwards you have the ability to go back in time and try again.
You make your soldiers spears 1 ft longer, the tips 20% sharper, your soldiers swords 15cm longer with much better rolled iron.
Are you going to win the battle this time around? Uncertain. It's still at a razors edge. So are those material improvements a "Game changer?". Probably not. But do they still offer improvement from the previous iteration? Absolutely.
It definitely "helps" the war effort and is not just a PR exercise. But how much it helps really is up for debate.
To answer your question first of all:
1) F-16's have hardpoints that are compatible with practically most NATO missiles that are of relevance. This means stand-off munitions such as JASSM could be used, to strike at pre-determined Russian positions from hundreds of KM's away.
2) They can provide pre-determined low-flying/ in-out tactical bombing runs close to the frontline. Again, mostly on pre-defined positions and co-ordinates.
3) On large scale engagements, they can provide CAS operations, but this will have a survivability problem as the air is very contested and no SEAD/DEAD has been done.
4) They can provide long range intercepts of enemy missiles and enemy aircraft that stray too deep into the frontlines.
All of this will be done at a relatively low sortie-cadence and the effectiveness of such tactical level engagements won't change the strategic overview of the battlefield all that much.
Think of this analogy. Imagine you are a Gaullic tribal leader Vercingetorix fighting Caesar's army at Alessia. The battle is lost but at a razors edge. Afterwards you have the ability to go back in time and try again.
You make your soldiers spears 1 ft longer, the tips 20% sharper, your soldiers swords 15cm longer with much better rolled iron.
Are you going to win the battle this time around? Uncertain. It's still at a razors edge. So are those material improvements a "Game changer?". Probably not. But do they still offer improvement from the previous iteration? Absolutely.
We're talking about the doubling of Ukraine's air force or thereabouts. That changes the game even before you consider any enhanced capabilities the F-16 and its armaments bring.
Do you think it's possible that they will get AN/ASQ-213 pods for some of the aircrafts? They won't be able to do any large scale SEAD/DEAD operations either way but at least having a handful of aircrafts equiped with the targeting pods should increase the precision of the HARM missiles quite a bit.
1) No, we're not doubling our air force. AFU had about 200 combat aircraft pre war, and they are now down to about 120-130 after attrition, loss, lack of spare parts combined with NATO donations of old Mig-29's. The West has pledged 4 squadrons of F-16's.
2) You can 5x it, but if it doesn't suit the need of the battlefield it's not the force multiplication you think it is.
Can you explain to me how hypothetically, even if Ukraine get 200 F-16's, the strategic positions of either side changes?
How do you know that's the reason, let alone it happened before the first viper took flight. Isn't it more likely it's the drone and missile threat?The black sea fleet has already withdrawn because of the potential anti ship capability of the F16, so you could argue it has already changed the strategic position.
How do you know that's the reason, let alone it happened before the first viper took flight. Isn't it more likely it's the drone and missile threat?
The black sea fleet has already withdrawn because of the potential anti ship capability of the F16, so you could argue it has already changed the strategic position.
If they drop the bridge to Crimea which is probably worth some attrition to the number of F16's then logistically that could be a game changer for Russia in supplying forces there.
The increased Radar range over the front lines will push up Russia's losses or force them to withdraw further and that reduces the glide bomb tactic.
I'm not saying they will win the war overnight but they will have a larger impact than some think because they are probably the best trained pilots in the best aircraft fighting over Ukraine.
By the way, how many aircraft can Russia regularly field do you think? The numbers of F16 may not be that great but I think Russia's problems in this war to stem from its lack of air power, in reality, over theoretically. The arrival of the F16's is adding pressure to an already failing organization.
The black sea fleet has already withdrawn because of the potential anti ship capability of the F16, so you could argue it has already changed the strategic position.
If they drop the bridge to Crimea which is probably worth some attrition to the number of F16's then logistically that could be a game changer for Russia in supplying forces there.
The increased Radar range over the front lines will push up Russia's losses or force them to withdraw further and that reduces the glide bomb tactic.
I'm not saying they will win the war overnight but they will have a larger impact than some think because they are probably the best trained pilots in the best aircraft fighting over Ukraine.
By the way, how many aircraft can Russia regularly field do you think? The numbers of F16 may not be that great but I think Russia's problems in this war to stem from its lack of air power, in reality, over theoretically. The arrival of the F16's is adding pressure to an already failing organization.
The black sea fleet has already withdrawn because of the potential anti ship capability of the F16, so you could argue it has already changed the strategic position.
If they drop the bridge to Crimea which is probably worth some attrition to the number of F16's then logistically that could be a game changer for Russia in supplying forces there.
The increased Radar range over the front lines will push up Russia's losses or force them to withdraw further and that reduces the glide bomb tactic.
I'm not saying they will win the war overnight but they will have a larger impact than some think because they are probably the best trained pilots in the best aircraft fighting over Ukraine.
By the way, how many aircraft can Russia regularly field do you think? The numbers of F16 may not be that great but I think Russia's problems in this war to stem from its lack of air power, in reality, over theoretically. The arrival of the F16's is adding pressure to an already failing organization.
1) No, we're not doubling our air force. AFU had about 200 combat aircraft pre war, and they are now down to about 120-130 after attrition, loss, lack of spare parts combined with NATO donations of old Mig-29's. The West has pledged 4 squadrons of F-16's.
2) You can 5x it, but if it doesn't suit the need of the battlefield it's not the force multiplication you think it is.
Can you explain to me how hypothetically, even if Ukraine get 200 F-16's, the strategic positions of either side changes?
Let's break this downWell the basic hope is they will help supress Russia's glide bomb usage along the front lines, which would make a big difference. You giving me 200 though? With full armaments on top of their current compliment of aircraft? I mean... What the feck could Russia even do if Ukraine began a dedicated sead/dead campaign against the southern occupied territories, starting West and working toward Crimea?
Bit of stockpiling the mid-long range ground launched stuff, couple days of mapping/hitting anything that looks remotely like AD, then send in the cleaners. Yes there are losses, but if you're giving me 200 planes, they are making things happen. If you've been watching the same war I have... What does Russia have to pluck them out the sky with? Do they even have 200 operational fighters of their own? I don't think any evidence exists to suggest they do.
How effective is this really going to be without AWACS or C&C assets?Well the basic hope is they will help supress Russia's glide bomb usage along the front lines, which would make a big difference.
What the feck could Russia even do if Ukraine began a dedicated sead/dead campaign against the southern occupied territories, starting West and working toward Crimea?
What does Russia have to pluck them out the sky with? Do they even have 200 operational fighters of their own? I don't think any evidence exists to suggest they do.
Bit of stockpiling the mid-long range ground launched stuff, couple days of mapping/hitting anything that looks remotely like AD, then send in the cleaners.
Well the basic hope is they will help supress Russia's glide bomb usage along the front lines, which would make a big difference. You giving me 200 though? With full armaments on top of their current compliment of aircraft? I mean... What the feck could Russia even do if Ukraine began a dedicated sead/dead campaign against the southern occupied territories, starting West and working toward Crimea?
Bit of stockpiling the mid-long range ground launched stuff, couple days of mapping/hitting anything that looks remotely like AD, then send in the cleaners. Yes there are losses, but if you're giving me 200 planes, they are making things happen. If you've been watching the same war I have... What does Russia have to pluck them out the sky with? Do they even have 200 operational fighters of their own? I don't think any evidence exists to suggest they do.
To put into perspective, the Coalition in the gulf war:
Had 3000 aircraft with a sortie tempo of 2000 sorties a day.
Full spectrum dominance of the aerial battlefield, with AWACS, C&C, AEWC&C, ELINT, SIGINT assets in the air 24/7.
Penetrative stealth bombers in the form of the B2 and F117 Nighthawk.
Fully functional and tested command chain, with a decades old NCO culture across every unit.
Fully trained and veteran combat mechanics.
Facing SAM network that was basically SA-6's and SA-3's, which is orders of magnitude weaker than S3/400's.
The support of an entire US Fleet with infinite TLAM's.
Wild Weasel squadrons dedicated to drawing AA fire and taking them out.
Thousands of decoy missiles aimed to overwhelm enemy defences.
All with planes that are better than what Ukraine are getting.
(Ukraine are getting Block 15 F16A's...which predate the Gulf War).
All that said, with all that advantage, in 1 month the Coalition lost 40 fighters to SAM fire and AA fire, despite slamming them none stop all day every day with every fecking fire combination from the sky and from ships you can possibly think of.
SEAD/DEAD is really damn hard, and doing it with 200+- Block 15 F-16A's, on such a large battlefield is basically impossible.
How effective is this really going to be without AWACS or C&C assets?
More Ukrainian drones intercepted overnight. This time with one of Russia's most active air bases, like all of it, and more refineries. The most obvious targets there are, yet there's apparently not a damn thing Russian AD can do about it.
Well I certainly believe you worked for NATO the way you still over-estimate Russian capability. Have you been watching the same war I have? How many examples do I need to link of how useless Russian AD is relative to prior assumptions and your book knowledge? Slow as feck, not even that low altitude drones, without help, constantly striking targets deep inside Russia and occupied territories, even the fecking Kremlin, sinking warships and systematically knocking out refineries. Russia 'intercepts' everything with their faces. Maybe I'll just check my daily twitter feed, because no doubt there will be another recent example, there always is. You're telling me they have "hordes of S-300's, Buk. Tor. Pantsir. Strela's for low flying", yet after months and months of Ukraine hitting refineries within Russia, mosquito nets are the only actual defence they seem to have Every bit of upgraded tech Ukraine receives has humiliated Russia so far, no real reason to expect otherwise with this one.
It's been open season on Crimea for a while now, any guesses why Ukraine so heavily prioritise AD in the south of late? "Wasting" valuable/limited ATACMs in Crimea I suppose, instead of pushing back Russian aggression in Chasiv Yar and wider Donesk. Again, there's examples from today. S-400's are knocked out as fast as they go up. Its been going on for a long time. I do wonder...
Block 15 F-16A's? I'm sure you're aware they are block 50+ equivalent with whatever upgrades they've continued to receive. Even without AWACS or other link, Russian pilots would be very brave to come within glide bombing range against a permanent patrol in a hot area.
We're not invading Iraq here. You're challenge is whether 200 F-16's would "change a strategic position", which I suppose is a less hyperbolic way of saying "gamechanger", thus linking to the original question. Work with me here, you know far more than I do. Your in command and given 200 plane's to "make a strategic difference". if you say you can't you're probably getting fired on the spot, but in any case, what would you need? JASSM's? One AWACS?
More Ukrainian drones intercepted overnight. This time with one of Russia's most active air bases, like all of it, and more refineries. The most obvious targets there are, yet there's apparently not a damn thing Russian AD can do about it.
Your in command and given 200 plane's to "make a strategic difference". if you say you can't you're probably getting fired on the spot, but in any case, what would you need? JASSM's? One AWACS?
Didn't realize that they were already in theater...
How long have Fighting Falcons been operable in UKR?AIM-9X, AIM-120 AMRAAM, a drop tank and a weird pod that isn't anything I've actually seen before or studied before. Whatever the hell that is, it's definitely not typical loadout, it looks way to small to be an ALQ-184 jammer pod.
Anyway, this loadout screams missile/deep penetration interceptor missions.
How long have Fighting Falcons been operable in UKR?
vipers, pleaseHow long have Fighting Falcons been operable in UKR?