[GK3]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-prove...01670.html

Interesting article but I am posting it mostly for a paragraph that IMO is totally incorrect.

Even with American-made F-16 fighters arriving soon, Ukraine's air force probably can't drive off Russian jets lobbing glide bombs from 50 miles behind Russian lines, safe behind ground-based air defenses.

1.  The maximum range of the Russian glide bombs is (supposedly) 40-60 km https://understandingwar.org/backgrounde...ng-russias (21.6-32.4 Nautical miles (Nm), 24.9-37.3 Statue miles). No matter which kind of miles one uses, it isn't "50 miles".
   
2. In order to achieve that range the Russian SU-35 aircraft has to be at relatively high altitude (say 30,000 ft) and flying relatively fast, not supersonic, but "fast". At a speed of 500 Nm/hr the SU-35 executes a maximum-rate (22.5 degres/sec) 180 degree turn in 8 seconds. This requires pulling lots of Gs and puts a big strain on the airframe. That turn takes the SU-35 at least 1 Nm beyond the place it released the bomb.  At 30,000 ft and that speed the SU-35 is very visible to both ground based and airborne radars.
   
3. The range of an AIM-120D-3 AMRAAM is 86-97 Nm, 3 times that of the Russian glide bombs the SU-35 carries. The older AIM-120C has a range of 57-65 Nm, 2 times that of the Russian glide bombs.
   

Given the above facts, one must conclude that if the SU-35 can be "lobbing glide bombs from 32.4 miles behind Russian lines, safe behind ground-based air defenses." the Ukrainian F-16s can be "lobbing AMRAAMs from 32.4 miles behind Ukrainian lines, safe behind ground-based air defenses." and thereby blow up the SU-35s. One may say "Wait, Ukraine doesn't have enough Patriots to closely defend the entire airspace". That is true. Russia also doesn't have enough S-400s to closely defend their side either.

Realistically the situation is much more complex than the article posits, and F-16s will make it even more complicated. Right now the SU-35s don't launch from maximum range. There is no point in doing so. If Ukraine moves a Patriot to the area the SU-35s are probably dead anyway. If there isn't one, they are safe because Ukraine has nothing else that can hit them. Often the targets of the strike aren't right at the furthest forward point of Ukrainian controlled territory. The SU-35s have to "get closer".  Obviously there is no line on the ground saying where is safe and where is not.

When Ukrainian F-16s show up, the SU-35s at a minimum will have to be more professional and "honor the threat". So will the F-16s. The "ground-based air defenses" are themselves targets as the title of the article demonstrates. Some F-16s can be executing SEAD while other F-16s are defending against the SU-35s and their glide bombs. The F-16 can carry six AIM-120s, although four is much more common. To carry six requires the wingtip rails where the sidewinders normally go. One F-16 can make a lot of SU-35s abort their mission even if all the AIM-120s miss. Some probably won't which will make the next mission much less probable. F-16s can carry up to four HARMs, but usually carry only two. An F-16 with four HARMS and a targeting pod was the USAF attempt at preserving something akin to the "Wild Weasel" capability, but it didn't last. https://www.military.com/defensetech/201...es-destroy Ukraine undoubtedly isn't getting the targeting pod in any case.

So far in this war the VKS has been very conservative. The did essentially nothing until they had a weapon (the glide-bombs) they could use from a standoff range that was perfectly safe. When they lost a few planes they stood down for awhile. The F-16s will ensure that no place is "perfectly safe". Some places near or in Ukraine will become markedly less safe for Russian air. That is an important improvement, especially if the VKS simply quits attempting to go there

Just wondering why we would not give Ukraine the targeting pods?  We are giving them Patriot systems.  Are the electronics in the targeting pod even more highly classified than the Patriot system?
From what I have read the range of the S400 radar system is 250 miles and can control up to 160 missles fired at 80 targets.  I think they can also be slaved to other systems for shorter range missles.  So how close to the border is Russia willing to install the radar system?  It seems that Ukraine has been fairly effective  in destroying ones that get too close.  I believe Russia has roughly 70 of these systems left, and certainly a good number of those have to be spread along the Russian border from Finland to Ukraine and defending major urban targets.  This I would think would reduce the number that have to be dealt with to a much more reasonable number.  So if we give the targeting pod to Ukraine and they combine the F16 "wild weasal" configured aircraft together with a volley of ground launched drones at a S400 array would put the S400 in a between a rock and a hard place situation.  I would think that the Wild Weasals could stay in the weeds until the S400 is busy with drones, then pop up and launch their own missles and leave.  I had never considered that the fact that radar systems have a finite number of targets they can track and attack.  If true, then a large volley of cheap drones seems like a great way to make the system much more vulnerable to a Wild Weasal kind of attack.
Based on Wikipedia info, a S400 battery and missles costs roughly 500 million dollars.  How many drones can you make for 500 million?  I would think a combined attack of drones and an F16 with targeting pod and appropriate missles would be a handful to deal with.

[GK3]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-prove...01670.html

Interesting article but I am posting it mostly for a paragraph that IMO is totally incorrect.

Even with American-made F-16 fighters arriving soon, Ukraine's air force probably can't drive off Russian jets lobbing glide bombs from 50 miles behind Russian lines, safe behind ground-based air defenses.

1.  The maximum range of the Russian glide bombs is (supposedly) 40-60 km https://understandingwar.org/backgrounde...ng-russias (21.6-32.4 Nautical miles (Nm), 24.9-37.3 Statue miles). No matter which kind of miles one uses, it isn't "50 miles".
   
2. In order to achieve that range the Russian SU-35 aircraft has to be at relatively high altitude (say 30,000 ft) and flying relatively fast, not supersonic, but "fast". At a speed of 500 Nm/hr the SU-35 executes a maximum-rate (22.5 degres/sec) 180 degree turn in 8 seconds. This requires pulling lots of Gs and puts a big strain on the airframe. That turn takes the SU-35 at least 1 Nm beyond the place it released the bomb.  At 30,000 ft and that speed the SU-35 is very visible to both ground based and airborne radars.
   
3. The range of an AIM-120D-3 AMRAAM is 86-97 Nm, 3 times that of the Russian glide bombs the SU-35 carries. The older AIM-120C has a range of 57-65 Nm, 2 times that of the Russian glide bombs.
   

Given the above facts, one must conclude that if the SU-35 can be "lobbing glide bombs from 32.4 miles behind Russian lines, safe behind ground-based air defenses." the Ukrainian F-16s can be "lobbing AMRAAMs from 32.4 miles behind Ukrainian lines, safe behind ground-based air defenses." and thereby blow up the SU-35s. One may say "Wait, Ukraine doesn't have enough Patriots to closely defend the entire airspace". That is true. Russia also doesn't have enough S-400s to closely defend their side either.

Realistically the situation is much more complex than the article posits, and F-16s will make it even more complicated. Right now the SU-35s don't launch from maximum range. There is no point in doing so. If Ukraine moves a Patriot to the area the SU-35s are probably dead anyway. If there isn't one, they are safe because Ukraine has nothing else that can hit them. Often the targets of the strike aren't right at the furthest forward point of Ukrainian controlled territory. The SU-35s have to "get closer".  Obviously there is no line on the ground saying where is safe and where is not.

When Ukrainian F-16s show up, the SU-35s at a minimum will have to be more professional and "honor the threat". So will the F-16s. The "ground-based air defenses" are themselves targets as the title of the article demonstrates. Some F-16s can be executing SEAD while other F-16s are defending against the SU-35s and their glide bombs. The F-16 can carry six AIM-120s, although four is much more common. To carry six requires the wingtip rails where the sidewinders normally go. One F-16 can make a lot of SU-35s abort their mission even if all the AIM-120s miss. Some probably won't which will make the next mission much less probable. F-16s can carry up to four HARMs, but usually carry only two. An F-16 with four HARMS and a targeting pod was the USAF attempt at preserving something akin to the "Wild Weasel" capability, but it didn't last. https://www.military.com/defensetech/201...es-destroy Ukraine undoubtedly isn't getting the targeting pod in any case.

So far in this war the VKS has been very conservative. The did essentially nothing until they had a weapon (the glide-bombs) they could use from a standoff range that was perfectly safe. When they lost a few planes they stood down for awhile. The F-16s will ensure that no place is "perfectly safe". Some places near or in Ukraine will become markedly less safe for Russian air. That is an important improvement, especially if the VKS simply quits attempting to go there

Just wondering why we would not give Ukraine the targeting pods?  We are giving them Patriot systems.  Are the electronics in the targeting pod even more highly classified than the Patriot system?
From what I have read the range of the S400 radar system is 250 miles and can control up to 160 missles fired at 80 targets.  I think they can also be slaved to other systems for shorter range missles.  So how close to the border is Russia willing to install the radar system?  It seems that Ukraine has been fairly effective  in destroying ones that get too close.  I believe Russia has roughly 70 of these systems left, and certainly a good number of those have to be spread along the Russian border from Finland to Ukraine and defending major urban targets.  This I would think would reduce the number that have to be dealt with to a much more reasonable number.  So if we give the targeting pod to Ukraine and they combine the F16 "wild weasal" configured aircraft together with a volley of ground launched drones at a S400 array would put the S400 in a between a rock and a hard place situation.  I would think that the Wild Weasals could stay in the weeds until the S400 is busy with drones, then pop up and launch their own missles and leave.  I had never considered that the fact that radar systems have a finite number of targets they can track and attack.  If true, then a large volley of cheap drones seems like a great way to make the system much more vulnerable to a Wild Weasal kind of attack.
Based on Wikipedia info, a S400 battery and missles costs roughly 500 million dollars.  How many drones can you make for 500 million?  I would think a combined attack of drones and an F16 with targeting pod and appropriate missles would be a handful to deal with.