• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

The Ukraine War thread

David Axe is always a pretty good read.

Just wondering, will Embraer see a sudden uptake in people interested in the super tucano.

Seems a handy low cost way to defend the rear from marauding drones... at least until anti-drone drone hunters become common.
 
Last edited:
Might as well say it now - F-16s are great. But with the Russian SAM network giving significant coverage over Ukraine itself, their ability to deny airspace will be limited - which unfortunately may not stop the Su-34s and their big glide bombs.

Apparently they are getting Saab Gripens too in the near future, and they can carry Meteor. Which will have far longer range than an AMRAAM D when fired at low altitude (which they'll probably have to operate at to avoid SAMs like S-300 and S-400).
 
Given how many Russian SAM batteries the Ukrainians have destroyed - and given how **** the performance of the Russian SAM batteries have been - is that still the case?

Besides, better for an air force to have planes, than to not have planes, surely
 
Which Tyler said:
Given how many Russian SAM batteries the Ukrainians have destroyed - and given how **** the performance of the Russian SAM batteries have been - is that still the case?

Besides, better for an air force to have planes, than to not have planes, surely
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Russian SAMs are crap at intercepting missiles, but not so crap at getting aircraft (which are nowhere near as fast or manoeuvrable).

Def way better to have the F-16s than not, they'll get much better use of their HARMs (anti SAM missiles) - and can themselves fire off long range precision guided munitions to hit Russian targets - and do so far more effectively than the Su-34 on the Russian side.


More making the point, that like everything else in this war, no one single thing is going to be the winning of it.
 
Fair, but seems like fighting against a claim that isn't being made - well, except by Trump...
 
Amiga500 said:
Might as well say it now - F-16s are great. But with the Russian SAM network giving significant coverage over Ukraine itself, their ability to deny airspace will be limited - which unfortunately may not stop the Su-34s and their big glide bombs.

Apparently they are getting Saab Gripens too in the near future, and they can carry Meteor. Which will have far longer range than an AMRAAM D when fired at low altitude (which they'll probably have to operate at to avoid SAMs like S-300 and S-400).
Click to expand...
Should have had the Gripen to start with. It's built to fly from roads making it easier to conceal and to be repaired, refulled, reloaded (not flown) by a conscript army.

The F-16 is older and requires more specialist maintenance with larger runways making is more vulnerable to Russian attacks and you are absolutely correct regarding Russian SAM systems, they are also not as bad as everyone makes out at intercepting missiles.
 
McTallshort said:
Should have had the Gripen to start with. It's built to fly from roads making it easier to conceal and to be repaired, refulled, reloaded (not flown) by a conscript army.

The F-16 is older and requires more specialist maintenance with larger runways making is more vulnerable to Russian attacks and you are absolutely correct regarding Russian SAM systems, they are also not as bad as everyone makes out at intercepting missiles.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, this is a use case practically married to the Gripen operational concept. Probably a political decision to get the 'murican F-16 in first.


Yeah, "crap" is probably too strong a word. But when they can't protect themselves from missiles, then I'd suspect their ability to protect others is very marginal, and simply nothing like at the engagement envelopes that would be press released by the Russians.
 
Amiga500 said:
Absolutely, this is a use case practically married to the Gripen operational concept. Probably a political decision to get the 'murican F-16 in first.


Yeah, "crap" is probably too strong a word. But when they can't protect themselves from missiles, then I'd suspect their ability to protect others is very marginal, and simply nothing like at the engagement envelopes that would be press released by the Russians.
Click to expand...
Well I get it from a point of America being able to supply missiles for the F-16 but they haven't actually supplied any airframes. I'm sure the Swede's would have been a to do that given their very large military industrial complex
 
McTallshort said:
Well I get it from a point of America being able to supply missiles for the F-16 but they haven't actually supplied any airframes. I'm sure the Swede's would have been a to do that given their very large military industrial complex
Click to expand...

I was under the impression they are getting legacy Gripen that Sweden have replaced with the Gripen NG. Could be wrong on that.

But the Gripen were sequenced after the F-16 to avoid overloading the Ukrainians with too much unfamiliar new and very complex kit at once.
 
Amiga500 said:
I was under the impression they are getting legacy Gripen that Sweden have replaced with the Gripen NG. Could be wrong on that.

But the Gripen were sequenced after the F-16 to avoid overloading the Ukrainians with too much unfamiliar new and very complex kit at once.
Click to expand...
I thought they were getting Mirage and Euro fighters next? Not sure lots been said and unsaid. Don't know what difference F-16s or any other platform is going to make as the war stands. I still believe the priority for Ukraine is artillery ammunition, afvs like Bradley (not MBTs) and most importantly SAM systems for protecting Ukrainian infrastructure. Planes are nice but not as important as the other 3.
 
Broadly agree. Aircraft have the "Top Gun" coolness, but aren't necessarily most effective for prosecuting the war.


Its possible that the Gepard that was being thought of as a bit of a empty gesture is turning out into something of real value - a highly mobile and relatively low-cost AAA system capable of denying airspace to drones.

Being in a position where you need to fire any kind of missile at drones, particularly low performance drones, is a losing one. It'll financially and logistically bleed you to death.

So more of those, or similar, rather than high performance SAMs might make a more meaningful impact.
 
Amiga500 said:
Broadly agree. Aircraft have the "Top Gun" coolness, but aren't necessarily most effective for prosecuting the war.


Its possible that the Gepard that was being thought of as a bit of a empty gesture is turning out into something of real value - a highly mobile and relatively low-cost AAA system capable of denying airspace to drones.

Being in a position where you need to fire any kind of missile at drones, particularly low performance drones, is a losing one. It'll financially and logistically bleed you to death.

So more of those, or similar, rather than high performance SAMs might make a more meaningful impact.
Click to expand...
I think the key to drones is EW and the Ukrainians seem to be much further in both that and the use of FPV than any of their allies. While the American Congress argued about funding and the Ukrainians were basically out of shells they set up a big FPV drone and counter drone industry but in terms of shells, SAM systems to stop missile attacks on infrastructure and decent AFVs they don't have that capacity and do really rely on Western help.
 

Similar threads

Bada-Bing!
The Biking thread
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
4K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Antisocial, societal issues thread
4 5 6
Replies
115
Views
5K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Climate crisis
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The technology thread
41 42 43
Replies
843
Views
39K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Last of Us TV show
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!

Latest posts

Top