They will very likely have been modernised and brought up to date.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
They will very likely have been modernised and brought up to date.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 47,223
Hopefully covered by good air defence.
On the plus side, should be able to eliminate any Russians in Ukraine more easily now from a good distance.
It's amazing how long proliferation takes after design
The f16 still feels like a relatively modern looking and capable aircraft yet the F16 program started in 1969 and the first units were built in 1973. The F16 is a 50 year old plane at this point yet still going strong - obviously the electronics on board will be newer now than what the first units in 1973 had but that's true for all planes, all planes use upgraded components over time
Last edited:
Best post of the thread. Sums it up pretty well.
This.
Not this.
The jump from 4th gen (F-16) to 5th gen (F-35, F-22) is far more of a task than 3rd to 4th, with is why you have these so called 4th gen+, ++, +++ etc. Essentially countries have inserted 5th gen tech into 4th gen airframes as a cheaper option, though the Eurofighter and F-15 upgrades are better examples of this. F-16 is that sweet spot of multi-role, tried and tested for yonks, tons of spares, crazy export numbers making it prolific, endless block upgrades and good price without getting into the expensive air superiority fighter prices such as the aforementioned fighters.
I find it impossible not to respect that man! My viewpoint on politicians and parliamentary types of any nation is entirely pessimistic, far too many years of being ****** over by politicians/PM's. Its been refreshing to witness one with spine and some morals. I'm sure he's not perfect and will no doubt have some skeletons of his own. However, relatively, how he's handled himself and the situation has been inspiring.
Like a boss
Anyway... enough fangirling!
I still find the F16 to be an awkward choice for Ukraine, options are clearly very limited. I mean "beggars cant be choosers" and all that, plus and availability of "modern" aircraft is extremely limited. Nobody wants to give them up. I've always thought F18's with much stouter airframe/gear would have been a better choice. Also If they can secure some Gripen, that would also be much better choice. Granted a decent number of F16's would still be great but, I feel their use will be limited.
Shock as something incorrect appears on WikipediaThey must have 18 mothballed then, because according to Wikipedia they only have 24 in service. So perhaps the 42 figure includes airframes used for parts to replace/repair any combat damage.
.
EDIT
For reference, the Netherlands was one of the original four European nations to get the F-16. They started with 102 (80 single-seat F-16A's and 22 two-seat F-16B's), which were to be assembled in the Netherlands. The first Dutch built F-16 took off on its maiden flight on May 3rd, 1979 and initial delivery of the F-16A/B to the KLu took place in June of 1979.
In March of 1980, the Netherlands announced plans (finally approved by the Dutch Parliament in December 1983) to buy an additional 111 aircraft (97 F-16A's and 14 F-16B's). This brought the total F-16 inventory to 213 aircraft, 177 A models and 36 B models. The last F-16 rolled off the line at Fokker's Schiphol plant on February 27th, 1992, it was the last of 213 examples delivered to the KLu.
In 2003, the Dutch government decided to cut the F-16 force by 25%. From 2004 onwards, The Netherlands will provide 108 F-16s to NATO, with 90 being available for operational deployments.
Last edited:
F16s are ideal because they're better than what the Russians have, they're compatible with all the weapons being donated, there's lots of them, they aren't 'too' complex or expensive, and plenty of countries are willing to donate them, to be replaced by more modern fighters.
By a lot of accounts I've read/heard they are very fragile aircraft though and requires a lot of maintainance and a very delicate touch to keep airworthy. Thats what concerns me and why I think they are not the most suitable aircraft for Ukraine. though I guess what is suitable, is what is available!
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,512
- Location
- ST4
Yes, but that was in 2003/2004. In recent years they've sold quite a few of their F-16s to Pakistan, Chile and Jordan so that figure of 90 being available for operational deployment is well out of date.Shock as something incorrect appears on Wikipedia
EDIT
For reference, the Netherlands was one of the original four European nations to get the F-16. They started with 102 (80 single-seat F-16A's and 22 two-seat F-16B's), which were to be assembled in the Netherlands. The first Dutch built F-16 took off on its maiden flight on May 3rd, 1979 and initial delivery of the F-16A/B to the KLu took place in June of 1979.
In March of 1980, the Netherlands announced plans (finally approved by the Dutch Parliament in December 1983) to buy an additional 111 aircraft (97 F-16A's and 14 F-16B's). This brought the total F-16 inventory to 213 aircraft, 177 A models and 36 B models. The last F-16 rolled off the line at Fokker's Schiphol plant on February 27th, 1992, it was the last of 213 examples delivered to the KLu.
In 2003, the Dutch government decided to cut the F-16 force by 25%. From 2004 onwards, The Netherlands will provide 108 F-16s to NATO, with 90 being available for operational deployments.
Last edited:
Hardened shelters are actually pretty decent at protecting aircraft - you need a precise hit or very large explosive to damage or destroy planes properly using them.
There's an important differentiator that needs to be included.
Older F-16s such as the F-16A, the F-16B are on par with what the Russians have. Which is better than the weaker Su-27s Ukraine are currently relying on against the Su-30 and Su-35 (NB: This is more down to the missiles the planes can use than the planes themselves).
Modern F-16s are superior to the Su-30/35 Russia are using, that's why it's important Ukraine get these too so they don't just cancel out Russia's aerial advantage but they reverse it.
I dunno where you heard that but it's nonsense, they've literally the American plane you buy if you just want a cheap plane that gets the job done without all the bells/whistles and higher maintenance requirements of the (Insert any other plane with a F- prefix).
Last edited:
That is only one part of the equation though - you don't even need F-16s in this context if you had more sophisticated radars and higher performance missiles you could be knocking the Russian jets out the sky with just about anything that could launch those missiles.
Hence why Russia gave up chasing Western fighter development and put the effort into stuff like the S-200 onwards instead.
I'm just going off videos and opinions of ex US pilots that I'd seen/ read. Granted I think only one of those was actually F16 pilot others were F14 and F18 pilots so there would have been some "rivalry" and such but still, I hold their opinion on the matter higher than yours.
What you're saying is technically correct. However realistically in order to be outranging R-77s you need to be firing AIM-120 AMRAAM C7s or better. And the cheapest, easiest to fly/maintain plane that can fire AMRAAMs is the F-16.
The planes Ukraine currently has can only detect targets on radar within about a 30km radius. This is currently killing them, because they can't operate anywhere near the front to provide air support or otherwise russian missiles start flying at them and they can't see where they came from and they don't even see the missile on radar until it's too late
That's where the F16 helps a lot, it will massively increase their radar radius to match or exceed what the Russians have. So even ignoring what missiles the F16 can carry, just the onboard electronics and sensors will make life much easier for Ukrainian pilots even if all they were doing is dropping jdam dumb bombs.
But assuming they are also given modern AMRAAMs to use with their F16 and I know they are because Canada already donated 90 of these missiles to Ukraine several months ago, then they will also have the ability to fire back at the Russians, so now they have two major upgrades - the ability to see the battlefield much better and they can see engage long range targets
Last edited:
I think I see the issue there, the would definitely have been rivalry there as the F-16 is an air force plane whereas the F-14 and F/A-18 are navy aircraft. When they say the F-16 is more fragile than their planes they mean it doesn't have the reinforced landing gear and airframe needed to land on the deck of a pitching aircraft carrier and stop dead by hooking a restraining cable.
That doesn't mean it's more likely to suffer issues due to operational use on land. By comparison the F-16 requires less maintenance than an F/A-18 and has higher reliability meaning it can operate at higher availability (spends more time on average ready to go), the F-14 by comparison was vastly inferior to the F/A-18 in both of those aspects (due to it being designed in the 60s, not because it was a bad aircraft, it was great in it's day) which was something that contributed to it's retirement.
Ukraine has been pledged some of these, not sure if they have arrived yet as it's a risk to store ammo and not use it, but Canada has pledged to send Ukraine AIM7, AIM9 and AIM120 missiles
I do not know what variant of the AIM120 they are sending Ukraine, but Canada has a stockpile of C7's which they are busy replacing with the D3 and C8 anyway
Last edited:
- Status