I apologise in advance as this is going to seem overly harsh I know but this is a fantastic example of when I said - people who are not experts but have read some media stories are just saying things which are just plain wrong, as if their opinion is reality when it is far from the case.
Don't worry, it's not harsh just a bit dumb as I've demonstrated many times over the past nine years I know a lot about the subject, hence providing a large bulk of the threads info on Soviet weapons and tactics.
In reality, F-16's alone without the rest of the force multipliers NATO/US uses, as shown below, are in for a very tough battle
I wasn't saying it would be easy, there's no such thing as an easy fight unless your flying into the middle east to shoot down poorly maintained/equipped jets decades older than your own.
- They are out-ranged in individual aircraft radars - the Su-35 has a much longer range and more capable PESA radar (est 200nm) and the Su-27 has a longer range but less capable radar (est 100nm+) - the F-16 uses a much smaller planar array radar (est just 80nm).
- They are out-ranged in missiles - Su-35 uses 70nm+ ranged R-77-1 whilst F-16 will probably use the AIM-120C-5 or C-7 with a <70nm range - the official figure is just 35nm but its known to be higher than that.
The Su-35 may have a bigger radar than the F-16s, but the F-16s have a smaller radar signature. And while the AIM-120C7 and the newer Adders have comparable range the Adders are slower so will take longer to reach their target (this is somewhat countered by the fact the Su-35 can outrun an AMRAAM almost as well as an F-16 can outrun an Adder). This engagement has been modelled a few times now by reputable flight simulator channels and the general result between two air wings just going at it is favourable for the F-16s, unfavourable for old F/A-18s and overwhelmingly favourable for new F/A-18s.
You have to remember though that the engagement doesn't need to take place to turn the tide, as merely knowing that Ukraine now have the ability to force an engagement that would likely go in their favour would force Russia to be less aggressive with it's air assets. Just like MANPADS forced them to be less aggressive with their helicopters, NLAWS/Javelins forced them to be more conservative with their tanks (eventually) and HIMARS forced them to be less aggressive with the positioning of their artillery.
- They have no EW support from the ground or airborne - Russia has lots of jammer, EW and ESM aircraft in theatre already so the Ukrainian radars will get jammed and their comms jammed too.
I wasn't talking about the Ukrainian air force flying into Russian held territory, I was talking about Ukrainian planes over Ukrainian controlled territory trading with Russian planes over occupied territory. In which case Ukraine will also be able to deploy it's electronic warfare abilities, which granted are smaller than Russia's, but also have the advantage of actually being reliable/functional.
I could go on and on with even more but hopefully by now you can appreciate that the F-16's (if/whenever they arrive) are in for a very hard battle against all the odds and all of this goes exactly the same for the "Australian F-18's" you mentioned too
If you re-read what I posted, I was saying that the Australian F/A-18s would fair as poorly as the Su-27s and MiG-29s currently in use and be relegated to the same duty (only the newer Super Hornets would have the same advantage over the Su-35 as the F-16s).
Those reasons above are why NATO/US specifically uses multiple aircraft types which support each other in a single "grand plan", leveraging the advantages of each type to nullify the disadvantages of others - F-22 using Stealth to get High Value A-A kills (AWACS, refuellers etc), F-35 using stealth to get A-A/A-G kills taking out ground radars, F-15 to kill enemy fighters, F-16 to kill enemy ground units and all overseen by AWACS to control the battle, able to see deep into enemy territory and pass out new plans instantly across secure data-links whilst refuellers keep planes in the air and EW aircraft blind the enemy etc etc all in aforementioned "grand plan" where everyone is working together, knowing what every piece is doing and covering the deficiencies inherent within each aircraft type. If you take just one single piece of that massive grand plan and throw it into combat against an adversary who has all of that "grand plan" equipment, well thats a suicidal battle as Iraq etc have found out.
Obviously I'm not going to argue with this as it's a repeat of stuff I've posted myself previously when explaining how hard Russia's lack of cohesion/combined arms was screwing things up for them (I think it was back when they managed to score the first recorded shootdown of their own Su-34 or Su-35
).
Luckily for Ukraine, its fairly obvious by now that Russia's version of the "grand plan" isn't as capable as it should be and nowhere near a capable as a NATO/US one, which is the only reason it wouldn't be a suicide mission to fly F-16's directly against the RuAF rather than just performing a "holding action" of the local airspace which is what the UAF is currently doing, but it will still be a very, very hard fight for the UAF even if they get a whole heap of "indirect" support from NATO/US too.
It's pretty much a given that the supply of F-16s will also come with support from AWACS/etc operating from international or NATO airspace. Russia haven't been harassing (and sometimes ramming) NATO aircraft near Ukraine just for the fun of it, we've been supplying them with intel to help dial in drones and artillery for over a year.
