Ukraine and F-16: What Can We Expect?

[@mattblom3990]

Always enjoy Justin Bronk, he just has an air of authenticity and a passion for military analysis.

[@tomcardale5596]

It's frustrating how the F-16 is so often portrayed as the answer to all problems. Sure it will be helpful, it is very necessary, but the way it's often talked about is just setting it up for failure.

[@Fronzel41]

Many such cases in this war.

[@maritaschweizer1117]

@@tomcardale5596 I heard other experts with totally different analysis. The F16 alone really have not much effect but together with the Sweedish AWACS it looks totally different.

[@donwyoming1936]

The simple fact is that Ukraine is years away from having just 1 squadron of F-16s flying. They might be able to put 2-4 into service dropping bombs, by the end of year. But even that is unlikely

[@maritaschweizer1117]

​@donwyoming1936 Ukraine owns already 80 of the F16 even they are still in Romanua.

[@stevewhite3424]

​@maritaschweizer1117 Yeah. And I own an M-1 Unfortunately, it's a thousand miles away

[@valkoharja]

I’ll always tune in to listen to Justin Bronk

[@charleshopkins3817]

Same

[@willemkaret1568]

Thank you for this interview. Always great to see Justin Bronk.

[@rarefind3d]

Justin Bronk is my favourite plane talker by far!

[@mickodillon1480]

Me too.

[@SimDeck]

He's a bit more than a plane talker.

[@Nauda999]

Talk is cheap, only real way to know what is what, a real war. All these fancy B-2, F-35, F-22, F-15 have never fought Russia or China. Not even Iran. Being used against Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen is not really adequate to measure performance of these planes.

[@mickodillon1480]

@@Nauda999 Well all the fancy Chinese and Russian ones haven't really either have they?

[@Nauda999]

@@mickodillon1480 I agree. so all the expert opinions is exactly just that opinion. There is no statistics like there is from WWII. not even from Vietnam war.

[@davidryall-flanders6353]

Always keen to hear from Professor Bronk.

[@rachelcarre9468]

What a superb discussion from two extremely well informed commentators. First class, deep analysis.

[@starfish370]

Thanks for the video...informative and well done to you and Professor Bronk..glad he's on our side!

[@martindice5424]

Professor Bronk is the go to chap for insight and common sense. Bravo Chris! 👍

[@michaelinsc9724]

Always great to hear Justin's well thought out input.

[@CD-SU]

Unsurprisingly, I think that Justin has just given us an insight as to the delay in the F16 deployment - the Orlan loitering for a few hours above the airfield is a stomach churning problem and the perceived benefits described are just not worth deployment at this time.

[@B.D.E.]

Yup, and that's also probably why another 5-6 patriot batteries were promised. Ukraine will likely want to wait for delivery of more air defence before accepting any F-16.

[@donwyoming1936]

It takes 4-5 years to fully train F-16 pilots. Longer for maintenance personnel. Ukraine's 4-6 F-16 pilots are only 15 months into the process. Their maintenance personnel didn't start tech school until Jan 2024. It's going to be a long time before they're ready.

[@MichaelRosenblum_Emp500]

The points made about Russian loitering drones may explain why F16s have not yet entered Ukraine. Like you might as well let the pilots and ground crew continue to train outside of Ukraine (while letting F-16 stockpiles build) while Ukraine better prepares for their eventual arrival…

[@timtrewyn453]

What happens to that Orlan when a Tucano shows up? Does the Tucano get shot down by an S500 200km away?

[@robertpatrick3350]

@@donwyoming1936aircraft technicians take 18 months in western airforces including induction and generic training as a totally new recruit…….. arguably training skilled technicians with previous experience would take significantly less. All depends on aptitude.

[@NewGoldStandard]

Prof. Bronk always has some really interesting insights. Sometimes his breakdown is so practical and pragmatic I almost find it cold, but he's a really smart guy and is worth a listen every time. Thanks for having him on.

[@dalehill6127]

Another excellent and thought-provoking video, thanks Chris! 🎉

[@devlin7575]

Very good - thank you both

[@johnmadison479]

Great video and a wealth of information in a short span of time.

[@alexiskiri9693]

Thank you for bringing Justin in. He knows his stuff.

[@rodrigoalbuquerquepereira845]

Great one, Chris!

[@aidanoconnor7299]

That's for this video. It's really informative and well delivered; a tough job for such a narrow issue.

[@Philistine47]

Bronk really has a fixation on Gripen. The problem, still, is that approximately all the Gripens that have been built are still currently in active duty squadrons with the air forces that have bought (or leased) them; thus *optimistically,* there are *maybe* half a dozen to a dozen airframes that could *possibly* be made available to Ukraine - and those would be non-updated Gripen Cs, *without Meteor.* All the wishcasting in the world can't change the basic arithmetic of the situation.

[@mindboggling258]

@@Philistine47 if there’s a will there’s a way. If the surrounding countries (Denmark, Finland and Norway) aided Sweden in patrolling its territory, Sweden could easily donate several squadrons’ worth of aircraft.

[@Philistine47]

@@mindboggling258 Even the Svenska Flygvapnet has fewer than 100 Gripens in their active inventory. So... Sure. If Sweden decides they can just *entirely skip having an air force* for a decade or two (~10-ish years for SAAB to produce that many replacement aircraft, plus 5-10 more years to establish/re-establish proficiency in, you know, *everything* an air force needs to do, starting from zero because they gave away their entire inventory of aircraft and couldn't even keep instructors proficient), then "there's a way." In the real world, though? Nah. SAAB has not built enough Gripens to make "Gripens to Ukraine" a sane prospect. And Dr. Bronk really ought to know better.

[@petesjk]

@@Philistine47 I don’t think you’re actually listening to Dr. Bronk, because he actually addresses what you wrote. Maybe it’s you who are fixated on Gripen being the wrong plane.

[@Philistine47]

​@@petesjk I've been listening to his Gripen spiel for over two years now, and it hasn't changed much. It's nice that he finally acknowledges that thousands fewer Gripens have been built than F-16s; but he immediately loses all credit gained for that admission when he turns around and claims _it doesn't matter_ that the F-16 is available and supportable while the Gripen is not. True, Ukraine doesn't have the hundreds of trained pilots and ground crew to operate all the surplus F-16s that might be made available to them; but the fact that hundreds of F-16s can be sent to Ukraine means a lot of Ukraine's neighbors have infrastructure to support F-16s, F-16 parts can be provided when they're needed, and entire aircraft can be replaced when some are inevitably lost (which will happen no matter what new jet Ukraine gets) to enemy action or operational accidents. Even if a handful of Gripens could be pried away from their existing operators, none of that supporting infrastructure exists. Worse, his pitch still largely hangs on the provision of Meteor along with Gripen - and _that_ means drawing directly from the Swedish Air Force's active inventory of Gripen Cs, because that's a recent upgrade to the Gripens in Swedish service that hasn't been propagated across the fleets of other users. Gripens with AMRAAM instead of Meteor don't have anything like the tactical advantages he claims - and _nobody_ has been talking about sending Meteors to Ukraine. It's a complete fantasy.

[@petesjk]

@@Philistine47 Talking from the same script as all the other F-16 salesmen doesn’t make the “thousands and thousands of available F-16s” true. The USAF alone operates 25% of those thousand, and considers many of them worn out and in need frame reinforcements to continue flying. The USAF has also lost between 5%-10% of those thousands to crashes, shoot downs, etc. s total losses. In terms of F-16C/D that are upgraded to equipment contemporary with Gripen C/D, nobody is willing to give those up, because they’re still the backbone of their respective air forces. So none of those are available, which makes a dozen or so available Gripen C/D technically better. I don’t see UAE providing any F-16 to Ukraine, nor Turkey, nor Chile, nor Taiwan, nor S Korea, nor Israel, I don’t even see Poland providing any to Ukraine, so there’s another easily at least 25%, of the ‘thousands available’ that will never be available. Even Argentina will get F-16s that I very much doubt they will provide to Ukraine in any flyable form. Instead of competing with every other country and private contractor in the world, a few score Gripen is relatively easy to source within the next five to ten years, and Ukraine will need them for sure.

[@Psittacus_erithacus]

Useful information, appreciated.

[@jorrittimmers8066]

Hey, I learned something here. As I always do. And thank you both

[@havinganap]

The main point of having F-16 is to replace the 29's, Flankers and SU-24, with a syatem that has a spares supply chain and can use western weapons natively. Without F-16, Ukraine has no airforce. In my view. This alone is enough reason to supply them.

[@danyvarna5094]

I see that you are, as am I, not a native English speaker. Still, I understand your point and agree with it. The platforms of the Ukrainian air force are already overused, can't be readily provided with parts and, usually, can't use the western ordnance that they are provided to it's full potential. The use of a western platform that is produced at a relative scale will solve that problem and will ensure the operation of the Ukrainian air force. The F-16 is important for the war and crucial for the high end capabilities provided by the Ukrainian air force. That noted, it is not a wonder weapon and those that try to present it as such, probably in hopes of increasing the pressure for delivering it soon at scale (as with the tanks), may be doing more harm then good. We shall see. We need to provide Ukraine with what it needs in order to defend it's sovereignty and territorial integrity. That is crucial for preventing others, no matter their ideological leaning (China and the USA included), from attempting such challenges to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of others in the future. The ruZ and their backers should lose in order to serve as an example of what such reckless, and shameless actions result in. Otherwise we will return to a state of affairs in which the use of force will increase, economic efficiency will decrease, trust between allies will drop, internal conflicts will grow and we will see a massive increase in weapons of mass destruction proliferation as a way to guarantee one's security, something that will likely result in the use of such between regional powers, and minor nations within our lifetime.

[@enshk79]

Ukraine won’t be a country for much longer. F-16s are not going to do jack. Starting a proxy war with Russia was always a bad idea.

[@nightshade4186]

There is nothing to replace, Ukr airforce was destroyed during the first months.

[@JanEklund-ge5kr]

@@havinganap ⁴r⁴4⁴ŕŕ r⅓³r⁴²³

[@evildragon1774]

You got a point, the main question is, will the US continue to support ukraine? They can supply ammunition and shells and all but tanks and jet fighters? Thats a whole different story

[@gregpekar7328]

one of the best analysis I have seen

[@irongron]

Thanks Chris, Justin is a big favourite not only on your channel but ex F-14 Tomcat RIO, Ward Carroll's chan too. I live in Ukraine (been displaced twice) and can't afford to be a patreon, I hope I can see the full ep soon. Two questions for you, Gepard's are awesome for shooting down drone's such as Shahids, they don't waste any ammo, just a few bursts from the twin guns and the Shahids are kaput, I presume they do the same to Orlan's. How many more can Germany spare for us here to guard the air bases ? and is that a good idea or bad in your opinion. Secondly, is a strike package to take down the Crimean bridge with the right ordinance just too risky ? Much appreciated. Love your chan, been a sub for years now.

[@macattackmicmac]

Germany has provided all the Gepards they have, I think there are still a few to be delivered which were purchased from other countries by the US and Germany. The leaked German discussion about Taurus indicated it would take 30-50 missiles to take down the bridge. Given Ukraine currently has nothing which can reliably reach the bridge (though they are rumoured to be developing options) if a system were to be introduced, it would most likely start with small amounts, and I wonder if there are better targets which can be eliminated with a few missiles.

[@vaultsjan]

As previous commenter said, Germany does not really have/use Gepards. There were talks of buying them back from Jordan, (like 60 or so?), I do not know how far is this deal. With recon drones, I assume any offense needs a lot of shorad...

[@user-lc9tf]

How can you ask for more Gepards if you didn’t pay for the previous? Asking as a German.

[@vaultsjan]

@@user-lc9tf as an ally duh

[@irongron]

@@user-lc9tf They're old stock and were phased out in 2010. As @vaultsjan pointed out, you help your allies. Thank God most Germans aren't selfish and greedy as you.

[@oneshotme]

I very much enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up

[@mustafasoylemem2490]

I Didn't watched the video but I already liked it. Why? Because justin bronk. I Like that guys commentary.

[@thomaskroyer3468]

It should be known that the Danes are not just giving or donating half of their F-16 pool to Ukraine(-the other half have now been sold to Argentina), the Danes had thought of this issue before handing over the first few F-16, so Denmark are also helping to build up the ground facilities to support the F-16s, like concrete disposal/pens, properly more than were the aircraft are in use!. But what is not mention and don't think Justin known this, but the Danish F-16 have been flown from the former Soviet Airbases in Lithuania for more than 20 years, so some experience have been gathered by the RDAF, so one is with the Danish F-16s snow equipment, more precisely, tractor with rotating brooms, they are used to keep the taxi and runways free of debris, especially around the hangar pens were start-ups is undergoing, this "snow tractors" can easily clean any roads in Ukraine and then be use by the F-16, or a more précis a convoy of need for a tactical deployment of support vehicles, including "snow tractors". We will see the F-16s operate all over the place, and might from a NATO countries to support? Poland/Romania?, not in direct combat, support roles, maintainers. So rotating brooms will make a big difference.

[@JohnMckeown-dl2cl]

Good discussion of F-16 employment possibilities. I especially liked the part of how effective AMRAAMs would be in different altitude/airspeed scenarios.

[@rodgerbane3825]

To make the kind of difference some people are acting like they think it will make, Ukraine would need HUNDREDS of the planes along with all the ammo and support they'd need.

[@phasestar7787]

Key follow question - how does one fix the Orlan problem?

[@CaoimhinOMaol]

The wonder weapons : Abrams tanks, then Leopard tanks, then ATAMS, then HIMARS, then drones, then MANPADS, then Patriot missile batteries, and the wonder weapon of the past year…drumroll please..F-16’s.

[@stuckp1stuckp122]

Love Bronk’s analysis that embodies “… professionals talk about logistics”

[@seanp9277]

It will be difficult to find an operable air base for the F-16 anywhere within Ukraine.

[@niume7468]

How so?

[@branimirantic3625]

@@niume7468 All being targeted by Russia.

[@thephoenix756]

@@niume7468 Russian and Ukrainian aircraft don't require top quality runways, and this is precisely what the F-16s require

[@jkarra2334]

@@thephoenix756 not really...you have watched too much KZbin videos about russian planes...modern russkie.jet needs.as.much clear runway as F-16....no jet is invulnerable.for runway trash and russki jets need as.much clear runway as.western planes..

[@jasonhoerner9954]

@@branimirantic3625 Ukraine is an extremely large country (600,000 sq km), and runways are difficult to damage, and relatively easy to repair. If Russia could take out every air base, Ukraine wouldn't still be flying sorties with their old Soviet jets. As far as F16s needing "top quality runways", this claim is overstated. There are KZbin videos of Poland and Taiwan practicing takeoffs and landings of F16s on public roads during military training exercises. The risk to F16s is debris because of the low air intake, which means it can't use dirt runways or a runway that has recently sustained damage. But if the road or runway is clean, they can use nearly any runway a Soviet jet can use, and public roads in a pinch.

[@stockdale829]

Thank you for adding some understanding of the challenges the f16s will face.

[@kieran2221]

Hey, I learned something here. Thank you :)

[@juliollagunolara8286]

I learned a lot with you video, thanks.

[@marvinegreen]

Maybe a year ago I read an Aviation Weekly article about the upgrade levels of the donor F-16s. 2+ or - years ago I read that the first Dutch F-35s were arriving to replace their F-16s. On another channel I speculated that the 32 mile range AMRAAMs were being provided because that might be the technical limit of the F-16s upgrade level. So, my question is: Were the F-16s upgraded further in anticipation of assigning them to combat in Ukraine? (And, yes, I learned a lot from this video, good job, and good interviewee).

[@checkeredflagfilms]

for the f-16 to become truly effective they will need electronic warfare assistance i.e. growler/awacs support. otherwise they're sitting ducks and the carnage will be significant.

[@jimmarshall807]

Very interesting content

[@jamesquinn3414]

Thanks! I learned a good deal .

[@jungleboy1]

Prof. Justin Bronk knows his shit. I learned alot of what he's said playing DCS but he is on another strategist level... Our British Sun Tzu basically.

[@JoseJavierCCP]

Thanks Christoph, always interesting to see Justin, shame his book is so expensive 😞

[@UncleJoeLITE]

Sitting down with Perun's mate Chris! Nice. It's time the Wunderwaffen nonsense was dropped. _I'll head over to Patreon next!_

[@duartesimoes508]

In many instances, the _Wunderwaffen_ notion was created by the ruzzians themselves, so that they could scorn later as much as possible. Keep in mind that the ruzzians always strive to demoralise/intimidate/scorn. That's how their sick mind works.

[@delta5297]

Random question, not related to this video. If you're a WW2 torpedo bomber pilot and you're making an attack run, do you just kinda eyeball the target? Or do you have to do some complicated parametric calculation factoring the target's speed and heading and put your plane at an exact drop point?

[@LoudestHoward]

A pretty fair analysis.

[@johnm9482]

I have yet to hear anyone claim the F-16 is a wonder weapon. Used correctly it will be very useful and that is how the vast majority of people are seeing it.

[@doneyandassociates]

I don't care to speculate any more about what they will do. I want to know when are they getting there. I've been hearing, "just around the corner" for 6 months now.

[@chuckygobyebye]

I very much enjoy Bronk's briefings. I see he's in the spare bedroom again. At least I hope that it's a spare bedroom.

[@chuckygobyebye]

Given that Ukraine already accepts foreigners into their army, is there not scope for them to accept a Flying Tigers-style unit of former F16 pilots and operators? I reckon there would be a community of former F16 pilots who never faced combat when in service who would be keen to do what they had trained for so long to do. Heck, veteran ground-crew and mechanics would be an asset. Then again, maybe you want anyone crazy enough to do so away from your valuable aircraft.

[@donwyoming1936]

You're not going to find any fully qualified F-16 pilots willing to give up their retirement, house, cars, wife & kids in college to go die in Ukraine. A fully trained F-16 pilot, who no longer owes time on his contract, is going to be in his mid 30s. Then comes maintenance personnel. They're in the same boat. Not sure how you're going to entice a 30 year old TSgt, with a retirement check only 8 years away, to go die in Ukraine.

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

I think it's unlikely that the militaries of those retired pilots would give them the okay to fly for Ukraine. Just imagine a retired American pilot getting shot down and jailed in Russia the propaganda would be horrendous, not to mention the hopeless diplomatic efforts to get him released.

[@LanguagesWithAndrew]

@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 Said militaries would get no say whatsoever over that decision, presuming the pilots and crew in question are legally civilians when they decide to do this.

[@marrs1013]

​@@LanguagesWithAndrew But they are still citizens of said countries, pulling retirement pensions from said countries. That is all can be taken away: citizenship, pension, medical insurances, benefits, all of it. Gone. Not many pilots will be ready to make that choice, while they can stay home and fly private jets and airliners for good money, safely and legally.

[@lpdirv]

@@marrs1013there are lots of retired Viper drivers that would do it. Its the chance of a lifetime to go head to head with the Orcs old-school. I cant fathom why none of them have taken it on. Especially the Dutchies, they have a score to settle.

[@fraserhenderson7839]

Thank for this much desired, realistic perspective. Ignorant, non-military aware proles (such as myself) still wanna know!

[@scottl9660]

I think a totally appropriate question would be what can a F-16 in Ukraine do for you, and what cost does it take to do it? Would it be better,given the existing conditions, to send additional AD systems, Arty, Shells, IFV, Manpds, jammers, Tanks…ect?

[@Christian-h8b]

Total korekt , thank you for that. Most are much to optimistic with f-16 . It's the same with MBT .

[@stupidburp]

I respectfully disagree with Justin Bronk. While Ukraine has a limited number of pilots trained on F-16s and other Western aircraft in the immediate sense and the training program is long, it is much easier for Ukraine to solve the pilot training issue than to acquire aircraft in large numbers actually delivered and combat capable. If aircraft had been committed in much larger numbers and delivered at much earlier dates, Ukraine could find pilots to fly them. They already have large numbers of pilots that could undergo conversion training. Yes, there are challenges with that such as language barrier, differences in tactics, differences in systems, and differences in command style. But for the simplest missions far away from the front lines, such as release of storm shadow from outside the range of Russian air defenses, these pilots are capable enough to get it done. Furthermore, providing more instructors and liaisons can help to mitigate the challenges. In my view, the hand wringing over pilots by NATO leaders is largely an excuse to not provide more aid to Ukraine. It is a matter of will and resources applied. If there had been a dedicated effort from the start of the war, Ukraine would have hundreds of aircraft with many hundreds of pilots and maintainers by now. Enough to completely transform into a NATO compatible force. The problem isn't the training logistics. It is the slow drip of aid that led to low demand for training to use those systems supplied in such low numbers. During a war, the priority is war fighting. If people are sitting idle waiting for a training slot, then they can be put to use flying the older Soviet era aircraft and at least have some impact on the war. The USAF is short on pilots and has many empty slots in classes which could be filled by Ukrainians and foreign volunteers to the Ukrainian military. But the US isn't even making use of even a significant a fraction of available training capacity for Ukraine. There are many other countries providing pilot training and they legitimately have limitations on training slots.The real reason for the weak assistance to Ukraine is unknown but it seems like the the policy is to drag out the war and then try to force a stalemate. The West and especially the US is fully capable of providing Ukraine with everything they need including pilot training but instead still use training as an excuse even years into the war.

[@PalleRasmussen]

I like when you work with people from RUSI. Very professional organisation.

[@greendoodily]

I wonder if they can use the F-16 to provide rear area security to western Ukraine from cruise missiles, etc., to then allow relocation of some of the ground based defences to more tactically useful areas? Also interesting catch-22 with the Russian recon drones, because the best counter for them is probably a Sidewinder of an F-16…which they can’t easily do because of the risk to the Vipers from the ordnance called in by said recon drones.

[@henryknepp]

getting an in-country fully functional and qualified support and maintenance network for the F-16's within 2 years is absolutely phenomenal. The small number of F-16's is logical, the Ukrainians still have to put the training to realworld use. I don't know how long it will take for the logistical tail necessary to support the F-16s to expand.

[@TS-bj8my]

Thanks

[@derJackistweg]

7:30 very interesting point.

[@michaelogden5958]

Lt. Gen Ben Hodges (Ret.) makes much of the Ukraine military not necessarily following Russian military dogma. Creative and resourceful are words he uses often. I don't think a few F-16s will be a panacea for Ukraine, but could outside-of-the-box tactics make the F-16s more effective that they might normally be?

[@allydea]

Hodges is either an idiot (I doubt it) or he's on youtube lobbying for MIC interests. He may also have his own deep rooted anti-russian bias that keeps him going. I challenge you to point to any prediction or analysis he has made that has stood up to reality.

[@jonryanmcgregor8877]

range and dated weapons / radar = likely no. there's no guerilla tactics when you have 15 min of fuel (total, 25 with tanks) and only 1-2 places to land (successfully)

[@petesjk]

It’s should be mentioned that the USAF exchange programs helped Ukraine switch from Soviet style flying operations to the current tactics of low altitude flying operations. The Su-27 is an air superiority fighter, and the MiG-29 is a frontline interceptor, so they were designed to operate ideally at higher altitudes. Soviet tactics did not emphasize individual creativity and out of the box thinking. When East German MiG-29 pilots were being integrated into the new unified German Air Force, it was the NATO pilots who showed them how to fly the MiG-29 to beat an F-16 in a dogfight.

[@ksztyrix]

​@@petesjkNonsense

[@wedgeantilles8575]

The contrary is true, F-16 in Ukraine will be LESS effective than normally. Because when F-16 are deployed by the USAF, they are embedded in a layer of other stuff: They operate from 100% secure bases / carriers. They are in constant communication with Awacs, for difficult jobs and high risk environments there are F-35 avaiable, for Air to Air combat there are F-22 avaiable, the US can effectivily target and destroy enemy GBAD. None of this is avaiable to Ukraine. Oh, and there is the "small" detail that Ukraine has neither pilots nor mechanics that are as familiar like the USAF. So whatever you'd expect "normally" from the F-16, you need to deduct A LOT to get what Ukraine will manage with them. IMO the most important thing will be the continuation in the capability to deliever ALCMs, because this capability is getting reduced with every aircraft that Ukraine loses. And F-16 will make sure that they keep this capability.

[@muhammadasadkhan3564]

excellent discussion, learnt a lot about the complexity of this new tool (F-16) being deployed in this complex environment with drones, with long range missiles, with western governments not giving them long range missiles and Ukraine still has lot to learn and change in their models of engagement etc.

[@patrikfloding7985]

I did learn something here!

[@scifidude184]

I see people talking about slow planes to intercept drones. The problem is those planes would be within interception range of Russian aircraft. SU-35s and MIG-31s can use R-37 missiles against said prop planes.

[@EdwardRLyons]

It all comes down to the saying by Lance Armstrong: It's Not About the Bike. In this case, it's not about the aircraft (F-16, or even the Gripen if that was the case). It's about the capability. And the capability provided to Ukraine by the West has been far too little too late since the outset, in all aspects, but especially in the air war. This allows the Russians to dictate the course of the war, regardless of how little progress they have made on the battlefield. They hold the initiative. And they will use that initiative to the full as soon as F-16s, or the two SAAB AEW aircraft, are in country with the objective to destroy the hardware and demonstrate the (supposed) futility of the West. Until and unless the West gets serious about arming Ukraine to win, rather than merely to survive, then Russia will continue to dictate the course of this war.

[@Whateverjudy]

If retired Western and Asian retired fighter pilots continue to volunteer to fly F-16's as the currently are that could change things quickly. At least 10 retired decorated F-16 pilots that I've counted have publicly expressed their willingness to fight Russians over Ukraine. That number could easily quadruple. That would make for much faster transition to the air then ground war. That would also speed up Ukraines pilot development. hreat notwithstanding Ukraine's logistical and runway limitations. Pilots are the limitation however the radar specs given for the F-16's were for the most primitive of radars and versions. Some if not all of these are F-16 E with AN/APG 80's come on man.

[@TheHaighus]

Sounds like radar-guided heavy flak as seen at the end of WWII and the early Cold War might have a role in tackling these surveillance UAVs. A proximity-fused artillery shell is a lot cheaper than a guided missile.

[@boweryst11]

Thanks for your work man, I really wish you could delve into the scrapped variants of the F14/D one of these days!

[@Area51UFOGynaecology]

Hallo Chris! I have a very important question for you. When did the Germans start using AA shells that had fuze which also worked during impact? I heard that this was very late during the war.

[@bestestusername]

Wouldnt you paint the runways green or camoflauge them? Concrete is grey and quite visable from the air

[@timbrwolf1121]

Is the gun targeting on the f16 accurate enough for shaheds?

[@richardgray7480]

Saying, "Hey, I learned something here"... go go algorithm.

[@whbrown1862]

Based on the discussion in the video, it looks like systematic issues that need to be addressed before F-16s are employed in terms of air defense, maintenance, and pilot availability. The jet looks to be not the answer, but possibly a future direction of a new deployment scheme.

[@jonryanmcgregor8877]

Love that I have been saying much of this on twitter but I just get called a Russian bot. great video and thank you for taming the enthusiam of the keyboard special forces.

[@HungryCats70]

Grim outlook for Ukraine in the air war. The drone warfare definitely needs more solutions. :(

[@pRahvi0]

We should put up an assemblyline for F-16 lookalikes made of plywood or foam or something. Ideally so that the props outnumber the real planes 10 to 1, so any Russian missile getting through and even hiting accurately would only have 10% chance of actually doing any damage. I know someone probably has thought of this already, but it might still be worth reminding the decision makers about that possiblity.

[@soulsphere9242]

I have no doubt they will do this. They already built loads of fake decoy HIMARS and PATRIOT batteries.

[@chukkie0001]

They already showed those a few days ago on some /r channel.

[@hardstyle8184]

Yeah the movie 🎥 🍿 scenery and props department (model experts are already at work on those). They look awesome too 🛫

[@tenarmurk]

Justin !

[@nerdwwii8081]

There is no superweapon.

[@thearisen7301]

How feasible could it be for this to setup Ukraine to get newer F-16s like Block 70/72? How soon could Ukraine get Block 70/72s?

[@rienkhoek4169]

@@thearisen7301 I believe only the US has those. The f16's from Denmark and the Netherlands are older ones that hat have been replaced by the f35 by now.

[@JohnS-b8f]

Good talk thanx for info

[@kentnilsson465]

Questions 1/ How will the Saab AEW that Sweden is sending help, if at all and can they be protected? 2/ Given what was said at the end, is Gripen any better or is it basically the same problem? 3/ What kind of AD could be sent that could handle those surveilance drones? Could potentially the CV90 AD version work? or is it only SAMs that work

[@alphana7055]

Gripen is 4th gen like Mig29

[@broko336]

im not an expert, but from what i gathered from open source intel: concerning gripen: it could use the meteor, which would indeed help as it doesnt suffer as much at low altitude because it uses a ramjet with a much longer burntime it also has a far newer aesa radar, which would help a lot against jamming and ew in general it has less power, but beeing limited to low altitude this doesnt affect it as mauch and, (imo the most important) it is designed for dispersed operations and beeing sustained by few and relatively untrained crew, which is exactly what ukraine needs for AD: nasams should already be abe to disrupt orlan operations, as well as patriot. they just need more. the soviet TOR and BUK systems would do as well, but i doubt there are any in the west

[@kentnilsson465]

@@alphana7055 Gripen is far better than a Mig-29. Thailand used them vs J-11s( an updated Su-27), and in BVR combat , Thai lost 9 Gripen vs 41 J-11s. The Gripen that Sweden has are upgraded 39Cs, so much better than the ones Thailand has. The latest version of the F-16 is equivalent to the ones Sweden has but the ones that are donated are old F-16As that has been upgraded but that now are being phased out. The Gripens that Sweden has are to be used for at least 10 more years after the upgrade

[@alphana7055]

@@kentnilsson465 What war are you talking about? As far as I know Gripen was never used in a war

[@nietkees6906]

Gripen is better because it has the meteor missile which is ramjet powered and has much longer range than AMRAAM, especially when fired from low altitude. That means the Gripen could fire at Russian aircraft while not being exposed to Russian SAMs.

[@tommypaget2294]

What I find surprising is that there isn’t any aerial dominancy by either side, so far into the conflict. Unlike the US invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan……by the 3 week into the war, the opposing countries had most of their air defenses smashed (SAM sites hit by HARMs and US fighters go unchallenged). In the Ukraine conflict, both sides are still vying for control of the sky over Ukraine.

[@tent7014]

Hey I just learnt something here !

[@user-lc9tf]

Is it that difficult to give them long range missiles like Meteor?

[@crazygmanssimstuff]

The meteor missile far outrages the F-16 radars so the problem is the radars on the MiG-31 and Su-35 can detect and track and fire a R-37 at a F-16 long before the F-16s radar can pick up and set up a firing solution for the Meteor.

[@kalaharimine]

The V-16 "wunderwaffe"

[@nattygsbord]

I see that russians understanding of western languages suck

[@charlesmartel5735]

This interview explained why the F-16 will not be a wonder weapon in Ukraine, but it did not address what advantages the F-16 will bring to Ukraine in the near term, mid term, and long term.

[@danyvarna5094]

The advantages are somewhat better radars, the ability to sustain the used platforms as the Soviet one's become unflyable do to use and difficult to obtain spare parts, and the ability to use western ordnance to it's full capabilities. Currently, the long range AGM are released from Su-24s that can't be easily maintained and the emission seeking HARMs are released from Mig-29s, and (as far as I am aware) still need to be programed on the ground, thus lacking the capability to sniff a frequency while airborne, and then be launched at the transmitter.

[@oleran4569]

That's a good thing. Clear perspective of advantages and strengths are needed by the opposition.

[@michaeltrillium]

The idea must be “some planes are better than none” - the Soviet stuff is running out - and “the West is throwing them out anyway”, and “maybe Russian Airforce sucks as much as the rest”, and “maybe Ukrainians can figure out stuff we didn’t think of, like they’d done before”.

[@webjakob]

The video clearly explained why F16 will be unable to provide anything meaningful - though it didn’t spell it out verbatim.

[@charlesmartel5735]

@@webjakob I think you need to re-read my original post. Or edit yours.

[@QALibrary]

I see the F16 being used the most at taking out AA/AAA radars and equipment

[@johnkirkby4959]

Very impressive assessment by Professor Justin Bronk and perhaps rather grim. This war has changed recently with drones all over the place at low level targetting lone soldiers and small vehicles. Problems with EU solidarity and the possibility of Donald Trump being reelected threaten the amount of aid given to Ukraine as well. Vladimir Putin has been lavishly wasting the lives of Russian military personnel in such a way that Joseph Stalin would approve of.

[@pacivalmuller9333]

Russia lost trillions of soldiers but has no mobilization, meanwhile Clown as tyrant says that they only lost 31.000 but their million strong army is gone and Ukraine is running out of men and they never stopped mobilizing. My proposal: never elect a clown 🤡

[@nowarwithrussiaandchina4667]

So Justin basically explains F-16s are outgoing to be outranged, outnumbered and outgunned and will do a mission profile at low altitude with massive fuel burn like other Ukrainian jets. But Ukraine is so lacking in the air power department they'll take them as long as they can disperse the planes without Russian surveillance which they haven't solved yet. And that's not even including Ukraine's lack of suitable pilots for Western fast jets.

[@tarjeijensen7237]

I would think that ground launched Meteors might do some damage if deployed close to the front line.

[@MartinSchreiber-mc5mr]

would the Super Tucano with its 2 .50cal be (cost-) effective against those cheep drones?

[@letecmig]

@@MartinSchreiber-mc5mr you need to get to area from where missile it carries can intercept the target(and be launched). Tucano is too slow to carry the missile to that point in time. But for hunting Shaheds, Tucano could be useful as point defence “fighter”- UA is already doing this with Yak prop trainers

[@danyvarna5094]

With something that has a good downwards looking radar that passes it the location of the slow targets, yes. Cruise missiles, no.

[@letecmig]

@@danyvarna5094 as I wrote, UA already uses Yak trainers in that role on Shaheds (the only 'slow targets'). So we are not in disagreements. Tucanos could do this job even better as they are faster than prop Yaks..... but Shaheds are the least dangerous by far of what is sent against UA

[@MartinSchreiber-mc5mr]

@@letecmig my main point was COST. Sidewinder against Shahed is to expensive .50cal is cheap.

[@letecmig]

@@MartinSchreiber-mc5mr makes sense. But F-16 has a cannon…. obviously getting speed/closing/range/cost right with different airplane platforms is a complex matter

[@florisbrand4350]

In such a highly contested airspace and with all the limitations human ingenuity will be important. Remember how the Thatch weave was employed 14:42 14:42

[@fubartotale3389]

Exactly who said it was a wonder weapon? It entered service 54 years ago! Seriously? It's an aging though very capable multi purpose fighter/bomber. Its advantage is maneuverability simplicity, versatility and avionics suite. Its superior to anything the Ukrainians have now, but not state of the art by any means.

[@Scaadoo]

So what new technology is being developed to counter Orlan-10 surveillance drones and the big Russian gliding bombs?

[@tinashevictorsibanda2675]

same thing which happened with Bradley tha abams the leopard and the HMARs

[@nattygsbord]

what happened to your spelling? letters are scattered around randomly everywhere like the fragments of a blown up T-72 tank

[@zapbrannigan9770]

It strikes me that having a cheap prop driven trainer armed with gun pods would be a possible counter to Orlan 10’s if your operating them behind your own lines as a counter drone effort.

[@christofferwillenfort4035]

I agree. drones today have an evolytion that is resonabely the same as planes had in WWi. so a "fighterdrone" would be the next logical stepp. and as drones are small. you can use a small caliber with small recoil so simpler to integrate in a drone.

[@neiltitmus9744]

They won't be us3d for chasing drones

[@derloos]

Very calm and sensible take, lots of good, nuanced points. But f.. that is bleak 🤷‍♂️

[@Nimmermaer]

Is there any chance of APKWS capability being integrated into Ukrainian F-16s? That system would might improve efficiency against targets like Shahed a lot.

[@mink99a]

Would a prop aircraft like an ( armed) tucano or pilatus be able to fight the Russian recon drones ?

[@FraserFir-sb4lk]

The F-16 allows future sustainability and better integration of western weapon systems. It's not a wunderwaffe so to speak, but it is a necessary move that can keep the Ukrainian Air Force in this war. It also helps pave the way for future integration into the western joint security apparatus.

[@kirillvourlakidis6796]

How many FPV drones could you provide for the cost of a single F16? How many FPV drone pilots could you train for the time+cost of training a single F16 pilot? I really hope that serious military analysts are thining about these trade-offs, because the F16 is clearly serving a larger political than a military role right now.

[@peterschmidt1900]

1:10 hate the shaking camera.