Chris, I feel that your excellent command of aircraft systems and technology are surpassed only by your ability to connect with experts in the field. I look forward to your next post - they always make my day just a little bit brighter!
I saw a good analysis related to the war about a year ago called Viper's nest on Militavia channel. It will be not an easy ride to use these planes as they are old compared to Su-35...
@@dalehill6127 It is a tech sport like Formula 1. Tech matters more. These F16 s are simple not in the same league. Although I'm sure there will be Russian losses as they fight as idiots with their hubris. That led to the sinking of the Moscow... Cruising with switched off radar in a war zone..
@@TenylegMinekez-uc7co radar tells the enemy where you are far further than your radar reaches, so it's smart to not use radar but datalink from awacs until you need it
@@bjorntorlarsson Discussions are a dime a dozen. The war in Ukraine is an uneven fight. I almost feel sorry for the Ukromaniacs flying suicide missions. It is time to give Putin what he wants. He is actually quite realistic in his demands
@@gdiwolverinemale4th Well, the West has during the last several decades pursued catastrophically devastating policies. The West today is extremely weak industrially, financially, diplomatically, socially. All out dependent on more developed countries. There exists no one in the world to "give Putin what he..." Just look at the soon year long humiliation of the US Navy in the Red Sea, for example. Or what happened in Afghanistan. However could the NATO forces who are so emphatically defeated by the very poorest countries in the world, take on any industrialized foe?? And Israel is next up. Total hubris. No understanding whatsoever about the world outside of their mentally ill imaginations.
This was the best interview made here yet! In terms of quality competence and relevance to current events. Although I am subscribed, I didn't get a notification for this post.
I believe the reason the Ukraine has made being an SaM or Awacs officer the most dangerous in the Russian military is to make way for F16 to work closer to the front against bombers carrying glide bombs .
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Hey, a question while you're here: can these F-16s receive targets from outside systems (e.g. Patriot, etc) or can they only rely on their own radar targets? My understanding is that Ukraine has no trouble seeing the glide bombers but have no effective means to engage them.
@@karenrobertsdottir4101from what I've understood in the video, the main difficulty remains to place the F-16s in a useful launch window for the missiles to reach their targets before weapons release.
Amazing content, many thanks to Justin Bronk and you.
2 หลายเดือนก่อน +7
Excellent discussion on a complex subject. Pilots, maintenance and infrastructure, and support systems, including radars and various weapons, seem to be more challenging than the jets. Specifically, the pilots are something for other countries to act upon.
@@gdiwolverinemale4thAh. And how is the Russian plan going? They wanted to keep NATO away from Russia; their NATO border doubled. They wanted to show strength to the world; they've lost half their Black fleet to a country with no navy. They wanted a re-united Russian/Soviet Empire; their satellite states have gone to war with each other. They planned on completing their Special Military Operation in 3 days; its now been 30 months. If the west has zero plan, Russia's plan is net-negative.
Thank you Chris and Justin. An excellent analysis and discussion. Those long distance loitering reconnaissance drones are certainly a challenging threat to operations using high value assets.
@@flipflopski2951Which bundits are you referring to and how wrong would they be exactly? Media has been hyping drones on one hand but they have indeed been very consequential in this war in several ways, some of which unforseen.
Wow! Really a tremendous explanation of these aircraft, pilots and the logistics involved in this awful situation. I’m a neophyte with only the thinnest knowledge. I appreciate your insight.
Whilst the discussed limitations of Mirage 2000 are correct: complexity of a separate supply chain, reduced availability of MICA IR/EM air-to-air missiles, it nonetheless presents some notable advantages for usage in Ukraine: • Mirage 2000 can perform buddy-buddy aerial refuelling which means it is less reliant on forward airbases and can perform more challenging missions since fuel expended for take-off and transit can be offset • Mirage 2000-5/D can launch SCALP-EG/ShadowStorm cruise missiles (although France 2000-5 would need to be upgraded to Mk.2 standard first). Also upcoming MICA NG has a dual-pulse rocket motor for sustained acceleration and much increased range (80 - 100km) bringing it on par with earlier AIM-120 AMRAAM A/B/(C) missiles but likely with higher terminal speed thanks to the dual-pulse rocket motor (pushing the RDY radar to its limits). Also the MICA has performed well against low-flying drones and cruise missiles in Jordan and the Red Sea, where it was launched from Dassault Rafale and Mirage 2000-5 respectively. France aircraft have been renowned for being intuitive to fly and having very positive controls and handling, Mirage 2000 have been operated from rudimentary basis and small crews in Sub-Saharan Afrika. Finally Mirage 2000 higher intake position is more suitable for less prepared runways.
Last points (1) on downing low-flying drones and loitering munitions: whilst AN/APG-66 (-68) might be susceptible to ground clutter, identification can also be performed using IR/CCTV targeting pods. Initial aircraft guidance can be made using ground-based radar, western AEW&C / AWACS, long-range drones (or the upcoming ASC 890 AE&C aircraft) whilst terminal target identification can be made using targeting pods and targeting using the helmet mounted target designation for AIM-9X. (2) the air-to-ground role was not discussed: maybe the pictures showing air-to-air armament where intentionally misleading and the primary F-16 mission is using AGM-88 HARM for SEAD/DEAD and precisions bombs (GDAM, AASM). (3) I see F-16 delivery primarily as a way to future proof the Ukraine airforce and account for wear and attrition of Ukraine own investory of soviet vintage aircraft. Compared to MiG-29, F-16 is indeed an increase in capabilities, eventhough the asymmetric posture in air-combat remains.
As a retired Viper maintainer, I am naturally biased toward that system. However, given the situation in the Ukrainian theater I have to agree with Prof. Bronk. The Gripen would be a better system given the limitations of Ukraine's resources and aircraft dispersal reality.
All Ukrainian pilots except two who were trained on F16 were rookies or civilian pilots now in the military. Trained and experienced pilots were in Ukraine defending with older Soviet jets.
I wonder if those two are there to be able to really understand the difference and perhaps communicate it effectively to the majority who only know Soviet desings and tactics.
@@davidwilkins5932 It is a Catch 22.... I strongly doubt any rookie pilots will be placed in a situation to face any Russian fighters or SAM. How one reacts when locked on in real life if very different to training. The donated F16s are old F16A Block 15 from late 1980's and 1992 with outdated electronics. (The current F16E/F Block 60 is a totally different beast)... Think of the difference between 1990 Corolla vs 2016 Corolla
@VNAV_PTH probably yes but with alot of caveats, I.e missiles provided, pilot training and relative experience of the airframe so might not be as big a difference as we would like
What I learned here was the tradeoffs between launch altitude, speed and range of the AMRAMMS. I imagine that vendor published ranges represent ideal conditions?
Thanks Chris , for another great video , is Justin a former RAF aircrew officer ? He looks and sounds like he's had at least a Short Service Commission in the RAF.
Realistically they will shoot harms at radars and aim 120s at cruise missiles from behind the line of contact. To think they will defensive counter air is a bit ambitious.
Let us hope that the F16s can help reduce the russian use of glidebombs by making the airspace more contested and to assist the Ukrainian airdefenses in protecting infrastructure. This would be very helpful and even out the the current situation somewhat. The F16s are now in Ukraine, in small numbers, being operational. Sweden will retire and send 2 SAAB awacs that have Link-16 and should be able to help the F16s and the airdefenses overall. It was apparently decided together with the F16 consortium, that also asked Sweden to wait with the Gripens. Sweden could probably send 20 Gripens Cs at this point counting airframes in storage, at SAAB, and from the active airwings. I respect Prof Bronk and his knowledge that he has gained from visiting military in Ukraine, Sweden, and so on. He present a very sober view of the Russian threat.
I'm appreciative of how much this interview focused on the use case and logistical concerns of things like F-16s going to Ukraine, I feel it always gets overlooked in the face of the 'stat cards'.
@@gdiwolverinemale4th So; Ivan, why are you make such a fuss in almost every comment sub-thread? Seems that you are deeply concerned despite your words to the contrary.
@@gdiwolverinemale4th Hard is not impossible Just difficult. We just need to support them the way the French supported the American revolutionaries. And Putin and Xi and Kim will lose.
Justin’s closing comments about dealing with lots of MALE drones is interesting. I wonder what the most cost effective defence would be? High performance helicopters? Capable training aircraft with machine gun pods?
38:08 To answer that question I would have broadened the scope. The biggest thing that Ukraine needs to be concerned with regarding F-16s and the war overall, is the outlook of it's allies. Playing for a tie is a sure way to lose. Playing defense, hoping that the opposing offense eventually gets tired and stopps scoring points, will not work.
So you suggest they take an aggressive stance? Seems like a quick way to lose them all. Remember they once had an airforce. My guess is they will play defensive till the next counter offensive. By then more and hopefully enough will be delivered to matter in that campaign. But currently? Defense is the way imo.
@@jacqueslheureux9161 That's only because the allies of Ukraine prohibit Ukraine from hammering the enemy. It could have been a short more but the US, Germany and others have prevented that 🤬
Thanks a lot Chris. This interview was very informative. Great to hear from an academic who is clearly an expert and talks about real factors, rather than media hype. Far more insightful than Sean Bell, who is wheeled out regularly by mainstream media. I suspect that the practical needs of self-defence and development will increase the speed of Ukraine becoming more engaged culturally with Western Europe and the Atlantic world. Ukraine needs more people who can use English, Swedish, German and French, for the reasons outlined by Professor Bronk.
What I am hearing from the several quarters that at the end the issue with Ukraine air force, they were not able to provide pilots. A month ago after getting tired of SZU accusations instructors revealed that 1 yr in training many pilots still cannot pass English requirements... Practically speaking since 2008 every single licensed pilot in the World must speak English...
and you should know that in 99% of cases it has nothing to do with it. This is just a pretext to hide some other reason. Because most young people know the language to some extent. And I don't think the cadets who have entered the pilot program will have any major problems either. And yes. Our other pilots also know the language... So.
The sheer weight of Justin's knowledge & quality of explanation is orders of magnitude beyond anything we get even in the allegedly 'quality' news media .... So thanks to both of you on that score One thing Justin said started worried hares runningin my mind ..... If Ukraine can't operate its F-15s above low level there *How is it expected the rest of NATO could do so in a near peer conflict* ?
Nice to see realist assessment being provided on the limited future for the F-16 operations in Ukraine. I’m thinking this dispersed operation across a number of airfields is going to require a lot of technical/service personnel to be involved.
That last observation about eliminating Orlans is clear. But I wonder about Ukraine's capacity and likelihood to adopt Western style strategy and tactics at first. That wasn't successful introducing MBT as Ukraine either didn't have sufficient numbers or Russian defenses had too long to prepare defenses. I see similar problems introducing West fighter aircraft, I see either insufficient numbers or having given Russians an enormous amount of time to prepare so I don't necessarily see early fighter to fighter engagements but rather lone aircraft sorties against drones, cruise missiles and low risk ground attacks.
Great questions and great answers from Justin! Regarding Orlan 2 surveillance over UA air fields, the problem is that the Orlan can be detected but not easily shot, correct? What if the fleet of Bayraktars, which aren't viable near the front line anymore, were armed with AiM9 (probably a reasonable exchange price for an Orlan?) and just spent their days orbiting bases (regardless of the presence of UA fast jets, so the Bayraktar wasn't indicative of the presence of jets). Bases should be far enough from Russian AA umbrella, but can a Bayraktar sense an Orlan or hand off targeting to a ground based sensor, and can an AiM9 connect the dots?
1. The Iraq air force went from Russian airplanes and doctrine to F-16s and American doctrine. How did their transition go? 2. Who will maintain the Ukraine F-16s? Contractors from the West? Ukraines? If Ukraines, how long to train them? 3. Who will run the logistics pipeline? Contractors or Ukraines? 4. What is the availability rate of USAF Vipers? 70-80%? My bet is that after a year of operations, Ukraine F-16 availability will be less than half that.
Still going on about the gripen. The only country operating them in any numbers is Sweden. We have a total of about 90 airframes. So even if the problem is number of pilots and support personel limiting the initial usage to 10-20 aircraft, Sweden would not be able to supply anything more than around that number in total. The swedish airforce is also having massive issues with even supporting itself in peacetime much less Ukraine in war. When Ukraine has more personel to field more than ~10 aircraft, airframe availability becomes important. Also ”dispenser operations” in the way gripen was designed was not operation from unprepared locations but operation from in peacetime built wartime airbases, with 2000m runways and so on.
Problems that the Swedish airforce have is also pilots. The Gripen C:s are being replaced by the E-model next year, so we should have some 20 airframes to spare right away. They are designed for dispersed airbase strategy-landing, refueling, lubrication, rearmed and take off in 10 minutes, on a highway, by a mobile team of 6 technicians/personell and a service truck.
The problem with nonUkranian volunteers is that will give the Russians the excuse to do the same. It appears they are trying to buy volunteers but at the infantry level.
After this sobering discussion, I have very low expectations. This is the moment when the command structure and the Ukrainian people need to be superior in every way to their adversary. I don’t like how the West has put Ukraine in a bit of a no man’s land with a gap in support.
Thank you Prof. Bronk for sharing and educating us! I have a feeling Ukraine will need to utilize all three aircraft mentioned, because I don’t see Ukraine getting enough F-16s, and having three different sources of aircraft is possibly better than relying entirely on F-16s being retired by others.
Not me. I agree with Prof Bonk. Ukraine's greatest lack is people who are technically skilled and English-speaking. Unlike Western Europe, Russian has been Ukraine's second language for generations. Multiplying platforms spreads that already thin people resource even thinner.
@@Inkling777 This doesn’t make any sense. It’s not about the pilots. For six planes, you need 90 mechanics for an F-16, much less than that for a Gripen.
@@petesjk So for the full 200 planes, you therefore need 3000. As for the 'value' of having 3 different aircraft, think in terms of an actual wartime scenario. What happens when a missile strike manages to take out some critical personnel at the Gripen base? Congrats, half the Gripens are now grounded on a daily basis. With a pure F16 fleet? You transfer in a few people from one of the other bases and hardly notice a difference.
@@dgthe3 Your math, not mine. Unfortunately your example, like your math, is off. The larger footprint and particulars of F-16 maintenance means that critical F-16 equipment and personnel losses will absolutely ground F-16s. Gripen personnel and equipment are more mobile and flexible simply by design.
It's another Bronk day, I'm so glad. And he's in his spare bedroom again. At least I hope that's his spare bedroom, with its single bed and mirrored wall. I hope that's not his London bedsit, where you can touch all the walls without taking a step and costs more than it does to educate my children :)
Superb work, as always from these two gentlemen…can you imagine one single solitary UK politician, happy to go on tv and spout general bromides about defeating Putin, actually taking the time to watch this kind of presentation and have the bandwidth and guts to really understand how the realities and limits of weapon systems impact a war far more significantly than their sofa-guff?😂
Sweden has 100 Gripens, and half of them are even operational, even if Sweden gave all 50. That's not really much, in March 2023, Ukraine claimed to have shot down 15 SU-34s doing long range stand off missions in a single week. And even if Sweden decided to give some Gripens, another year for training?
Exellent brief from Justin as usual. Ack OPSEC, but, to a LAND bloke, it appears that ORLAN has become the architech of its own demise? It is a classic prop threat? I assume hauling the right counter to the right height and range is the mission, but also that a good dose of cannon would do the job? Tucano might work?
Great interview with Justin as always. It's refreshing to be discussing the F-16s knowing that, at last, they are arriving in Ukraine. It's potential to help beat Russia is an interesting subject but now we know we shall find out how they will be used and what impact they will make at some point in the future. Ukraine has consistently punched above it's weight and I'm sure they will continue to surpass expectations with the F-16.
😢😢It will take Ukraine 10 years to support 200 aircraft. I think Ukraine will have LOST the war long before that. They do NOT have the human resources to support 200 aircraft whether they are F-16s or Gripens. 😢😢
I think one of the primary uses for F-16s early on will be to replace the Su-24 for stand off ground strikes using air launched cruise missiles. Then as pilots gain experience they can start flying closer to contested airspace for suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses and air to air interceptions and ground strikes using cost effective glide bombs. Eventually F-16 with glide bombs could replace Su-25 with gun and rockets for close air support. Mirage 2000 aircraft will have some utility in the same manner. Especially if France provides Mirage 2000D variants in the future. They will probably primarily be used to carry scalp and storm shadow and launch from high altitude and at a long distance from the targets. The Mirage 2000 air to air focused early variants being provided first are less optimal for this than potential Mirage 2000D ground attack focused variants. Hopefully Ukraine will eventually have some of both variants.
Near term objective force might be 120 F-16 + 60 Mirage 2000 if generous deliveries continue. Medium term force might be 150 F-16 + 75 Mirage 2000 + 75 Gripen. Then as the F-16 and Mirage airframes wear out and Gripen production continues the numbers will shift again to something like 80 F-16 + 40 Mirage 2000 + 180 Gripen. Then the last F-16s and Mirages get grounded from airframe limits and could potentially be replaced with KF-21 Boramae, Kaan, or F-35 as the post war Ukrainian economy recovers.
Always good to listen to Justin Bronk. Very well grounded thoughts and fact based opinions
he is full of shit!!!
@@borilia HHH YES BULSSHIT THE SUN SHIT
He's become almost like a 2nd host for the channel.
He has no imagination. Fortunately the Ukrainians do.
@@flipflopski2951 He sounds like it would be almost a wasting of time for Ukraine to try to fly that f-16 planes...
Chris, I feel that your excellent command of aircraft systems and technology are surpassed only by your ability to connect with experts in the field. I look forward to your next post - they always make my day just a little bit brighter!
Thank you! Plenty of interesting videos coming up!
I saw a good analysis related to the war about a year ago called Viper's nest on Militavia channel. It will be not an easy ride to use these planes as they are old compared to Su-35...
@@TenylegMinekez-uc7co Yes but if flown well they can defeat even Flankers. There are ways. The question is, as always, how good the pilots are.
@@dalehill6127 It is a tech sport like Formula 1. Tech matters more. These F16 s are simple not in the same league. Although I'm sure there will be Russian losses as they fight as idiots with their hubris. That led to the sinking of the Moscow... Cruising with switched off radar in a war zone..
@@TenylegMinekez-uc7co radar tells the enemy where you are far further than your radar reaches, so it's smart to not use radar but datalink from awacs until you need it
Absolutely fantastic having the two of you together discussing such a vital and misunderstood subject!
A most comprehensive and nuanced discussion on this long discussed topic.
Worthless and pointless. Like trying to solve a problem that cannot be solved by the available means
@@gdiwolverinemale4th F-16 in Ukraine might be, but the DICUSSION of it was superb!
@@bjorntorlarsson Discussions are a dime a dozen. The war in Ukraine is an uneven fight. I almost feel sorry for the Ukromaniacs flying suicide missions. It is time to give Putin what he wants. He is actually quite realistic in his demands
@@gdiwolverinemale4th Well, the West has during the last several decades pursued catastrophically devastating policies. The West today is extremely weak industrially, financially, diplomatically, socially. All out dependent on more developed countries. There exists no one in the world to "give Putin what he..."
Just look at the soon year long humiliation of the US Navy in the Red Sea, for example. Or what happened in Afghanistan. However could the NATO forces who are so emphatically defeated by the very poorest countries in the world, take on any industrialized foe??
And Israel is next up. Total hubris. No understanding whatsoever about the world outside of their mentally ill imaginations.
@@gdiwolverinemale4th Is that why Putin is shitting his pants and handing over hostages?
Anything with Justin is always worth a listen.
I appreciate the objectivity brought by Prof. Bronk.
Your channel provides depth available no where else. You should be very proud of what you have done. Thanks.
Thank you to Justin always a fantastic listen and so clear and informative 🇺🇦🌻🇦🇺🐨
Every Justin interview is so informative and so unbiased.
Prof Bronk is always insightful and interesting!
In my opinion, you should have also talked about the contribution of the 2 Saab AWACS that are about to arrive in Ukraine
Hopefully this will be discussed in a future video.
Great point
I agree, that is actually a big deal!
Good point
This was the best interview made here yet! In terms of quality competence and relevance to current events. Although I am subscribed, I didn't get a notification for this post.
You have to click that Bell thing.
I believe the reason the Ukraine has made being an SaM or Awacs officer the most dangerous in the Russian military is to make way for F16 to work closer to the front against bombers carrying glide bombs .
Thank you Christoph and Justin for a superb discussion with exemplary explication and explanation. Cheers from NZ🇳🇿.
Thanks, Michael! I‘ll be sure to let Justin know.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Hey, a question while you're here: can these F-16s receive targets from outside systems (e.g. Patriot, etc) or can they only rely on their own radar targets? My understanding is that Ukraine has no trouble seeing the glide bombers but have no effective means to engage them.
@@karenrobertsdottir4101from what I've understood in the video, the main difficulty remains to place the F-16s in a useful launch window for the missiles to reach their targets before weapons release.
@@karenrobertsdottir4101 Yes, they use the Link 16 system.
@@karenrobertsdottir4101 Of course they can, via Link-16 for example
Very eye-opening and sobering interview.
THanks for this. Justin is unique and I always welcome his commentary.
Excellent Discussion. Thank you both-
This is the stuff mainstream media should post
Too much calm considered discussion and not enough drama, heated emotion and controversy for the amusement seeking mass audiences. 😐
Mainstream media giving props to independent youtubers? Those are their biggest enemies😂 not going to happen
Justin is always excellent and so well informed 👍
Amazing content, many thanks to Justin Bronk and you.
Excellent discussion on a complex subject. Pilots, maintenance and infrastructure, and support systems, including radars and various weapons, seem to be more challenging than the jets. Specifically, the pilots are something for other countries to act upon.
your channel is awesome and Justin Bronk is brilliant as usual.
Fascinating interview and insight. Thanks.
Just remember that a good plan now usually beats a perfect plan later.
... while the Ukromaniacs and their backers have neither
@@gdiwolverinemale4thirony is lost on you it seems
@@gdiwolverinemale4th anything is better planned than a VDV drop.
@@gdiwolverinemale4thAh. And how is the Russian plan going?
They wanted to keep NATO away from Russia; their NATO border doubled. They wanted to show strength to the world; they've lost half their Black fleet to a country with no navy. They wanted a re-united Russian/Soviet Empire; their satellite states have gone to war with each other. They planned on completing their Special Military Operation in 3 days; its now been 30 months.
If the west has zero plan, Russia's plan is net-negative.
Common saying that misses the entirety of the defining nuance: whether it'll still be time to implement the perfect plan.
This was just a fantastic, in depth, and well stated discussion. Excellent. Excellent. Excellent
excellent interview with sobering information which is always appreciated.
Two truths here. Chris is a great resource. Justin is a great source.
Chris and Justin being legends, as usual. A must view for all stakeholders in this conflict.
Always a great video with Prof Bronk!
Great video as always, keep up the great work 😊.
Excellent interview podcast!! Thanks for making it happen! 🫶
Love Justin Bronk and his valuable insights. Found him through Ward Carrol who is also a badass
A very good talk, THANKS.
Brilliant interview!!!
Thank you Chris and Justin. An excellent analysis and discussion. Those long distance loitering reconnaissance drones are certainly a challenging threat to operations using high value assets.
This content is priceless. Thank you.
Another nice video, Chris.Cheers from the Pacific West Coast of Canada.
Wow, one of the best insights into Ukraine air warfare. Thank you, Chris. Good Job, Justin. Impressed.
This guy will be as wrong as all the pundits were about drones at the start of this war.
@@flipflopski2951Which bundits are you referring to and how wrong would they be exactly?
Media has been hyping drones on one hand but they have indeed been very consequential in this war in several ways, some of which unforseen.
@@flipflopski2951Which pundits and how wrong?
@@flipflopski2951Which pundits and how wrong?
Wow, what a great interview. I learned a lot of new things.
Many thanks for this excellent session
Fantastic thanks very much.
Fabulous, thank you!
Wow! Really a tremendous explanation of these aircraft, pilots and the logistics involved in this awful situation. I’m a neophyte with only the thinnest knowledge. I appreciate your insight.
Excellent expanded Presentation!
Cheers!
Rocky Mountain Region-USA
This is such an outstanding analysis, thank you
Justin always seemed to suggest Gripen and i would say he seemed to make sense - the dispersed operating capability seemed a very good idea.
Excellent analysis of the F16 deployment
Thanks Justin
Thanks!
Those early planes have modernized version of AN/APG-66 radar, not AN/APG-68.
#3 Very suspenseful & exciting.
Great host. Great guest.
Wow. Another Game-Changing Wunderwaffe that is not a Game-Changer. Nobody could have predicted this!
Whilst the discussed limitations of Mirage 2000 are correct: complexity of a separate supply chain, reduced availability of MICA IR/EM air-to-air missiles, it nonetheless presents some notable advantages for usage in Ukraine:
• Mirage 2000 can perform buddy-buddy aerial refuelling which means it is less reliant on forward airbases and can perform more challenging missions since fuel expended for take-off and transit can be offset
• Mirage 2000-5/D can launch SCALP-EG/ShadowStorm cruise missiles (although France 2000-5 would need to be upgraded to Mk.2 standard first).
Also upcoming MICA NG has a dual-pulse rocket motor for sustained acceleration and much increased range (80 - 100km) bringing it on par with earlier AIM-120 AMRAAM A/B/(C) missiles but likely with higher terminal speed thanks to the dual-pulse rocket motor (pushing the RDY radar to its limits). Also the MICA has performed well against low-flying drones and cruise missiles in Jordan and the Red Sea, where it was launched from Dassault Rafale and Mirage 2000-5 respectively.
France aircraft have been renowned for being intuitive to fly and having very positive controls and handling, Mirage 2000 have been operated from rudimentary basis and small crews in Sub-Saharan Afrika.
Finally Mirage 2000 higher intake position is more suitable for less prepared runways.
Last points (1) on downing low-flying drones and loitering munitions: whilst AN/APG-66 (-68) might be susceptible to ground clutter, identification can also be performed using IR/CCTV targeting pods. Initial aircraft guidance can be made using ground-based radar, western AEW&C / AWACS, long-range drones (or the upcoming ASC 890 AE&C aircraft) whilst terminal target identification can be made using targeting pods and targeting using the helmet mounted target designation for AIM-9X. (2) the air-to-ground role was not discussed: maybe the pictures showing air-to-air armament where intentionally misleading and the primary F-16 mission is using AGM-88 HARM for SEAD/DEAD and precisions bombs (GDAM, AASM). (3) I see F-16 delivery primarily as a way to future proof the Ukraine airforce and account for wear and attrition of Ukraine own investory of soviet vintage aircraft. Compared to MiG-29, F-16 is indeed an increase in capabilities, eventhough the asymmetric posture in air-combat remains.
As a retired Viper maintainer, I am naturally biased toward that system. However, given the situation in the Ukrainian theater I have to agree with Prof. Bronk. The Gripen would be a better system given the limitations of Ukraine's resources and aircraft dispersal reality.
All Ukrainian pilots except two who were trained on F16 were rookies or civilian pilots now in the military.
Trained and experienced pilots were in Ukraine defending with older Soviet jets.
From listening to Bronk, sounds like that might actually be an advantage in the case of the F-16.
I wonder if those two are there to be able to really understand the difference and perhaps communicate it effectively to the majority who only know Soviet desings and tactics.
@@davidwilkins5932 It is a Catch 22....
I strongly doubt any rookie pilots will be placed in a situation to face any Russian fighters or SAM.
How one reacts when locked on in real life if very different to training.
The donated F16s are old F16A Block 15 from late 1980's and 1992 with outdated electronics. (The current F16E/F Block 60 is a totally different beast)...
Think of the difference between 1990 Corolla vs 2016 Corolla
Ukrianians pilots have been training on F16 in over a year.
In Danmark. Holland and UK. USA?
Thanks, highly informative and clearly explained.
Thanks. Nice to hear some reality
The key takeaway is they're airframes. So either F-16 or throw rocks. As good as rocks are (ask the dinosaurs) they're not as flexible as an aircraft.
@@brianreddeman951 Yes. And so much more capable than the old Soviet airframes they already have.
@@VNAV_PTH Not really.
@@attilamarics3374LOL.
@@attilamarics3374 yes, really…
@VNAV_PTH probably yes but with alot of caveats, I.e missiles provided, pilot training and relative experience of the airframe so might not be as big a difference as we would like
would love this rolex ! :)
What I learned here was the tradeoffs between launch altitude, speed and range of the AMRAMMS. I imagine that vendor published ranges represent ideal conditions?
Excellent presentation thx
excellent fact based amd unbiased overview, great stuff, danke!
This was great!
Cool lad this Justin
Thanks Chris , for another great video , is Justin a former RAF aircrew officer ? He looks and sounds like he's had at least a Short Service Commission in the RAF.
Thanks MAV
This guy knows his stuff
Realistically they will shoot harms at radars and aim 120s at cruise missiles from behind the line of contact.
To think they will defensive counter air is a bit ambitious.
Let us hope that the F16s can help reduce the russian use of glidebombs by making the airspace more contested and to assist the Ukrainian airdefenses in protecting infrastructure. This would be very helpful and even out the the current situation somewhat. The F16s are now in Ukraine, in small numbers, being operational. Sweden will retire and send 2 SAAB awacs that have Link-16 and should be able to help the F16s and the airdefenses overall. It was apparently decided together with the F16 consortium, that also asked Sweden to wait with the Gripens. Sweden could probably send 20 Gripens Cs at this point counting airframes in storage, at SAAB, and from the active airwings. I respect Prof Bronk and his knowledge that he has gained from visiting military in Ukraine, Sweden, and so on. He present a very sober view of the Russian threat.
I'm appreciative of how much this interview focused on the use case and logistical concerns of things like F-16s going to Ukraine, I feel it always gets overlooked in the face of the 'stat cards'.
So why are they trying when they know it is not possible?
@@gdiwolverinemale4th So; Ivan, why are you make such a fuss in almost every comment sub-thread?
Seems that you are deeply concerned despite your words to the contrary.
@@gdiwolverinemale4th So why are you so worried Ivan?
@@gdiwolverinemale4thto piss you and yours off. NATO is annoyingly like that. Been READY for 75 years
@@gdiwolverinemale4th Hard is not impossible Just difficult. We just need to support them the way the French supported the American revolutionaries. And Putin and Xi and Kim will lose.
Justins back awesome!
Justin’s closing comments about dealing with lots of MALE drones is interesting. I wonder what the most cost effective defence would be? High performance helicopters? Capable training aircraft with machine gun pods?
38:08
To answer that question I would have broadened the scope. The biggest thing that Ukraine needs to be concerned with regarding F-16s and the war overall, is the outlook of it's allies.
Playing for a tie is a sure way to lose. Playing defense, hoping that the opposing offense eventually gets tired and stopps scoring points, will not work.
In summary .... nothing works for the dumbos who blindly rush into trouble trusting only their failing instincts
So you suggest they take an aggressive stance? Seems like a quick way to lose them all.
Remember they once had an airforce.
My guess is they will play defensive till the next counter offensive. By then more and hopefully enough will be delivered to matter in that campaign.
But currently? Defense is the way imo.
It is a grinding war, not a hammer war.
@@jacqueslheureux9161
That's only because the allies of Ukraine prohibit Ukraine from hammering the enemy. It could have been a short more but the US, Germany and others have prevented that 🤬
Thanks a lot Chris. This interview was very informative. Great to hear from an academic who is clearly an expert and talks about real factors, rather than media hype. Far more insightful than Sean Bell, who is wheeled out regularly by mainstream media. I suspect that the practical needs of self-defence and development will increase the speed of Ukraine becoming more engaged culturally with Western Europe and the Atlantic world. Ukraine needs more people who can use English, Swedish, German and French, for the reasons outlined by Professor Bronk.
Excellent analysis
What I am hearing from the several quarters that at the end the issue with Ukraine air force, they were not able to provide pilots. A month ago after getting tired of SZU accusations instructors revealed that 1 yr in training many pilots still cannot pass English requirements... Practically speaking since 2008 every single licensed pilot in the World must speak English...
@@skvUSA
and you should know that in 99% of cases it has nothing to do with it. This is just a pretext to hide some other reason. Because most young people know the language to some extent. And I don't think the cadets who have entered the pilot program will have any major problems either. And yes. Our other pilots also know the language... So.
sure, The Almighty!
That was very sobering
The sheer weight of Justin's knowledge & quality of explanation is orders of magnitude beyond anything we get even in the allegedly 'quality' news media .... So thanks to both of you on that score
One thing Justin said started worried hares runningin my mind ..... If Ukraine can't operate its F-15s above low level there
*How is it expected the rest of NATO could do so in a near peer conflict* ?
Years of training and experience and having the latest equipment.
I think the initial delivery is a long-overdue, much-hyped event that won’t be consequential in the war unless magnified by a factor of at least ten.
Thanks.
Nice to see realist assessment being provided on the limited future for the F-16 operations in Ukraine.
I’m thinking this dispersed operation across a number of airfields is going to require a lot of technical/service personnel to be involved.
So tactical training and more tactical training required before action
That last observation about eliminating Orlans is clear.
But I wonder about Ukraine's capacity and likelihood to adopt Western style strategy and tactics at first. That wasn't successful introducing MBT as Ukraine either didn't have sufficient numbers or Russian defenses had too long to prepare defenses.
I see similar problems introducing West fighter aircraft, I see either insufficient numbers or having given Russians an enormous amount of time to prepare so I don't necessarily see early fighter to fighter engagements but rather lone aircraft sorties against drones, cruise missiles and low risk ground attacks.
Great questions and great answers from Justin! Regarding Orlan 2 surveillance over UA air fields, the problem is that the Orlan can be detected but not easily shot, correct?
What if the fleet of Bayraktars, which aren't viable near the front line anymore, were armed with AiM9 (probably a reasonable exchange price for an Orlan?) and just spent their days orbiting bases (regardless of the presence of UA fast jets, so the Bayraktar wasn't indicative of the presence of jets). Bases should be far enough from Russian AA umbrella, but can a Bayraktar sense an Orlan or hand off targeting to a ground based sensor, and can an AiM9 connect the dots?
Can the Saab Erie Eye help the F16:s little radar to ”see” longer?
1. The Iraq air force went from Russian airplanes and doctrine to F-16s and American doctrine. How did their transition go?
2. Who will maintain the Ukraine F-16s? Contractors from the West? Ukraines? If Ukraines, how long to train them?
3. Who will run the logistics pipeline? Contractors or Ukraines?
4. What is the availability rate of USAF Vipers? 70-80%? My bet is that after a year of operations, Ukraine F-16 availability will be less than half that.
Still going on about the gripen. The only country operating them in any numbers is Sweden. We have a total of about 90 airframes. So even if the problem is number of pilots and support personel limiting the initial usage to 10-20 aircraft, Sweden would not be able to supply anything more than around that number in total. The swedish airforce is also having massive issues with even supporting itself in peacetime much less Ukraine in war.
When Ukraine has more personel to field more than ~10 aircraft, airframe availability becomes important.
Also ”dispenser operations” in the way gripen was designed was not operation from unprepared locations but operation from in peacetime built wartime airbases, with 2000m runways and so on.
Problems that the Swedish airforce have is also pilots. The Gripen C:s are being replaced by the E-model next year, so we should have some 20 airframes to spare right away. They are designed for dispersed airbase strategy-landing, refueling, lubrication, rearmed and take off in 10 minutes, on a highway, by a mobile team of 6 technicians/personell and a service truck.
Totally brilliant.
There is surely the possibility for experienced pilots and ground crew from other countries to go to Ukraine.
The problem with nonUkranian volunteers is that will give the Russians the excuse to do the same. It appears they are trying to buy volunteers but at the infantry level.
@@richardmeyeroff7397 You mean Russia would then recruit foreign fighter pilots? It's a free market, I suppose. What's stopping Russia doing that now?
@@Paulus8765 They probably don't want to give the west an excuse to send in there own volunteers.
After this sobering discussion, I have very low expectations. This is the moment when the command structure and the Ukrainian people need to be superior in every way to their adversary. I don’t like how the West has put Ukraine in a bit of a no man’s land with a gap in support.
Thank you Prof. Bronk for sharing and educating us!
I have a feeling Ukraine will need to utilize all three aircraft mentioned, because I don’t see Ukraine getting enough F-16s, and having three different sources of aircraft is possibly better than relying entirely on F-16s being retired by others.
Not me. I agree with Prof Bonk. Ukraine's greatest lack is people who are technically skilled and English-speaking. Unlike Western Europe, Russian has been Ukraine's second language for generations. Multiplying platforms spreads that already thin people resource even thinner.
@@Inkling777 This doesn’t make any sense. It’s not about the pilots. For six planes, you need 90 mechanics for an F-16, much less than that for a Gripen.
@@petesjk So for the full 200 planes, you therefore need 3000.
As for the 'value' of having 3 different aircraft, think in terms of an actual wartime scenario. What happens when a missile strike manages to take out some critical personnel at the Gripen base? Congrats, half the Gripens are now grounded on a daily basis. With a pure F16 fleet? You transfer in a few people from one of the other bases and hardly notice a difference.
@@dgthe3 Your math, not mine. Unfortunately your example, like your math, is off. The larger footprint and particulars of F-16 maintenance means that critical F-16 equipment and personnel losses will absolutely ground F-16s. Gripen personnel and equipment are more mobile and flexible simply by design.
It's another Bronk day, I'm so glad. And he's in his spare bedroom again. At least I hope that's his spare bedroom, with its single bed and mirrored wall. I hope that's not his London bedsit, where you can touch all the walls without taking a step and costs more than it does to educate my children :)
Superb work, as always from these two gentlemen…can you imagine one single solitary UK politician, happy to go on tv and spout general bromides about defeating Putin, actually taking the time to watch this kind of presentation and have the bandwidth and guts to really understand how the realities and limits of weapon systems impact a war far more significantly than their sofa-guff?😂
Sweden has 100 Gripens, and half of them are even operational, even if Sweden gave all 50. That's not really much, in March 2023, Ukraine claimed to have shot down 15 SU-34s doing long range stand off missions in a single week.
And even if Sweden decided to give some Gripens, another year for training?
Exellent brief from Justin as usual. Ack OPSEC, but, to a LAND bloke, it appears that ORLAN has become the architech of its own demise? It is a classic prop threat? I assume hauling the right counter to the right height and range is the mission, but also that a good dose of cannon would do the job? Tucano might work?
Great interview with Justin as always. It's refreshing to be discussing the F-16s knowing that, at last, they are arriving in Ukraine. It's potential to help beat Russia is an interesting subject but now we know we shall find out how they will be used and what impact they will make at some point in the future. Ukraine has consistently punched above it's weight and I'm sure they will continue to surpass expectations with the F-16.
They Not meet the expectations with there tanks 😂
The airfield question is answered by gripen, why the delay. It’s a war against Europe and Europeans shouldn’t take America’s help for granted.
as if west EU can say no to US
😢😢It will take Ukraine 10 years to support 200 aircraft. I think Ukraine will have LOST the war long before that. They do NOT have the human resources to support 200 aircraft whether they are F-16s or Gripens. 😢😢
I think one of the primary uses for F-16s early on will be to replace the Su-24 for stand off ground strikes using air launched cruise missiles. Then as pilots gain experience they can start flying closer to contested airspace for suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses and air to air interceptions and ground strikes using cost effective glide bombs. Eventually F-16 with glide bombs could replace Su-25 with gun and rockets for close air support.
Mirage 2000 aircraft will have some utility in the same manner. Especially if France provides Mirage 2000D variants in the future. They will probably primarily be used to carry scalp and storm shadow and launch from high altitude and at a long distance from the targets. The Mirage 2000 air to air focused early variants being provided first are less optimal for this than potential Mirage 2000D ground attack focused variants. Hopefully Ukraine will eventually have some of both variants.
Near term objective force might be 120 F-16 + 60 Mirage 2000 if generous deliveries continue. Medium term force might be 150 F-16 + 75 Mirage 2000 + 75 Gripen. Then as the F-16 and Mirage airframes wear out and Gripen production continues the numbers will shift again to something like 80 F-16 + 40 Mirage 2000 + 180 Gripen. Then the last F-16s and Mirages get grounded from airframe limits and could potentially be replaced with KF-21 Boramae, Kaan, or F-35 as the post war Ukrainian economy recovers.
@@stupidburpThat is delusional.
This sounds like a repeat or a re-edit?
We had one of these only a week or so ago.
It's a longer version of the video from five days ago. The last fifteen or so minutes are just the previous video.
@@thekinginyellow1744 Ah thanks.
I can't devote over an hour to F-16s though.
A good 30min edit would be ideal.