He’s devoted his life to the study of air power. He’s a subject matter expert working for a think tank. I would not be surprised at all to hear him introduced as Dr. Bronk in the not distant future.
I'm always glad to hear from Justin Bronk. As he noted, the biggest advantage an F-16 is the interface adds capabilities they have been lacking to weapons and I suspect target data transfer is a huge add. Link 16 is a real advantage. Not only Patriot and NASAMS radars have link 16, but the majority of the NATO counter battery radars have link 16 to give an integrated air picture. When the Swedish donated airborne radar platforms arrive, the picture is even better. If nothing else, cruise missiles will have a significant problem penetrating air defenses.
@@livingtribunal4110 FOD issues limit basing options and require ground support to ensure safe operations. However the issue isn't new, it has existed for more than 70 years. It doesn't detract from the capabilities the F-16s add.
Professor Bronk is great, lucid and immensely knowledgeable, thx to the interviewer for good questions and for letting Bronk answer comprehensively 😀🇬🇧Thx from Denmark 🇩🇰 and victory to Ukraine 🇺🇦
@@autophile525i Budapest Memo - The one where Russia promised to respect Ukraine's and Kazakhstan's territorial sovereignty in exchange for Ukraine returning the USSRs nukes. The one that Britain and the US and China provided security guarantees.
@@IanMcc1000 I don't recall that one, but you're right. That's an excellent memo to enforce now. We could roll in and install a Polish/Finnish coalition to manage the raw material and energy exports. The big "IF" is whether that could be accomplished without triggering a nuclear war.
@@autophile525i Only one person is going to press that button and Putin will for sure go down in history as the worst ruler of Russia since before Nicholas II, if there's anyone left to write it, of course.
@vortexgen1 agree, they likely would be if Ukraine was given F-16s in large numbers, like well over 100 planes. But Ukraine likely doesn't have the numberof qualified pilots to fly that many F-16s anyway. Maybe over time I hope.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t forcing the Russians to turn off their air defenses about as good as destroying it, for the purposes of that mission’s objective?
Might be.. might not be. Shouldn't be based on Ukraine tbh. They could fly from Poland and touch wheels on a Ukraine airbase before continuing. Technically flying from a Ukrainian airbase.
Thats the "ive watched too many legalseries and know all abut loopholes" response. If the f16s is in Poland, then Poland is a legal target who cant put a good good case towards triggering NATO article 5..
@@martinwinther6013 How come? So, by that reckoning all the countries who have supplied weapons to Ukraine are 'legal' targets while most of Russia itself is not a 'legal target'?
I'm an old Jaguar flyer,, operated out of Lossiemouth decades ago.You sir, have quite a strategic mind,,a touch and go,,will free up the attack programme, meaning,,a lot of confusion for Ivan 🏴🙏
@@martinwinther6013 look up the US pacific air war in ww2. Because of the distances it was not uncommon for fighter squadrons to take of in the morning, land at a remote base to refuel before hitting their targets then returning to the remote base before heading back home
HARM missiles can also home in on jammers, which they can use to strike the jammers in the fields which can open up the fronts for more drone strikes and guided munitions.
Idk what's more impressive, his vast in-depth knowledge of the air capabilities, or that New Kids on the Block haircut. You did good with this guy & I haven't seen him before, more of this guy & none of the Murdach's Manipulation Machine MAGATS.
@@TenylegMinekez-uc7co Probably because a Russian aircraft lining up to drop a glide bomb cannot maneuver during that process. They are vulnerable, and the F-16s have the perfect opportunity to delete them from stand-off ranges.
Justin is excellent. I learned a lot from what he said and I also appreciated him always spelling out and explaining the military jargon/acronyms for us lay persons. Very interesting point about the irony of F-16s requiring more anti-missile cover yet at the same time expected to provide increased capability to suppress or destroy Russian missile assets. Thanks.
I find it weird that your guest claims F-16s would be used against Shaheds. They would be quite ineffective against those, due to the speed difference. And a waste of very expensive/rare resources against low-cost targets. Ukraine already has good countermeasures against Shaheds - Gepards, mobile machine-gun crews, fixed AA guns. The F-16s would be far more useful destroying radars and jammers, and shooting down aircraft launching glide bombs.
I missed that. I figure that a P51 mustang, with enough electronics to allow guidance to target, would easily take down slow flying drones. Adding radar might be a problem, unless it can handle a radar pod underneath the plane, similar to what is being done with the F16. The P-47 thunderbolt might also work as it could carry 3,000 lbs and had a lot of firepower.
I wonder if there has ever been an attempt to adapt Harms to have visual navigation (perhaps from a onboard database of targets) in final mile(s) of intercept so that the missile can guide itself in and hit the target regardless of radar operating or not. It seems that with todays tech, this would be very doable.
has anyone considered using WWII era prop planes against medium drones? They would be cheap to produce, and relatively easy to install the necessary infomation systems required to guide to target. These planes could operate from grass fields or roads all over ukraine, which would make them an effective force against incomming drones.
Frontlines are collapsing, you can easily verify this. F16s are not much of a game changer, they need too much maintenance, including foreign crews. Maybe they will add a few months. Each plane can carry two bombs, which is not a lot compared to what the Russians are dropping daily. It is tragic for the Ukrainian people to keep up this facade -- it will take trillions to rebuild, and there is no easy victory to come.
@@mrjerzheel Possibly. Depends on what upgrades the ex Danish and Netherlands airframes have had before being delivered. If (as suspected), they have had avionics and systems upgrade including N/APG-83 radar, then they have a 370km range.
So, if the options to use them are so limited and the danger for destruction on the ground so high, why did Ukraine wanted them so much, rather than let's say A 10's ?
Preparing the battlefield: the Ukranians have been targeting/degrading Russian radar for two years. I believe analysts under-estimate the effectiveness of this preparation. While there will be attrition among F-16 will occur, I believe, based upon interviews with pilots, that the F-16s will enhance air superiority and assist the Ukrainian ground troops to stabilize the front and even start taking back territory.
Ukraine just needs some kind of fast propeller aircraft with guns to deal with Russian drone reconnaissance near airfields. Something like the Tucano. There's a group of contractors that knows how to maintain them. MQ-9 Reaper drones might also be considered. Drawing Russian missile fire away from civilian targets to airfields is in and of itself a good thing. Persuasive F-16 and AD ground decoys may have value in this regard.
Long live to Russia !!! The greatest country of the world !!!! The Olympic shows why Russia is Fighting with NATO we all / Christians better understanding !!! Long live to Russia !!!
@@Rhotz-ix8llGoing on well. Ukraine have started begging Russia for peace. The arrogant West are refusing peace, thinking their F16 toys will change anything. I guarantee you that those F16 will end up the same way western junk Abrams, Leopards and challenger tanks ended up.
@@Rhotz-ix8ll I think its going to be very rough for many Ukrainian fanboys when Russia wins this war. Ukraine simply can't win this war. This has nothing to do with how you personally feel. The math clearly shows that Ukraine can't win. One country has to literally kidnap it's men to throw them to the front lines yet you don't see this in Russia. This should speak volumes to you.
Again. It would have been more beneficial to give this weapon system in secret. Sure, the russians would get word before they arrived eventually but there wouldnt be the political/symbolic pressure to destroy them. Some smaller countries refuse to detail the contents of aid packages, but the US/UK/France/Germany/Spain tell the world and russia specifically exactly what weapons they donate and even the numbers of the systems and numbers of ammo for them. Both of which should be left for russia to spend resources trying to figure it out, and more importantly, the numbers/missiles/ammo for them. If russia knows the exact numbers they can forsee worst case scenarios and plan for them. What happened to loose lips sink ships?
Is Ukraine keeping their F-16's safe by not taking delivery? Surprised that they were not made into drones that could be remotely flown, not putting the pilots at risk.
Apparently they have, Putin claims to have bombed some on an airfield, Ukraine said they were mock up board ones just to see what they are doing and using.
Ah "reality check". The drones, HIMARS etc have made Russia hug its own border for 2 years. They have made microscopic progress when the map is zoomed out.
F-16 has a 5.0 RCS is all you know. Ukraine could use a few F-35 Lighting Strike II. Then Russia would be sweating and looking out the windows. Radar can take a break at that point.F-16's needs a lot of HARM anti radiation missiles. A lot.
@@Rhotz-ix8ll At least the Russians have a "plan", but what do the Ukrainians have besides military junk from all over Europe and a puppet president ?)
Well, when you see the Kerch Bridge deleted you will know won't you? More seriously....Ukraine will use what they have in the time of their choosing. I am also sure they won't inform YOU just prior to doing it.
First, let´s all read up on the limitations and difficulties of taking-off/landing because of the F-16´s FOD issue And secondly, the actual number of fully-trained pilots the UKR has.
Well, when you see the Kerch Bridge deleted you will know won't you? More seriously....Ukraine will use what they have in the time of their choosing. I am also sure they won't inform YOU just prior to doing it.
I just hope Ukraine Pilots have been trained well enough even if they can only effectively used half of the f-16s capabilities this aircraft is no joke you get in the cockpit you got to know what you're doing it's very sophisticated
Good analysis. But in addition to the UK needing to provide protection for their F16 bases, they can use simulated or fake preparations as a method for drawing Russian attacks which they can then counter effectively. It's not just a one sided battle.
Moscow horde´s war record :- 1856 defeated by Britain and France 1905 defeated by Japan 1917 defeated by Germany 1920 defeated by Poland, Finland, Estonia and all Baltic states 1939 defeated by Finland 1969 defeated by China 1989 defeated by Afghanistan 1989 defeated in the Cold War. 1996 defeated by Chechnya 2022 defeated by Ukraine WW2 won USA/Britain , meanwhile Stalin's officers were shot or sent to the Gulags. Millions went to the Gulags, including Solzhenitsyn Moscow's only victories come from invading smaller countries :- a) Hungary 1956 b) Czechoslovakia 1968 c) Moldova 1992 d) Georgia 2008
WWII defeat of Germany was won by the Russians. Its silly to imply they had a minimum role. Without Russian forces, the US/UK would not have been able to defeat Germany. The battle of Kursk is regarded as the largest tank battle in history. I noticed you didn't include Ukraine 2014 where they took Crimea with minimum losses. propping up the Syrian regime from collapse, and the second Chechnyan war where they kept the territory in the Federation.
This conflict is ridiculous! Just stop fighting on both sides it's all going to amend to nothing like all the other dumb wars, work it out on the round table! FFS
I wonder if Ukraine has thought about recruiting former or retired Western f16 pilots. Many would have combat experience, and most would have many hours of western training.
US and UK will have to support the F-16 operations by electronic means although don't expect it to be publicized. Not even the most advanced fighter can be effective without support, even against a second-rate enemy like Russia. Every F-16 lost would be a severe blow as well as a propaganda victory for the Putinists.
I wish I could talk with Justin Bronk myself. A couple of years ago he said the best airplane for the Ukraine was the Swedish Saab JAS 39 Gripen aka as the "Griffin". (In my estimation, because the Swedes didn't volunteer any jets a couple of years ago, they signed death warrant for their own aerospace business. That's political and money considerations.) As soon as the Ukrainian pilots get accustomed to the F-16, that will be it, they'll be using NATO jets, F-22's, etc. As Justin Bronk points out, the F-16's would be very capable of delivering "Glide Bombs" on stationary targets. I would guess that would be nodes in the Russian defense line, the Surovikin Line. And I would think that would be a relatively easy target.
What he says now is that the bottleneck/limitation is the number of pilots. The implication is that more F-16 pilots can be trained than Gripen pilots in the same time period. The Gripen might have been a more suitable plane for conditions in Ukraine, all other things being equal. But things are not equal, and consideration must be given to many other factors, such as time needed to train and training slots available at any one time. If we’re just comparing planes, Gripen might be better for this particular job. But we are not comparing planes, but total systems. I tend to think the Gripen was the right plane, but not the right system.
@@MarcosElMalo2 - I guess what I'm saying is this, "2 years at the start of the war, it has been 2 1/2 years now, the Gripen was the correct choice and at that point they could have begun the transition to NATO or Swedish Jets." It was 1 year ago that the decision was made to allow the Ukraine to acquire F-16's." 2 1/2 years ago they could have begun training new Ukrainian men and women to become fighter pilots. And, Sweden could have up the production rate of the Gripen. As it is, F-16 is limited by where the US says it can fly. The Ukraine could have taken the Gripen all the way to Moscow. They certainly could have taken the Gripen to 200 miles within Russia to shoot down any Russian plane, especially those that are launching glide bombs and cruise missiles. In the future, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and Sweden are all going to need the Gripen. It fits them.
@@icu17siberia - Thank you, to you, and Marcos ... a good discussion. Let's keep our fingers crossed. There was a video of a JDAM (Glide Bomb) just leveling a Russian outpost in the Kherson region (if was true). Best wishes.
@@stevehoogenakker9619 What’s your example? The only example I have is when Ukraine decided to throw the draft proposal to end the war into the trash bin in 2022, based on US promises of “unwavering” support. The proposal was to end the invasion in return for neutrality.
I think they will be using the AGM-88 HARM to beat down the air defenses and GPS jammers. Maybe use the "Wild Weasel" strategy that they probably trained on heavily. From there, HIMARS and ATACMS will become more effective again, Ukrainian air defenses may creep closer to the front and then F-16 and SAMs will contest the airspace over the front lines. I don't expect the F-16 to conduct close air support or dedicated bombing runs, because the Russian air defense is too good and even shoulder-mounted missiles are too much of a threat. But these planes could start the dominoes falling. And, if Russia had more Mig-35 and other aircraft for air combat patrols, they'd use them already to throw the glide bombs. So there must be a shortage there already.
For Close Air Support (CAS) the US favorite tool is the A-10 Warthog which is heavily armored and has redundant flight systems so that it can get half shot away by AA ground fire and still return to base with a live pilot. And it has different missiles it can carry, but the main weapon is the rotary Gatling gun canon in the nose that friendly ground troops love to hear, and enemy ground troops hear as their last sound.
Nice and romantic, but sadly way out of date and a bit wrong. The A-10 is past it's sell by date, it's no more than a sitting duck. It's durability was against (now) antiquated AA systems, it's slow, poor visibility, and not manouverable. As for the last sound the enemy will hear... If you hear it, it's missed. It's a supersonic thing (the rounds that is, not the plane)
@@dougaltolan3017 The A-10 is old but not as old as the B-52 which came out in 1952. Its customers, troops in the field and veterans LOVE it and want NO REPLACEMENT. It's the poster child for "Death From Above" when your troops are surrounded and outnumbered.
@@GunnarLof Its OK for the plane to take a hit if the pilot comes back alive. Some A-10 pilots are women, and Arab armies are terrified to be killed by a woman and hear her voice over the radio and that's one more reason to hate and fear the A-10.
Great insight of what air war means even if is just a part of it.
It's always a pleasure to listen Mr. Bronk.
You like listening to people who are lying and been wrong about this war since day one?
@@chadhaire1711 bro you said what i thought
@@shaun1463 yep--this channel is fake
Justin Bronk is the man for this issue. No gamification of war. Just hard facts.
Justin from The Bronx....New York's finest 😏
@@docbogus6128 hard something, not hard facts though 😂🤣😂
@@nickbulmer yes indeed, no hard facts for you trolls, Ivan, right? You twist and turn, lie and spin, but are you convincing?
Nope.
@@davidbrancaleone3039 way off
@@nickbulmer you just gotta read his comment, guys!
Calls fact-based info BS.
Three guesses who specializes in BS...
Begins with a K ends in an N
Really enjoy listening to Justin hes a smart man
He has an impressive understanding of the situation...
He’s devoted his life to the study of air power. He’s a subject matter expert working for a think tank. I would not be surprised at all to hear him introduced as Dr. Bronk in the not distant future.
@@MarcosElMalo2he already is doctor Bronk.
@@peterfireflylund doctor Bonkers.
I'm always glad to hear from Justin Bronk. As he noted, the biggest advantage an F-16 is the interface adds capabilities they have been lacking to weapons and I suspect target data transfer is a huge add. Link 16 is a real advantage. Not only Patriot and NASAMS radars have link 16, but the majority of the NATO counter battery radars have link 16 to give an integrated air picture. When the Swedish donated airborne radar platforms arrive, the picture is even better. If nothing else, cruise missiles will have a significant problem penetrating air defenses.
Read up on the limitations and difficulties of taking-off/landing because of the F-16´s FOD issue
@@livingtribunal4110 FOD issues limit basing options and require ground support to ensure safe operations. However the issue isn't new, it has existed for more than 70 years. It doesn't detract from the capabilities the F-16s add.
@@livingtribunal4110 Not hard to sweep a runway.
@@john_in_phoenix exactly
@@bartozoz99 Concrete is cheap. Shayrat Airfield IN Syria was hit with 60 tomahawk missiles and they were flying sorties withing 24 hours
Great guest. Good interview.
Professor Bronk is great, lucid and immensely knowledgeable, thx to the interviewer for good questions and for letting Bronk answer comprehensively 😀🇬🇧Thx from Denmark 🇩🇰 and victory to Ukraine 🇺🇦
No one who claims that ukraine is winning is lucid. To the contrary.
Time to enforce the 1994 memo that Russia signed !
What memo was that? That would have been shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union.
@@autophile525i Budapest, no good signing agreements and not adhering to them,why the free world listens to Russian BS after the UN voted is weird .
@@autophile525i Budapest Memo - The one where Russia promised to respect Ukraine's and Kazakhstan's territorial sovereignty in exchange for Ukraine returning the USSRs nukes. The one that Britain and the US and China provided security guarantees.
@@IanMcc1000 I don't recall that one, but you're right. That's an excellent memo to enforce now.
We could roll in and install a Polish/Finnish coalition to manage the raw material and energy exports. The big "IF" is whether that could be accomplished without triggering a nuclear war.
@@autophile525i Only one person is going to press that button and Putin will for sure go down in history as the worst ruler of Russia since before Nicholas II, if there's anyone left to write it, of course.
F-16s aren't a game changer, just another piece in the puzzle.
Indeed
@vortexgen1 agree, they likely would be if Ukraine was given F-16s in large numbers, like well over 100 planes. But Ukraine likely doesn't have the numberof qualified pilots to fly that many F-16s anyway. Maybe over time I hope.
Yes, to fill out the spectrum of air capabilities, Ukraine should acquire A-10 Warthog close air support aircraft and Apache helicopter gunships.
Except they are not made of banana skin just like the Himars, atoms, Abrams, Storm Shadows.
@@etsroyalganddminers-qu4lh English is not your first language?.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t forcing the Russians to turn off their air defenses about as good as destroying it, for the purposes of that mission’s objective?
Yes, he said that.
I feel my IQ going up every time I listen to JB. Outstanding communicator.
What IQ
Thank you for your coverage
🇬🇧🇺🇦🏴🇺🇦🏴🇺🇦🇪🇺
Girl, Russian land is beyond your means )
Might be.. might not be. Shouldn't be based on Ukraine tbh. They could fly from Poland and touch wheels on a Ukraine airbase before continuing. Technically flying from a Ukrainian airbase.
Thats the "ive watched too many legalseries and know all abut loopholes" response.
If the f16s is in Poland, then Poland is a legal target who cant put a good good case towards triggering NATO article 5..
@@martinwinther6013 How come? So, by that reckoning all the countries who have supplied weapons to Ukraine are 'legal' targets while most of Russia itself is not a 'legal target'?
I'm an old Jaguar flyer,, operated out of Lossiemouth decades ago.You sir, have quite a strategic mind,,a touch and go,,will free up the attack programme, meaning,,a lot of confusion for Ivan 🏴🙏
@@daydays12 Technically correct under international law.
@@martinwinther6013 look up the US pacific air war in ww2. Because of the distances it was not uncommon for fighter squadrons to take of in the morning, land at a remote base to refuel before hitting their targets then returning to the remote base before heading back home
HARM missiles can also home in on jammers, which they can use to strike the jammers in the fields which can open up the fronts for more drone strikes and guided munitions.
lol
Excellent guest. Great programme
Amazing!,Thank Timesradio and Justin Bronk for this master clas of F16 arriving in Ukraini. Slava Ukraini!❤🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
@@paularivero1878 the f-16 is a death route
Poland and Romania have seen the light...
Idk what's more impressive, his vast in-depth knowledge of the air capabilities, or that New Kids on the Block haircut. You did good with this guy & I haven't seen him before, more of this guy & none of the Murdach's Manipulation Machine MAGATS.
Justin really knows his stuff and explains it very well. Thanks for a great interview!
Makes glide bombs much more dangerous to drop from Russian planes.
How?
@@TenylegMinekez-uc7co Probably because a Russian aircraft lining up to drop a glide bomb cannot maneuver during that process. They are vulnerable, and the F-16s have the perfect opportunity to delete them from stand-off ranges.
@@goUkraine 🤣 you are not an aviation guy, aren't you? Don't know any basics of how things work...
@@goUkraine It is clearly another delusion like the Leo, Abrams, etc. just will fail sooner as in air there is nowhere to hide...
Well it is very clear that you don't.
This man knows a lot.
Justin is the man. He always has great insight
Great interview,he know his stuff.
Justin is excellent. I learned a lot from what he said and I also appreciated him always spelling out and explaining the military jargon/acronyms for us lay persons. Very interesting point about the irony of F-16s requiring more anti-missile cover yet at the same time expected to provide increased capability to suppress or destroy Russian missile assets. Thanks.
AWESOME!!!
F16 is just another game changer like HIMARS,LEOPARD,ABRAM etc
Thanks
I find it weird that your guest claims F-16s would be used against Shaheds. They would be quite ineffective against those, due to the speed difference. And a waste of very expensive/rare resources against low-cost targets. Ukraine already has good countermeasures against Shaheds - Gepards, mobile machine-gun crews, fixed AA guns. The F-16s would be far more useful destroying radars and jammers, and shooting down aircraft launching glide bombs.
Not imminent! F16s have already been seen in Ukraine.
lol
Can you imagine the pressure those F16 pilots are under to achieve ……?????
It's a fine aircraft. The Russians can't compete.
More pressure than pilots in combat are usually under as they fight for their lives?
This is the real real real game changer
How so?
I missed that. I figure that a P51 mustang, with enough electronics to allow guidance to target, would easily take down slow flying drones. Adding radar might be a problem, unless it can handle a radar pod underneath the plane, similar to what is being done with the F16. The P-47 thunderbolt might also work as it could carry 3,000 lbs and had a lot of firepower.
I wonder if there has ever been an attempt to adapt Harms to have visual navigation (perhaps from a onboard database of targets) in final mile(s) of intercept so that the missile can guide itself in and hit the target regardless of radar operating or not. It seems that with todays tech, this would be very doable.
Harms strike radar after its been turned off, its 1970s tech
So did the Challengers, and the Abrahms but so far the slow war of attrition carries on.
That's very, very bad for Russia
I wonder how the F-16 are gonna behave against those S300 or S400 and the other way around
Good point but f16 is there to take s300/s400 out from 100 kms away from the air.
Slava Ukraini 🇬🇧 ♥️ 🇺🇦
Heroyam slava 🇬🇧🇺🇦🫡
“as F-16s arrive” You must mean as soon as.
Must we viewers wait with baited breath?
it seems not
They were spotted flying over the war zone yesterday. Seems our wait is over.
So they haven't in fact arrived and probably never will?
has anyone considered using WWII era prop planes against medium drones? They would be cheap to produce, and relatively easy to install the necessary infomation systems required to guide to target. These planes could operate from grass fields or roads all over ukraine, which would make them an effective force against incomming drones.
Finding drones without a radar might be a problem!
I thought I saw they were doing that in the Odessa area.
They are already using prop planes against drones. No need to go ww2 era.
Frontlines are collapsing, you can easily verify this. F16s are not much of a game changer, they need too much maintenance, including foreign crews. Maybe they will add a few months. Each plane can carry two bombs, which is not a lot compared to what the Russians are dropping daily. It is tragic for the Ukrainian people to keep up this facade -- it will take trillions to rebuild, and there is no easy victory to come.
I understood the main benefit of f16s is it's ability to see russian aircraft before they see the f16.
Russian radars on SU35s can see 300KM twice as far as the F16 radar
@@mrjerzheel Possibly. Depends on what upgrades the ex Danish and Netherlands airframes have had before being delivered. If (as suspected), they have had avionics and systems upgrade including N/APG-83 radar, then they have a 370km range.
The benefit is the data link. AWACS and Patriot radars etc see the targets, and tell the F16 where it is.
@@stream2watch Ukraine have received AWACS from SAAB.
And who is flying these jetd?
And, thanks, President Biden!
So, if the options to use them are so limited and the danger for destruction on the ground so high, why did Ukraine wanted them so much, rather than let's say A 10's ?
My suspicion is that the limiting factor are the pilots.
My assumption is A10s were effective in Afghanistan because they were going up against primitives.
Russia does have sophisticated anti aircraft
Times Radio, thank you for the interview interesting points,👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦💪💪🇺🇦🇺🇦👍🙏👍👍👍👍👍👍😊
The imminency of the F16 has been mentioned 3 months ago!
Meanwhile, the US economy is collapsing. Entirely predictable. War and austerity ride together.
Well this bit of reality takes the wind out of the sails.
WHERE ARE the F-16's????
Do we really want to know?
🤐🤐🤐🤐😐
In russian soon-to-be-true nightmares
Soon to be in a scrap heap 🤣🤣🤣
Oh rheijr$dmdmm?mmmmdmm🎉
Preparing the battlefield: the Ukranians have been targeting/degrading Russian radar for two years. I believe analysts under-estimate the effectiveness of this preparation. While there will be attrition among F-16 will occur, I believe, based upon interviews with pilots, that the F-16s will enhance air superiority and assist the Ukrainian ground troops to stabilize the front and even start taking back territory.
putler is a sick joke
You mean Pootin?
A sick joke with nuclear bombs.
u mean aduff ?
@@silaslong-js8ps only a russian would write one thing but mean another , so no i mean putler and his 3 day illegal war
@@silaslong-js8ps You must be a Putzi.
Ukraine just needs some kind of fast propeller aircraft with guns to deal with Russian drone reconnaissance near airfields. Something like the Tucano. There's a group of contractors that knows how to maintain them. MQ-9 Reaper drones might also be considered.
Drawing Russian missile fire away from civilian targets to airfields is in and of itself a good thing. Persuasive F-16 and AD ground decoys may have value in this regard.
Let's NOT rush the Ukrainians with these, (as we did with counter-offensives last summer)
Sooo, still not actually there yet !
"Oh they're coming" As George RR Martin used to say about the Dragons 🐉🐉🐉 in Game Of Thrones
@@robbiekop7 They obviously don't achieve the airspeed we were led to believe.
@@brianfreeman8290 very stealthy tho
and not sounding too useful if this guy is to be believed - he says they'e likely to be destroyed on the ground
Who knows? When they arrive don't expect Ukraine to advertise it.
Always enjoy listening to Prof Justin. Is it my imagination or do I see gray hair developing?
Don't Puddin already possess fight jets that can bend time and space, rendering 'murican jets useless toys?
I expect early deployments to be cautious, stand-off tactics, looking to pick off targets of opportunity, with airborne targets as the initial focus.
Ukraine has nobody that can do the maintenance on those so they won't be flying
Atacms ,Himars, storm shadow,lol
Long live to Russia !!! The greatest country of the world !!!! The Olympic shows why Russia is Fighting with NATO we all / Christians better understanding !!! Long live to Russia !!!
Poe's law? I am amazed that you can feed yourself and breathe at the same time.
Guy doesn’t seem prepared
I keep listening to Times Radio as the last beacon of hope in this war 😢
If this propaganda helps you to survive, you will have a hard awakening.
@@TenylegMinekez-uc7co. How’s that special military operation going?
@@Rhotz-ix8llGoing on well. Ukraine have started begging Russia for peace. The arrogant West are refusing peace, thinking their F16 toys will change anything.
I guarantee you that those F16 will end up the same way western junk Abrams, Leopards and challenger tanks ended up.
very well. In fact, Russia has gained ground without loss of territory for the past 3 months.
How many Ukrainians are being killed each day?🤡
@@Rhotz-ix8ll I think its going to be very rough for many Ukrainian fanboys when Russia wins this war. Ukraine simply can't win this war. This has nothing to do with how you personally feel. The math clearly shows that Ukraine can't win. One country has to literally kidnap it's men to throw them to the front lines yet you don't see this in Russia. This should speak volumes to you.
Again. It would have been more beneficial to give this weapon system in secret. Sure, the russians would get word before they arrived eventually but there wouldnt be the political/symbolic pressure to destroy them. Some smaller countries refuse to detail the contents of aid packages, but the US/UK/France/Germany/Spain tell the world and russia specifically exactly what weapons they donate and even the numbers of the systems and numbers of ammo for them. Both of which should be left for russia to spend resources trying to figure it out, and more importantly, the numbers/missiles/ammo for them. If russia knows the exact numbers they can forsee worst case scenarios and plan for them. What happened to loose lips sink ships?
I don't think they do say exactly what is being supplied. Both sides play mind games.
Meanwhile Russia already set bounties on these NATO Jets, as Ykroreich pilots going to join their kamikaze drones
They need to stop the glide bombs!
Another gamechanger
Is Ukraine keeping their F-16's safe by not taking delivery? Surprised that they were not made into drones that could be remotely flown, not putting the pilots at risk.
Can they not do what was done in WW2 and build replicas. It seems a suitable strategy.?
Apparently they have, Putin claims to have bombed some on an airfield, Ukraine said they were mock up board ones just to see what they are doing and using.
The F-16 came into service in the mid-1970's and although upgraded it's still like a Ford Cortina after a re-bore.
😂😂😂😂
Then why are countries like Bahrain, with plenty of money, still buying the newest models?
The Ukrainians are not getting the newest models.
Your mind is like a Ford Pinto that threw a rod.
They are here
None of the previous wonder weapons have made the slightest difference and neither will these old secondhand F16s
Ah "reality check". The drones, HIMARS etc have made Russia hug its own border for 2 years. They have made microscopic progress when the map is zoomed out.
@@stream2watchzoom in cemetery, and u will see
@stream2watch Well then you should zoom into the map especially around Avdeevka where significant progress is still being made.
@@ailinofaolin8897 Hooray. In 2024 you will gain some mud and some ruins. Give yourself a pat on the back for that one.
F-16 has a 5.0 RCS is all you know. Ukraine could use a few F-35 Lighting Strike II. Then Russia would be sweating and looking out the windows. Radar can take a break at that point.F-16's needs a lot of HARM anti radiation missiles. A lot.
They should interview this guy more often
Got to give him time to do his day job!
Why don't they build underground storage to store planes underneath the runways? Apart from cost?
Probably because the Russians have satellites. They will very easily spot construction work taking place next to any runways.
I wonder if the British have as many soldiers as military analysts…
That's true. Also I hope British soldiers are better than their so called experts...
@@TenylegMinekez-uc7co SMO going according to plan then?
Probably not nowadays. Our armed forces is probably less than the Russians have taken in casualties in the last 5 months
@@Mitchell-mo9upYes, the UK has a tiny army.
@@Rhotz-ix8ll
At least the Russians have a "plan", but what do the Ukrainians have besides military junk from all over Europe and a puppet president ?)
Wow! Another gamechanger - or just another damp squib?
sounds like a damp squib
A bonfire 😂
Damp squib, the only real game changer in this conflict is the rise of the humble drone.
I guess you haven't understood the goal.
Well, when you see the Kerch Bridge deleted you will know won't you?
More seriously....Ukraine will use what they have in the time of their choosing. I am also sure they won't inform YOU just prior to doing it.
No human being is greater than though. We live to end..
First, let´s all read up on the limitations and difficulties of taking-off/landing because of the F-16´s FOD issue
And secondly, the actual number of fully-trained pilots the UKR has.
Are we worried, botski? Ha ha 😂 🤣 😆 😄
@@boink800 See first post.
@@boink800 you sound worried trollski 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
How many times will they arrive in Ukraine? I thought they arrived weeks ago. When will they be used🤷
Well, when you see the Kerch Bridge deleted you will know won't you?
More seriously....Ukraine will use what they have in the time of their choosing. I am also sure they won't inform YOU just prior to doing it.
The original F-16 number was 70 units, I wonder when the rest will be available for Ukraine.
I just hope Ukraine Pilots have been trained well enough even if they can only effectively used half of the f-16s capabilities this aircraft is no joke you get in the cockpit you got to know what you're doing it's very sophisticated
Russia is waisting to much time to end this western provocation:
Good analysis. But in addition to the UK needing to provide protection for their F16 bases, they can use simulated or fake preparations as a method for drawing Russian attacks which they can then counter effectively. It's not just a one sided battle.
Remember Russia good on Satellite.they can see
Moscow horde´s war record :-
1856 defeated by Britain and France
1905 defeated by Japan
1917 defeated by Germany
1920 defeated by Poland, Finland, Estonia and all Baltic states
1939 defeated by Finland
1969 defeated by China
1989 defeated by Afghanistan
1989 defeated in the Cold War.
1996 defeated by Chechnya
2022 defeated by Ukraine
WW2 won USA/Britain , meanwhile Stalin's officers were shot or sent to the Gulags. Millions went to the Gulags, including Solzhenitsyn
Moscow's only victories come from invading smaller countries :-
a) Hungary 1956
b) Czechoslovakia 1968
c) Moldova 1992
d) Georgia 2008
WWII defeat of Germany was won by the Russians. Its silly to imply they had a minimum role. Without Russian forces, the US/UK would not have been able to defeat Germany. The battle of Kursk is regarded as the largest tank battle in history. I noticed you didn't include Ukraine 2014 where they took Crimea with minimum losses. propping up the Syrian regime from collapse, and the second Chechnyan war where they kept the territory in the Federation.
Right
@@des_smith7658 Безопасность Европы и мира в целом это развал MOSCOW Horde (орды 🇷🇺 ) ...
@@briangasser973 Безопасность Европы и мира в целом это развал MOSCOW Horde (орды 🇷🇺 ) ...
@hybridarmyoffreeworld I have not idea what you wrote in Russian:)
This conflict is ridiculous! Just stop fighting on both sides it's all going to amend to nothing like all the other dumb wars, work it out on the round table! FFS
Sure. Once Russia retreats to their own borders and pays a trillion dollars in reparations.
Notably irritating background music; I found it difficult to pay attention to the content.
I wonder if Ukraine has thought about recruiting former or retired Western f16 pilots. Many would have combat experience, and most would have many hours of western training.
Who says they haven't been?
🇺🇦Lets Go
And they are all gone
US and UK will have to support the F-16 operations by electronic means although don't expect it to be publicized. Not even the most advanced fighter can be effective without support, even against a second-rate enemy like Russia. Every F-16 lost would be a severe blow as well as a propaganda victory for the Putinists.
Of Russia is "second rate" then you is first rate? - Just so I know.
@@davdave3470 Yes, I'm afraid it is so. Israel is first.
I wish I could talk with Justin Bronk myself. A couple of years ago he said the best airplane for the Ukraine was the Swedish Saab JAS 39 Gripen aka as the "Griffin". (In my estimation, because the Swedes didn't volunteer any jets a couple of years ago, they signed death warrant for their own aerospace business. That's political and money considerations.) As soon as the Ukrainian pilots get accustomed to the F-16, that will be it, they'll be using NATO jets, F-22's, etc.
As Justin Bronk points out, the F-16's would be very capable of delivering "Glide Bombs" on stationary targets. I would guess that would be nodes in the Russian defense line, the Surovikin Line. And I would think that would be a relatively easy target.
What he says now is that the bottleneck/limitation is the number of pilots. The implication is that more F-16 pilots can be trained than Gripen pilots in the same time period.
The Gripen might have been a more suitable plane for conditions in Ukraine, all other things being equal. But things are not equal, and consideration must be given to many other factors, such as time needed to train and training slots available at any one time.
If we’re just comparing planes, Gripen might be better for this particular job. But we are not comparing planes, but total systems. I tend to think the Gripen was the right plane, but not the right system.
@@MarcosElMalo2 - I guess what I'm saying is this, "2 years at the start of the war, it has been 2 1/2 years now, the Gripen was the correct choice and at that point they could have begun the transition to NATO or Swedish Jets." It was 1 year ago that the decision was made to allow the Ukraine to acquire F-16's." 2 1/2 years ago they could have begun training new Ukrainian men and women to become fighter pilots. And, Sweden could have up the production rate of the Gripen.
As it is, F-16 is limited by where the US says it can fly. The Ukraine could have taken the Gripen all the way to Moscow. They certainly could have taken the Gripen to 200 miles within Russia to shoot down any Russian plane, especially those that are launching glide bombs and cruise missiles.
In the future, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and Sweden are all going to need the Gripen. It fits them.
@@icu17siberia - Thank you, to you, and Marcos ... a good discussion. Let's keep our fingers crossed. There was a video of a JDAM (Glide Bomb) just leveling a Russian outpost in the Kherson region (if was true). Best wishes.
Why not go back to the negotiation table instead
Because Negotiating with Putin is like dealing with a Boa. As soon as you take a breath, he squeezes what little air you have left
@@stevehoogenakker9619 What’s your example? The only example I have is when Ukraine decided to throw the draft proposal to end the war into the trash bin in 2022, based on US promises of “unwavering” support. The proposal was to end the invasion in return for neutrality.
For all this guy's knowledge of platforms he's making some of it up. Stick to facts Justin.
Слава Україні та її воінам... weapons for ukrania...
VIVA RUSIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Can these planes drop drones with explosives? Drones are target specific, right?
Wah ! can you say all that again Justin i missed most of it😂😂
I think they will be using the AGM-88 HARM to beat down the air defenses and GPS jammers. Maybe use the "Wild Weasel" strategy that they probably trained on heavily. From there, HIMARS and ATACMS will become more effective again, Ukrainian air defenses may creep closer to the front and then F-16 and SAMs will contest the airspace over the front lines. I don't expect the F-16 to conduct close air support or dedicated bombing runs, because the Russian air defense is too good and even shoulder-mounted missiles are too much of a threat. But these planes could start the dominoes falling. And, if Russia had more Mig-35 and other aircraft for air combat patrols, they'd use them already to throw the glide bombs. So there must be a shortage there already.
For Close Air Support (CAS) the US favorite tool is the A-10 Warthog which is heavily armored and has redundant flight systems so that it can get half shot away by AA ground fire and still return to base with a live pilot. And it has different missiles it can carry, but the main weapon is the rotary Gatling gun canon in the nose that friendly ground troops love to hear, and enemy ground troops hear as their last sound.
Nice and romantic, but sadly way out of date and a bit wrong.
The A-10 is past it's sell by date, it's no more than a sitting duck.
It's durability was against (now) antiquated AA systems, it's slow, poor visibility, and not manouverable.
As for the last sound the enemy will hear...
If you hear it, it's missed. It's a supersonic thing (the rounds that is, not the plane)
Russia uses SU25 for cas
The A-10 might get the pilot back to base, but it would not fly again for a long long time. The A-10 is not magic.
@@dougaltolan3017 The A-10 is old but not as old as the B-52 which came out in 1952. Its customers, troops in the field and veterans LOVE it and want NO REPLACEMENT. It's the poster child for "Death From Above" when your troops are surrounded and outnumbered.
@@GunnarLof Its OK for the plane to take a hit if the pilot comes back alive. Some A-10 pilots are women, and Arab armies are terrified to be killed by a woman and hear her voice over the radio and that's one more reason to hate and fear the A-10.
Also other jets , Monsieur Dassault is coming for the enemy as well .
It’s times for Russia to test who has best war planes.