Are Ukrainian F-16 really game-changers?

F16 A/B after Mid Life Upgrade (MLU)

For more than 2 years, the Ukrainian air force, outmatched by superior Russian aircraft, has repeatedly asked for modern Western fighter jets.
The F-16 is the obvious choice, as many NATO F-16 users are upgrading their air force with the F-35.
Although a very good aircraft, the F-16 proposed are all 30+ years old and are not as capable as the Soviet MiG 31 and Su 35 flying combat air patrol behind the front line.

Let’s see what the air war is today and analyse what the F-16 could bring.

Air war over Ukraine

After an initial 6 months of heavy fighter aircraft attrition, both sides changed tactics.
The Russians who lost many modern strike aircraft while flying close air support missions over the front, switched to stand-off munitions launched from their long-range bombers and ships.
Thousands of cruise missiles and drones, launched at military and civilian infrastructure prompted Nato countries to deliver modern air defence systems to help the Ukrainians defend their cities and weapons depots. These cruise missiles and drone saturation attacks are still ongoing after 18 months. It has become a competition of who is going to run out of ammo first.

The Ukrainian did manage to score some very impressive points by adapting Western stand-off weapons on MiG 29 (HARM anti-radar missiles) and Su 24 (SCALP/ Storm Shadow cruise missiles), but not with the same volume.

Both sides are also using cheaper GPS-guided bombs kitted with wings, so they can drop them 50 km from their target when flying at high altitude, to stay as far away as possible from enemy defences.

The Air War situation is that neither side can send aircraft too close to the front line due to a very dense air defence network deployed on both sides.

Example of a NATO-based Multi-layered Air Defense system, with ground-based missiles and fighter patrol (CAP), very similar to the one used by Ukraine or Russia with different weapons.
Ukraine is today missing modern fighters to have effective air cover.

The Russian Air Force is flying combat air patrol missions from a safe distance behind the front line with modern MiG 31 and Su 35. Both aircrafts are equipped with very powerful radar and long-range air-to-air missiles ( 150km+). They are sometimes directed by Russian-made Awacs ( Mainstay A 50) when available.

As early as October 2022, MiG 31 were launching up to six R 37 long-range air-to-air missiles per day over the front line at Ukrainian fighter bombers, scoring several kills and forcing many attack missions to be aborted.
Russian fighters have an advantage over the Ukrainians as they can detect and intercept Ukrainian fighters before they reach the front line, even when flying at very low altitudes.

On the Ukrainian side, they certainly have the same level of awareness, but they have to rely exclusively on Soviet-made and NATO long-range SAM systems to protect their airspace.
Their older MiG 29 and Su 27 fighters can’t engage enemy aircraft beyond 30-40km. You can compare this situation to a boxing match, where your opponent's arms are longer than yours. He will have the opportunity to punch you many times before you get in range. Despite this disadvantage, the Ukrainians did manage to shoot down several Russian fighters during bombing runs mostly with surface-to-air missiles.

Neither sides control the airspace.

Now that the Ukrainians are ramping up for a counterattack, they can’t rely on defensive weapons only; they need fighters to push the enemy back.

The F-16 is supposed to be an answer to that problem.

MiG 31 Foxhound with R 37 long range Ait to air missile

F-16 capabilities and limitations

The F-16 is a 45-year-old design, still in production (4000+). The latest version F-16V is equipped with generation 4 avionics and is still a match to anything but the F-22/ F-35.

According to official reports, the version made available to the Ukrainian are old NATO F-16A/B modernised to the MLU standard in the 90/2000.

The Ukrainian will gain a multirole fighter with very effective fire and forget air-to-air missiles, but still with a much smaller reach than Russian Fighters.

The extensively exported AIM-120 AMRAAM has a reported range of 60+ km, but the F-16 to use it would have to fly at high altitude above the front line, right in the kill zone of all the Russian defenses.

Going back to the boxing analogy, the Ukrainian with the F16 will get longer arms, with a faster and more accurate punch, but they will still have to survive many Russian blows before getting in range.

Example of Russian integrated air defence (IADS)

What is the desired effect?

There is an old saying in the pilot community, ‘'Fighter pilots make movies, and Bomber pilots make history’. In other words, the key role of air power is to destroy ground targets, all the other missions are here to support them.

Let’s use the above diagram to extrapolate how the F-16 can be used.

CAS mission

If the ultimate goal is to use the F-16 to support the ground troops (CAS Close Air Support), they will have to obtain local air superiority above the target. Not an easy task as long as the Russians have both long-range fighters and AEW aircraft capable of detecting incoming bombers (F-16) at all altitudes and firing missiles volley from a safe distance. The Russians can apply their longer punch advantage.
Even an F-16 with AMRAAM missiles is at a severe disadvantage here. Flying low to delay detection drastically reduces air-to-air missile range, as it uses most of its energy to climb to intercept.

As you can see any F-16 raid facing Russian long-range fighters and AWACS could be very costly, and I am not even talking about the threats from ground-based air defence!
The F-16 MLU would not bring a decisive advantage unless the Russian Awacs are neutralised.

Russian fighter firing the Mach 5/6 R 37M missiles.
During 1994 tests, the reported interception range was 300 km. The latest version could reach up to 400km with very high altitude flight profile against AWACS.
Su 35 also uses the smaller R 77 missiles with a range comparable to the latest AMRAAM (about 100 -120km).
Against a fighter-sized target flying at low altitude capable of evasive manoeuvre, the practical interception range is reported to be around 100km. To achieve successful interception, Russian fighters need to beam target information to the missiles until it get close enough to acquire the target itself.

Fighter sweep

Sending fighters against fighters is never a good idea if the enemy has better aircraft and missiles. The USAF spent billions of USD to build stealth aircrafts for this mission, such as the F-22 and F-35. They were designed to get close and kill the enemy without being detected.

A few non-upgraded F-16 MLUs on the hunt, facing Russia’s finest lobbing volleys of Mach 5 missiles would be a bold choice, potentially very costly.

Air defence

As the F-16 will be delivered in relatively small numbers, they may want to use them in combination with ground-based missile defences to set up missile traps to lure Russian bombers and possibly fighters into kill zones. Ukrainian defence shot down multiple Russian fighters using such tactics.

It is in my opinion the most likely scenario for the F-16 MLU to start with.

F-16 Limitations

Ukrainian armed forces have been praising Western hardware efficiency for 2 years, but they were also quietly raising concerns about their nightmarish maintenance needs.
Many examples exist of top-of-the-line weapons systems delivered, but only usable briefly before heavy maintenance is needed.

The F-16 is today a reliable aircraft, but it needs way more specialised maintenance equipments than the MiG 29. It also needs a perfectly maintained runway, while the Russian build MiG 29 can land almost everywhere. The Soviet philosophy is every weapon system needs to be built and maintained like a tractor, so that it can survive the harsh conditions of the frontline.

Dr Justing Bronks (See video below link) identified this as a potentially fatal flaw of the F-16 deployment. The Russians are certainly looking for any Ukrainian Air Force bases upgrading their runway, to send a volley of cruise missiles.

According to Doctor Bronks, the best aircraft for the job, the real game changer would be the Saab Gripen.

What If?

The Saab Gripen is a small fighter, but it is designed to be operated from a dispersed runway with very little support; and more importantly it can carry the latest AMRAAM D model ( 140Km+ range) or even better the European-made Meteor, today’s NATO most sophisticated air-to-air weapon.
A small number of Gripen (4-6) would give the Ukrainian Air Force the capability to challenge the Russian air defence and disrupt them enough to get local air superiority while conducting close air support missions.

Medium term, the Ukrainian Air Force will get 40-50 F-16 MLU, a potent addition but not really a game-changer.

If NATO is serious about helping Ukraine, they need to lend a few Gripen or 3 or 4 brand new F-16V or Polish F-16C with the longer-range version of the AMRAAM.

Maskirovka

The Russian art of deception, used by both sides, is a key part of any conflict. Exotic weapons and tactics used will only be revealed years after the end of this one.

Only time will tell if NATO really decided to help Ukraine or not. Yes, Ukraine needs long-range weapons, modern fighters, tanks and lots of ammunitions.
So far, NATO countries applied a ‘‘too little, not fast enough” policy.

The real game-changer would be a drastic ramp-up of this policy.