Ukraine used F-16s to repel Russia's mass missile attack, Zelensky confirms
Ukraine used F-16s to repel Russia's mass missile attack, Zelensky confirms
Ukraine's Air Force used F-16 jets as part of its defense against Russia's mass missile and drone attack on Aug. 26, President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed during a press conference on Aug. 27.
Ukraine's Air Force used F-16 jets as part of its defense against Russia's mass missile and drone attack on Aug. 26, President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed during a press conference on Aug. 27.
Russia targeted 15 of Ukraine's 24 oblasts on Aug. 26, launching over 200 missiles and drones as part of the largest-ever aerial attack against Ukraine.
. . .
F-16s gave "a very good result," Zelensky told reporters. "As part of this huge attack, we shot down some missiles and drones with the help of F-16s."
You're viewing a single thread.
Its russia so it is probably shitty WW2 tech at this point but:
Very curious on the anti-missile capabilities. My understanding is that anything newer than a V2 rocket is just too fast for a jet pilot to actively engage. That is why the "meta" is countermeasures and computerized systems (e.g. patriot missiles) where the human involvement is to approve launch for liability/Geneva Convention purposes.
Drones make perfect sense. But curious if this was a mistranslation, reference to attacking launch sites, or what.
My understanding is that anything newer than a V2 rocket is just too fast for a jet pilot to actively engage.
Not quite. The part you're referring to with V2 is ballistic missiles, specifically in their terminal (falling on target) stage. It is very hard and expensive, but not impossible, to counter these. However, only a fraction of what russia is shooting at Ukraine is ballistic missiles. Most are cruise missiles (think mini jet airplanes with wings and jet engines that fly at jet airplane speeds). These can be shot down by other jets or land based missiles pretty easily if there are defenses in place. Lastly is the Shehed drones (think mini civilian propeller plane). These are very slow flying and be shot down by land based guns, other propeller planes with guns, or even helicopters with guns. Russia is also shooting a small handful of hypersonic missiles. These are crazy fast flying from beginning to end of their flight. They're really expensive and russia doesn't have many of these.
That is why the “meta” is countermeasures and computerized systems (e.g. patriot missiles) where the human involvement is to approve launch for liability/Geneva Convention purposes.
I think human operators are more to prevent shooting down non-combatant aircraft like commercial airline and civilian planes neither of which are broadcasting Friend or Foe signals to air defense operators.
Fair enough. I think anything short of a ballistic missile against a "near peer" IS outdated tech at this point, but doing rough napkin math gives about an hour from launch to impact. I still suspect the f-16s were more about anti-drone operations but, reasonable.
I think human operators are more to prevent shooting down non-combatant aircraft like commercial airline and civilian planes neither of which are broadcasting Friend or Foe signals to air defense operators.
That is the on paper reason. I would take a look at how much friendly fire we and our allies have done and... yeah, it is liability and being able to say a human is involved for the purposes of an audit/
how much friendly fire we and our allies have done
Preventing all friendly fire is hard. Militaries aren't just putting on an act.
that's why cruise missiles like the Storm Shadow have stealth technology, because they can be targeted by standard anti-aircraft systems, be the ground or air-based
I am genuinely curious how those shake out against a near peer. Because the big advantages of stealth technology is that you never know where an attack or surveillance craft is coming from.
But when you are up against a foe who has satellites pointed at the nearby carrier group and basically all of your larger bases in the region? They likely do know when they are coming and where they came from. And have a good idea of where they are going.
Because stealth technology is not Predator (well... it kind of IS once this ramble is done but role with me). There is still a tiny amount of signal return and just general "distortion" in the area. It is obviously a LOT more complicated but it is the idea of seeing a cabinet slightly ajar and assuming you must have not closed it correctly rather than grabbing a hatchet and calling 911. Because it is just not feasible to go on full alert the moment you see a slight "weirdness" on the radar.
Unless you know that the USS Jimmy Carter just fired a bunch of missiles in your direction. Missiles that IMMEDIATELY disappeared from your radar outside of a small bit of periodic noise that may or may not be on the way to a power plant.
Its similar to all the questions about whether stealth fighters actually make sense. But the reality of THAT is that fighters themselves don't really make sense and haven't for decades and those are mostly long range missile platforms and interceptors. But... everyone wants to be a fighter pilot because Top Gun.
I think anything short of a ballistic missile against a “near peer” IS outdated tech at this point,
I don't think that would be an opinion shared by many. Short range ballistic missiles are exactly that. Short range aka "tactical". One example of an operational US tactical ballistic missiles are ATACMS. These have a maximum range of about 300km. To get anything longer range that is a ballistic missile you go into "strategic" ballistic missiles. The problem with these is we use these for nuclear strikes. If you launch one of these, every country around the world will assume its nuclear armed and could respond in kind. There is no geopolitical concept of "Trust me bro, its just a conventional warhead".
The US loves its cruise missiles. Think about how extensively the Tomahawk cruise missile has been used over the last 2 decades.
but doing rough napkin math gives about an hour from launch to impact. I still suspect the f-16s were more about anti-drone operations but, reasonable.
Here's the results of the latest missile attack on Ukraine from a couple of days ago:
- 3 Kh-47M2 “Kinzhal” aeroballistic missiles from the airspace of the Ryazan and Lipetsk regions - Russian Federation;
- 6 ballistic missiles “Iskander-M” /KN -23 from the Kursk, Voronezh regions - Russian Federation. and from Crimea;
- 77 Kh-101 cruise missiles from Tu-95MS aircraft from the airspace of the Volgograd region and the Caspian Sea region;
- 28 Kalibr cruise missiles from surface/underwater carriers in the eastern part of the Black Sea;
- 3 Kh-22 cruise missiles from the airspace of the Voronezh region. - Russian Federation;
- 10 Kh-59/Kh-69 guided air missiles from Su-57, Su-34 aircraft from the airspace of the Belgorod region. and from the Mariupol district;
- 109 strike UAVs “Shahed-131/136” - launch areas of Primorsko-Akhtarsk, Kursk, Yeisk - Russian Federation, Chauda - Crimea.
Of those 236 weapons launched by russia, only 6 were ballistic missiles). 109 were prop driven UAV (drone). That leaves a whole bunch of cruise missiles and 3 hypersonic missiles.
That is where the near peer aspect comes in.
The US LOVES cruise missiles because we, basically since Vietnam, have consistently gone up against groups with significantly lesser technology (often the stuff that even russia doesn't want anymore). It is the same logic behind how nightvision goggles used to provide an insurmountable advantage and are now basically normal kit against a near peer. Or how tanks were amazing for like... World War 1 and a few weeks of World War 2? And these days are ATGM magnets where a comparatively low cost infantry weapon can take out state of the art equipment.
And that is kind of what we have here. russia needed to launch 127 missiles to get 20 though. That is when you start doing the math on whether the significantly lower costs make it "worth it" relative to a short-ish range ballistic missile. Same with any other technology in war.
As for "if it is any bigger people will think it is a nuke". That is nonsense and mostly only applies when two nuclear powers are going up against each other which we already avoid for countless other reasons (yay proxy wars). Unless there is irrefutable evidence that it is an ICBM going a couple hundred kilometers into Ukraine AND Zelensky et al can get on TV in time? "Oh no. Whoever could have seen this coming? Hey putin, this is your last warning".
That is where the near peer aspect comes in.
"near peer" to whom? The USA or Ukraine?
For Ukraine, russia IS near peer.
As for “if it is any bigger people will think it is a nuke”. That is nonsense and mostly only applies when two nuclear powers are going up against each other which we already avoid for countless other reasons (yay proxy wars).
Who else besides nuclear powers do you know are operating a fleet of strategic ballistic missiles?
For Ukraine, russia IS near peer.
Yes? And, as a result, Russia had to fire off 127 missiles to get 20 through. Which raises the question of if this is even a good use of resources/funds/material. Not sure how you missed that when I said it above.
Who else besides nuclear powers do you know are operating a fleet of strategic ballistic missiles?
Powers that spend a lot of money buying those from those nuclear powers? So.. basically the same as it has been since the 1950s or so?
Again, you seem to have missed where I addressed this exact point. So I'll just repeat it
and mostly only applies when two nuclear powers are going up against each other which we already avoid for countless other reasons (yay proxy wars). Unless there is irrefutable evidence that it is an ICBM going a couple hundred kilometers into Ukraine AND Zelensky et al can get on TV in time? “Oh no. Whoever could have seen this coming? Hey putin, this is your last warning”.
But hey, maybe that was confusing. If Russia launches a bunch of non-nuclear ICBMs at the US? We probably already started World War 3 when Russia shot up Alaska or whatever happened during this apocalypse timeline.
If Russia fires a bunch of ICBMs at Ukraine? Common sense is that they aren't nuclear (because of how close they are) but it is in NATO's best interest to "wait and see" in the exact same way we did a wait and see when russia invaded Ukraine the past couple times. We only act if we have no other choice because nuclear powers engaging in direct war is already an endstate.
Not sure how you missed that when I said it above.
...and...
Again, you seem to have missed where I addressed this exact point. So I’ll just repeat it
Huh. I'm curious how effective this conversation style is with others you interact with, but not curious enough to continue. I think perhaps we have different levels of respect for one another. If anyone else is interested in continue this conversation, feel free to pick up where I'm leaving. Have a nice day.
I respect those who engage in a conversation.
I don't respect people who actively ignore that the person they are "responding" to already addressed the point because you can't get a "gotcha" any other way.
But hey, good talk... not really but.
It's not cutting edge any more, but I wouldn't say everything else is outdated. They have different applications. I presume ballistic missiles are more expensive, too.
Ha, that reminds me of what Biden said about the Hypersonic missile technology: "They're almost impossible to defeat."
The one weakness of hypersonic missiles is that it’s very hard to make them manoeuvrable. Where a slower missile or drone could be programmed to take evasive action to make it harder to shoot down, a hypersonic missile only has speed. If you can track it fast enough, you have a pretty good idea of where to aim an interceptor to hit it.
Heh, the forces of changing direction would probably destroy it. Damn physics
What do you mean? Hypersonic are a multitude faster than 1200 km/h.
What? I said nothing about Hypersonic missile velocity - Biden said that a while ago when Putin was sabre rattling with them.
Biden said it's almost impossible. Not is impossible. Basically it means the U.S. has a way to counter it. I mean, hell, the U.S. has had an anti-ballistic missile system for ages, and Hypersonic missile range between mach 5 and 25.
Like the commenter that replied to me said: once it launches, it really can't change course. If you know the launch direction, you know where it's going. An interceptor at that point just needs to get in its way.
My understanding is that anything newer than a V2 rocket is just too fast for a jet pilot to actively engage.
No. The bulk of the missiles used in this attack were Kh-101, which cruise around 800 km/h, well below the max speed of the F-16 itself (1300 km/h or so) let alone the missiles it carries.
Cruise missiles are basically UAV kamakaze planes, F16’s are definitely able to intercept many kinds of them
Saw a guy here on c/ukraine shoot down a cruise missile with a .50-cal mounted on a truck. 🤷