Airframes come and go, saving the pilot is the thing. Why isn’t SkyShield being implemented? Where are the sanctions the EU powers threatened if Putin didn’t come to the table as of course he hasn’t? As trump refuses to provide Patriot missile reloads even if paid cash for them, Russia is hammering civilians and infrastructure. The EU had better put on its big boy pants quick and give up the false hope the US will come around. It won’t!
I expect it was a maintenance issue. We're talking decades old airframes supported by mechanics first trained on MiGs. Given the excessive workload, I suspect we'll see this regularly. I just hope the coalition of the willing increase throughput.
I'm guessing he was going guns against a flying bomb, and ingested debris. This is incredibly risky, as it is happening when the jet has low energy (going slow) and low altitude. Very little recovery or safe landing time.
This makes a case for a padded gun that doesn't shoot directly forward, instead it strategy from the side where airborne debris will NOT be flown directly into.
That's not how it works. The most effective gun firing range is 1.000 feet. There is neither the need nor is it usefull to get in that range with a tail chase, and or slow down to the target speed. This is especially true for a non maneuvering target. Firing the guns against air targets is trained against a towed target behind a tow aircraft, wich will maneuver within preset parameters. The reason is simple, targets normally will move and firing in a tail chase would not only risk to fly through debris or collide with the target, but also the safety of the tow target as it would be in the spray of the bullets. Forget the WW2 movies where the fighter is behind the target and fires until a hit is achieved and somehow evades the debris.
Several reasons. The firing rate of the F16 vulcan canon can be preselected to 4000 or 6000 per minute, the F-16 carries a load of 511 bullets. In the high firing rate the gun will be empty within 5 seconds. The radar of the F16 will be able to lock onto a glide bomb or a drone and provide the necessary firing solution. The best chance to get and keep a good radar lock and to hit the target would be with an offset approach of 30° and more (angle between the extended centerline of the target and own position, the more the better) just for the fact that the area to to aim at will be manifold against the area in a tail chase. Everything happens very quick, you aquire a target from air defence information or own means, lock it up with the radar, use the information to position yourself to close to the target outside its plane of motion ( heading, altitude) maintaining the offset until the moment when a momentarily move will bring you to the firing position 1.000', target circle on target with firing solution indication in the hud, squeeze the trigger momentarily ( less than 1 second to safe bullets and due to closure rate), and move out of the targets plane of motion immidiately to avoid debris and to reposition yourself for the next run in case you missed. I've been there, done it, and saw an F4 coming home with the tow target stuck in the left engine intake.
What caused the loss of the F-16 we as outsiders might not hear or read about, and what we think is of no relevance. A fact though is, there is a war going on, we've lost aircraft in peacetime too. The Ukrainian Airforce is doing better than most expected month ago, they have my highest respect, and nobody should darec to judge their skill from the armchair.
The pilot is safe , if there are lessons to learn the system will adapt.
Thank you for your service, AND for that very detailed explanation of that actual gun tactics used.
However, you are still highlighting my point: Integrated aircraft guns/cannons require the shooter to be 1. Close, 2. Flying directly AT the target. When the target is another aircraft that is flying away (at the 30 degree angle you mentioned) at the same reletive speed that isn't a problem. When that target is standing still, relatively, and can explode 1000' in front of you instead of just having an airborne deconstruction event, the nature of the "gunfight" changes. You are no longer shooting up another vehical that is flying away from you, you are shooting something like a pressure vessel directly in front of you... that stays directly in front of you because it's not flying at jet speed 30 degrees off your path - instead it's just walking slowly as you fly into it. Just like those targets the you saw ingested, but worse.
This is why I suggest a podded gun system that shoots well off bore. Much harder to catch or ingest anything if you are strafing from a high angle, and never have your nose and intakes pointed at the target. Imagine hunting drones with your F4 cannon mounted 90 degrees off your nose in your wing. Instead of a constant stream of tungsten, you fire just a couple of radar directed proximity fused rounds?
Forward guns are for dogfighting. Shoot those slow drones from the side, it's a different target all together. They are more like slow moving balloons than the MIGs you trained to fight.
Thank you for your interest, I'm happy to elaborate.
Shooting at something with the cannon which is flying away is not effective, you normally always have a closure rate and keep up own maneuvering speed.
You still seem to assume that you park the fighter aircraft behind a target before shooting and stay there awaiting the result. It's not the way to do it, not in practice, not in real combat. There is only a tenth of a second firing solution necessary to achieve a hit, at which your aircraft and thus the canon is pointing to the spot in the sky where the target and the bullets will occupy the same airspace in the time your bullets will need to go there. The indication in the hud will show where this point is and thus when to fire. Only when you would follow your bullets ( a curved line influenced by the gravity drop of the bullets) you would end up in the same space and endager yourself to hit the target or its debris. No sound pilot would do that.
In regards to maneuvering a glide bomb is an easy target, it has only limited maneuvering capability to hit the target, not to evade incoming fire. Simply, it moves forward with about 200Kts while descending at the same time. Against such a target the fighter has the exclusive control over all necessary parameters like range, closure and firing solution. It's more a problem to find the damned small targets. Change the target to be a fighter aircraft maneuvering with high g's and both at speeds in excess of 350kts then it really gets a handfull of task.
Shahed type drones obviously could maneuver, but normally they don't, and due to their relatively low speed they would not change much with such maneuvering.
The innovation you suggest is not necessary and could not be implemented in a present fighter aircraft, afaik it is already implemented in newer attack drones for terminal low altitude interception. The task for the F-16 and like though is high/ medium altitude engagenents as early as possible with quick and fast reaction over great distances.
"The guy", I would prefer you name him by his professional name "The pilot" was following orders, intercepting drones and glidebombs aimed to attack his country. It is a risky business, and sometimes things go wrong, especially under difficult conditions
like an active war.
You obviously know more about the reason of the crash or do you blow such wisdome just out of the piece you are normally sitting on in your armchair? ?
My point is that an F-16 for 3 drones is an extremely bad trade, and for this article to try to paint that as some kind of win is asinine and an insult to our intelligence.
So you say, let the bombs kill people, because by flying those missions on a daily bases there might be a loss, which costs more than the missiles and bombs raining down on people and they are even lless worth the effort? You blame that on the pilot?
How about blaming it on Putin for starting this war and the Agent Orange for siding with Putin?
Let’s hope the Ukrainian Airforce finds out why and takes step to reduce the risk in the future. Losses of F-16s are unfortunately to be expected. The gun being useful… surprised, but ok. And while F-16s are not easy to come by so are pilots.
Not sure this shows us much. I have a hard time believing these pilots are highly skilled in the airframe. They just have too little time in the type and flying. Yes, modern near peer war is attritional and takes HUGE reserves of men and material, something the West continues to wave a hand at. But the loss of 3 F16s in a short period of time has less to do with the air campaign than true depth of experience of the pilots, maintainers, air planners, & support infrastructure for the jets.
If Ukraine had been flying F16 for the decade before the war, then you can point to the nature of war and discount the relative inexperience of the crews. As for the use of Guns, have we not learned the lesson from Iranian & Houthi missile and drone attacks. Gens matter and always will. No different than the effectiveness of 5 Inch Naval guns the modern battlefield will always require aircraft & ships with some form of cannon to defend and attack.
I don't think anyone counts Ukrainian pilots as "highly skilled" in the F-16. Western trainers have reported they have been excellent students in very short training courses.
In any case, they are the only ones fighting in this context. We really don't know how much better American pilots would fare, given the absence of the context our doctrine would seek to provide.
Airframes come and go, saving the pilot is the thing. Why isn’t SkyShield being implemented? Where are the sanctions the EU powers threatened if Putin didn’t come to the table as of course he hasn’t? As trump refuses to provide Patriot missile reloads even if paid cash for them, Russia is hammering civilians and infrastructure. The EU had better put on its big boy pants quick and give up the false hope the US will come around. It won’t!
That cunt where your face used to be is leaking pus again.
A wild Vatnik appears!
Looks like MAGA-slash-Putinist* boilerplate with only the barest hint of topical relevance and less truck with reality to me.
*largely distinction without difference
...he says while regurgitating Kremlin propaganda language 🙄
The Putinist tendentiousness *reeks*.
Better crawl back into your Troll factory in St. Petersburg.
I expect it was a maintenance issue. We're talking decades old airframes supported by mechanics first trained on MiGs. Given the excessive workload, I suspect we'll see this regularly. I just hope the coalition of the willing increase throughput.
I'm guessing he was going guns against a flying bomb, and ingested debris. This is incredibly risky, as it is happening when the jet has low energy (going slow) and low altitude. Very little recovery or safe landing time.
This makes a case for a padded gun that doesn't shoot directly forward, instead it strategy from the side where airborne debris will NOT be flown directly into.
That's not how it works. The most effective gun firing range is 1.000 feet. There is neither the need nor is it usefull to get in that range with a tail chase, and or slow down to the target speed. This is especially true for a non maneuvering target. Firing the guns against air targets is trained against a towed target behind a tow aircraft, wich will maneuver within preset parameters. The reason is simple, targets normally will move and firing in a tail chase would not only risk to fly through debris or collide with the target, but also the safety of the tow target as it would be in the spray of the bullets. Forget the WW2 movies where the fighter is behind the target and fires until a hit is achieved and somehow evades the debris.
Several reasons. The firing rate of the F16 vulcan canon can be preselected to 4000 or 6000 per minute, the F-16 carries a load of 511 bullets. In the high firing rate the gun will be empty within 5 seconds. The radar of the F16 will be able to lock onto a glide bomb or a drone and provide the necessary firing solution. The best chance to get and keep a good radar lock and to hit the target would be with an offset approach of 30° and more (angle between the extended centerline of the target and own position, the more the better) just for the fact that the area to to aim at will be manifold against the area in a tail chase. Everything happens very quick, you aquire a target from air defence information or own means, lock it up with the radar, use the information to position yourself to close to the target outside its plane of motion ( heading, altitude) maintaining the offset until the moment when a momentarily move will bring you to the firing position 1.000', target circle on target with firing solution indication in the hud, squeeze the trigger momentarily ( less than 1 second to safe bullets and due to closure rate), and move out of the targets plane of motion immidiately to avoid debris and to reposition yourself for the next run in case you missed. I've been there, done it, and saw an F4 coming home with the tow target stuck in the left engine intake.
What caused the loss of the F-16 we as outsiders might not hear or read about, and what we think is of no relevance. A fact though is, there is a war going on, we've lost aircraft in peacetime too. The Ukrainian Airforce is doing better than most expected month ago, they have my highest respect, and nobody should darec to judge their skill from the armchair.
The pilot is safe , if there are lessons to learn the system will adapt.
Thank you for your service, AND for that very detailed explanation of that actual gun tactics used.
However, you are still highlighting my point: Integrated aircraft guns/cannons require the shooter to be 1. Close, 2. Flying directly AT the target. When the target is another aircraft that is flying away (at the 30 degree angle you mentioned) at the same reletive speed that isn't a problem. When that target is standing still, relatively, and can explode 1000' in front of you instead of just having an airborne deconstruction event, the nature of the "gunfight" changes. You are no longer shooting up another vehical that is flying away from you, you are shooting something like a pressure vessel directly in front of you... that stays directly in front of you because it's not flying at jet speed 30 degrees off your path - instead it's just walking slowly as you fly into it. Just like those targets the you saw ingested, but worse.
This is why I suggest a podded gun system that shoots well off bore. Much harder to catch or ingest anything if you are strafing from a high angle, and never have your nose and intakes pointed at the target. Imagine hunting drones with your F4 cannon mounted 90 degrees off your nose in your wing. Instead of a constant stream of tungsten, you fire just a couple of radar directed proximity fused rounds?
Forward guns are for dogfighting. Shoot those slow drones from the side, it's a different target all together. They are more like slow moving balloons than the MIGs you trained to fight.
Thank you for your interest, I'm happy to elaborate.
Shooting at something with the cannon which is flying away is not effective, you normally always have a closure rate and keep up own maneuvering speed.
You still seem to assume that you park the fighter aircraft behind a target before shooting and stay there awaiting the result. It's not the way to do it, not in practice, not in real combat. There is only a tenth of a second firing solution necessary to achieve a hit, at which your aircraft and thus the canon is pointing to the spot in the sky where the target and the bullets will occupy the same airspace in the time your bullets will need to go there. The indication in the hud will show where this point is and thus when to fire. Only when you would follow your bullets ( a curved line influenced by the gravity drop of the bullets) you would end up in the same space and endager yourself to hit the target or its debris. No sound pilot would do that.
In regards to maneuvering a glide bomb is an easy target, it has only limited maneuvering capability to hit the target, not to evade incoming fire. Simply, it moves forward with about 200Kts while descending at the same time. Against such a target the fighter has the exclusive control over all necessary parameters like range, closure and firing solution. It's more a problem to find the damned small targets. Change the target to be a fighter aircraft maneuvering with high g's and both at speeds in excess of 350kts then it really gets a handfull of task.
Shahed type drones obviously could maneuver, but normally they don't, and due to their relatively low speed they would not change much with such maneuvering.
The innovation you suggest is not necessary and could not be implemented in a present fighter aircraft, afaik it is already implemented in newer attack drones for terminal low altitude interception. The task for the F-16 and like though is high/ medium altitude engagenents as early as possible with quick and fast reaction over great distances.
Hope that helps.
"Podded, not padded"
"Strafes, not strategy" gads, why can't we edit a comment? Freakin auto correct.
thankfully there are more f16s in the pipeline, quite a number are selected to be delivered before the years end
Lost an F-16 shooting down drones that cost a lot less.
Smart.
Obviously the targets were drones. The guy trashed his F-16 shooting drones. What a waste.
And your idea would be.... what?
"The guy", I would prefer you name him by his professional name "The pilot" was following orders, intercepting drones and glidebombs aimed to attack his country. It is a risky business, and sometimes things go wrong, especially under difficult conditions
like an active war.
You obviously know more about the reason of the crash or do you blow such wisdome just out of the piece you are normally sitting on in your armchair? ?
My point is that an F-16 for 3 drones is an extremely bad trade, and for this article to try to paint that as some kind of win is asinine and an insult to our intelligence.
So you say, let the bombs kill people, because by flying those missions on a daily bases there might be a loss, which costs more than the missiles and bombs raining down on people and they are even lless worth the effort? You blame that on the pilot?
How about blaming it on Putin for starting this war and the Agent Orange for siding with Putin?
Ok now you’re just ranting.
Expensive assets need to be employed rationally not emotively. Emotive actors lose wars.
Since you’re putting words in my mouth you are basically having an argument with yourself. I will leave you to it.
Let’s hope the Ukrainian Airforce finds out why and takes step to reduce the risk in the future. Losses of F-16s are unfortunately to be expected. The gun being useful… surprised, but ok. And while F-16s are not easy to come by so are pilots.
Really appreciate the context.
Thank you.
Not sure this shows us much. I have a hard time believing these pilots are highly skilled in the airframe. They just have too little time in the type and flying. Yes, modern near peer war is attritional and takes HUGE reserves of men and material, something the West continues to wave a hand at. But the loss of 3 F16s in a short period of time has less to do with the air campaign than true depth of experience of the pilots, maintainers, air planners, & support infrastructure for the jets.
If Ukraine had been flying F16 for the decade before the war, then you can point to the nature of war and discount the relative inexperience of the crews. As for the use of Guns, have we not learned the lesson from Iranian & Houthi missile and drone attacks. Gens matter and always will. No different than the effectiveness of 5 Inch Naval guns the modern battlefield will always require aircraft & ships with some form of cannon to defend and attack.
I don't think anyone counts Ukrainian pilots as "highly skilled" in the F-16. Western trainers have reported they have been excellent students in very short training courses.
In any case, they are the only ones fighting in this context. We really don't know how much better American pilots would fare, given the absence of the context our doctrine would seek to provide.
💪🏽💪🏽💪🏽
Cruiser Gettysburg / not a DDG destroyer on the F-18 US friendly 💥 off Yemen. 🇺🇲✔️
The Turnip heads ha ha ha.