5 ms·

Yeah cool, and can the support necessary to keep an F-35 active be performed on a road? The Harrier and Gripens can and kinda were designed with that in mind.

Yeah cool, and can the support necessary to keep an F-35 active be performed on a road? The Harrier and Gripens can and kinda were designed with that in mind. The F-35? I doubt it. I'm sure on paper someone will write and another one will approve, but in reality and in a real war scenario I have serious reservations.

smcl 3y ago
To an non-expert like me the Gripen just seems so well-suited for Ukraine's Air Force in this conflict - relatively inexpensive, can land/operate in tougher conditions, can be serviced nearby (Czechia), outfitted to handle Western/NATO missile tech. I wonder what caused them to push so hard for F-16 instead.
- fsloth 3y ago
  I would guess the F-16 fleet is easier to quickly expand than one based on Gripens as the supply of F-16:s is larger. Also creates a direct link to US military industrial complex which will help with US support in coming years (good business). The intake in f-16 seems really troublesome for takeoffs in ruddy envorinments.
- PedroBatista 3y ago
  One of the reasons is there are much more F-16s both in number of units and consequently support ( of all kinds ) and know-how from many operator countries. Unfortunately the Gripen is the plane everyone talks and loves but "nobody" buys them. The Rafale is in a similar situation. AFAIK there are many minor reasons but the main one is: "Nobody got fired for buying IBM", aka the F-16, it's all fine and good, NATO, etc, etc, but America has A LOT of pull when someone wants to buy planes, they tend to be "persuasive"..
  - hef19898 3y ago
    And Lockheed was really good at direct-to-decision-maker-marketing.
    - GartzenDeHaes 3y ago
      The F-16 is not a Lockheed plane, which why it's so popular. Lockheed planes are expensive and high maintenance. The FB-111, B1B (8% readiness rate), OV-102 (space shuttle, 40% of which failed), and of course the F-35. EDIT: Guess it's a bait-and-swtich -- LM got their hands on the F16 somehow: https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2619834/air-force-opens-new-f-16-production-line-for-foreign-military-sales/ https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2619834/air-... The manufacturer makes a big difference, even if the design is the same. For example, the F-111 (later the EF-111), built by GD and Grumman was a reliable, low maintenance plane. On the other hand, the FB-111 built by Lockheed was a maintenance hog with a 30% readiness rating, even with extensive cannibalization of parts.
  - Thaxll 3y ago
    The rafale is successful though, it exports pretty well. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43367/the-uae-has-just-become-the-biggest-export-customer-for-dassaults-rafale-fighter https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43367/the-uae-has-just...
- hef19898 3y ago
  Easy: avaiability, in every sense. There are many, many more F-16 in service to draw from. As are more operators, making training easier. And maitennace, everything from spqres to sites to people, is much easier to come by at scale for F-16s. All of the above under the caveat of needing it now.
  - smcl 3y ago
    Ah yeah I only just looked at its wiki page now, there's about 150-ish in total and under 30 in Central Europe (14 in ČR, 14 in Hungary - suspect the latter wouldn't be too keen to help out Ukraine). Edit: wow apparently as-of 2010 there were around 4,500 F-16 delivered around the world.
- napoleon_thepig 3y ago
  The F-16 is the most numerous fighter jet in existence today and some countries are replacing them with F-35s, so there are a few dozen F-16s that might be available soon for Ukraine. On the other hand, the amount of Gripens available is in the low hundreds, which in practice means that Sweden would have to donate a significant part of it's current air force capability to Ukraine.
- justin66 3y ago
  Sweden was publicly clear they weren't going to make the Gripen available to Ukraine, the planes exist in small enough quantities that some new manufacturing would need to happen in order for any of its operators to swap their existing inventory out and give it to Ukraine (not impossible in the long run since there is a new variant that some countries might want to acquire someday, but not happening in the short term), and - this is the big one - there are roughly twenty times as many F-16s in service worldwide as there are Gripens. Everything that's commonly said about the Gripen performing admirably in rugged conditions and the F-16 being particularly vulnerable to foreign object damage is certainly true, but Ukraine would happily throw people and resources at the problem of maintaining intact and clean runways.
  - smcl 3y ago
    I think the question of which ally would supply what to Ukraine was generally pretty flexible - there were various statements about not supplying hardware like Bradley, Leopard, Challenger and F-16, I guess due to Russian threats about how it'd consider that an "escalation". But those appear to have melted away, so I just figured such statements were to be taken with a pinch of salt.
    - justin66 3y ago
      Flexible is right, but with the weird caveat that the company which manufactures the hardware (and the nation in which it's headquartered) generally gets a veto when it comes to any one of its customers sending any given item to Ukraine, if they want it. That's about the contracts and terms military hardware is sold under, and the need for ongoing maintenance contracts. It's why Germany, after gifting Ukraine with some anti-aircraft equipment, couldn't send surplus Oerlikon ammo to Ukraine. Switzerland, where the ammo was manufactured, would not allow it. (not because it was a Russia-provoking "escalation" but because they're a neutral country with something in their law prohibiting sending arms into conflict zones... which also has an export-oriented arms industry for some reason)
      - PedroBatista 3y ago
hajile 3y ago
Ukraine has shown that when your airspace and airstrips are contested, the only real answer is limited CAS where you fly in low, drop your load from as far away as possible, then pop flares and head back. A plane that is highly survivable and resistant to MANPADS is going to be superior. For this, the US has the A-10 which was designed with this exact war in mind. It takes off from a short runway (and it can be a pretty rough runway because the engines are so high), requires more basic maintenance, and is proven to take MANPADS hits then still make it back.
- Vecr 3y ago
  The A-10 is too old at this point and I really doubt anyone is going to make more. The Sky Warden has better electronic systems but who knows if that's actually going to be acquired. The best tactic now is to fly high enough to avoid laser targeting from the ground and avoid radar targeting with stealth.
- nradov 3y ago
  The A-10 was designed for an all-out conventional war with the Warsaw Pact. It was never considered survivable even then; plans assumed that almost all would be destroyed in the first few days of the conflict and that was considered acceptable. A few airframes have taken missile hits during Middle East conflicts and made it back to base. Those then took months of extensive maintenance to restore to operational condition, and in some cases were written off entirely. A-10s are not at all survivable against modern Russian air defenses and would be mostly useless in Ukraine.
- dralley 3y ago
  ...No. That's the best option when all you have are shitty short-range Soviet-era missiles and unguided rockets / bombs from the 1980s and radars that can't see anything past 35km. If you have low-observability or stealth aircraft, with powerful radars, and weapons with 80km+ range, you would absolutely rather use anything else. It doesn't matter if your plane is "highly survivable to MANPADS" when A) the enemy has a lot of MANPADS and larger AA weapons, and B) you run out of functional planes because they all got shot up. Not getting hit is strictly better than getting hit, regardless of how "survivable" the plane is.

smcl 3y ago

To an non-expert like me the Gripen just seems so well-suited for Ukraine's Air Force in this conflict - relatively inexpensive, can land/operate in tougher conditions, can be serviced nearby (Czechia), outfitted to handle Western/NATO missile tech. I wonder what caused them to push so hard for F-16 instead.

fsloth 3y ago
I would guess the F-16 fleet is easier to quickly expand than one based on Gripens as the supply of F-16:s is larger. Also creates a direct link to US military industrial complex which will help with US support in coming years (good business). The intake in f-16 seems really troublesome for takeoffs in ruddy envorinments.
PedroBatista 3y ago
One of the reasons is there are much more F-16s both in number of units and consequently support ( of all kinds ) and know-how from many operator countries. Unfortunately the Gripen is the plane everyone talks and loves but "nobody" buys them. The Rafale is in a similar situation. AFAIK there are many minor reasons but the main one is: "Nobody got fired for buying IBM", aka the F-16, it's all fine and good, NATO, etc, etc, but America has A LOT of pull when someone wants to buy planes, they tend to be "persuasive"..
- hef19898 3y ago
  And Lockheed was really good at direct-to-decision-maker-marketing.
  - GartzenDeHaes 3y ago
    The F-16 is not a Lockheed plane, which why it's so popular. Lockheed planes are expensive and high maintenance. The FB-111, B1B (8% readiness rate), OV-102 (space shuttle, 40% of which failed), and of course the F-35. EDIT: Guess it's a bait-and-swtich -- LM got their hands on the F16 somehow: https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2619834/air-force-opens-new-f-16-production-line-for-foreign-military-sales/ https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2619834/air-... The manufacturer makes a big difference, even if the design is the same. For example, the F-111 (later the EF-111), built by GD and Grumman was a reliable, low maintenance plane. On the other hand, the FB-111 built by Lockheed was a maintenance hog with a 30% readiness rating, even with extensive cannibalization of parts.
- Thaxll 3y ago
  The rafale is successful though, it exports pretty well. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43367/the-uae-has-just-become-the-biggest-export-customer-for-dassaults-rafale-fighter https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43367/the-uae-has-just...
hef19898 3y ago
Easy: avaiability, in every sense. There are many, many more F-16 in service to draw from. As are more operators, making training easier. And maitennace, everything from spqres to sites to people, is much easier to come by at scale for F-16s. All of the above under the caveat of needing it now.
- smcl 3y ago
  Ah yeah I only just looked at its wiki page now, there's about 150-ish in total and under 30 in Central Europe (14 in ČR, 14 in Hungary - suspect the latter wouldn't be too keen to help out Ukraine). Edit: wow apparently as-of 2010 there were around 4,500 F-16 delivered around the world.
napoleon_thepig 3y ago
The F-16 is the most numerous fighter jet in existence today and some countries are replacing them with F-35s, so there are a few dozen F-16s that might be available soon for Ukraine. On the other hand, the amount of Gripens available is in the low hundreds, which in practice means that Sweden would have to donate a significant part of it's current air force capability to Ukraine.
justin66 3y ago
Sweden was publicly clear they weren't going to make the Gripen available to Ukraine, the planes exist in small enough quantities that some new manufacturing would need to happen in order for any of its operators to swap their existing inventory out and give it to Ukraine (not impossible in the long run since there is a new variant that some countries might want to acquire someday, but not happening in the short term), and - this is the big one - there are roughly twenty times as many F-16s in service worldwide as there are Gripens. Everything that's commonly said about the Gripen performing admirably in rugged conditions and the F-16 being particularly vulnerable to foreign object damage is certainly true, but Ukraine would happily throw people and resources at the problem of maintaining intact and clean runways.
- smcl 3y ago
  I think the question of which ally would supply what to Ukraine was generally pretty flexible - there were various statements about not supplying hardware like Bradley, Leopard, Challenger and F-16, I guess due to Russian threats about how it'd consider that an "escalation". But those appear to have melted away, so I just figured such statements were to be taken with a pinch of salt.
  - justin66 3y ago
    Flexible is right, but with the weird caveat that the company which manufactures the hardware (and the nation in which it's headquartered) generally gets a veto when it comes to any one of its customers sending any given item to Ukraine, if they want it. That's about the contracts and terms military hardware is sold under, and the need for ongoing maintenance contracts. It's why Germany, after gifting Ukraine with some anti-aircraft equipment, couldn't send surplus Oerlikon ammo to Ukraine. Switzerland, where the ammo was manufactured, would not allow it. (not because it was a Russia-provoking "escalation" but because they're a neutral country with something in their law prohibiting sending arms into conflict zones... which also has an export-oriented arms industry for some reason)
    - PedroBatista 3y ago

hajile 3y ago

Ukraine has shown that when your airspace and airstrips are contested, the only real answer is limited CAS where you fly in low, drop your load from as far away as possible, then pop flares and head back. A plane that is highly survivable and resistant to MANPADS is going to be superior. For this, the US has the A-10 which was designed with this exact war in mind. It takes off from a short runway (and it can be a pretty rough runway because the engines are so high), requires more basic maintenance, and is proven to take MANPADS hits then still make it back.

Vecr 3y ago
The A-10 is too old at this point and I really doubt anyone is going to make more. The Sky Warden has better electronic systems but who knows if that's actually going to be acquired. The best tactic now is to fly high enough to avoid laser targeting from the ground and avoid radar targeting with stealth.
nradov 3y ago
The A-10 was designed for an all-out conventional war with the Warsaw Pact. It was never considered survivable even then; plans assumed that almost all would be destroyed in the first few days of the conflict and that was considered acceptable. A few airframes have taken missile hits during Middle East conflicts and made it back to base. Those then took months of extensive maintenance to restore to operational condition, and in some cases were written off entirely. A-10s are not at all survivable against modern Russian air defenses and would be mostly useless in Ukraine.
dralley 3y ago
...No. That's the best option when all you have are shitty short-range Soviet-era missiles and unguided rockets / bombs from the 1980s and radars that can't see anything past 35km. If you have low-observability or stealth aircraft, with powerful radars, and weapons with 80km+ range, you would absolutely rather use anything else. It doesn't matter if your plane is "highly survivable to MANPADS" when A) the enemy has a lot of MANPADS and larger AA weapons, and B) you run out of functional planes because they all got shot up. Not getting hit is strictly better than getting hit, regardless of how "survivable" the plane is.