Unless someone pulls some unexpected integration here, I don't see any solution for the glide bombers - the biggest front-line threat - from either of these planes. They drop their bombs 35-50km from the front, at high altitude and speed. These planes would be approaching low and have to maintain some distance from the front. AMRAAM performance from low altitude to high just isn't sufficient. Meteor would be perfect for the role, but at least as far as what's publicly known, nobody's offering it and nothing Ukraine is getting can carry it. Gripen can, but... *sigh*. There's the other problem in that flying low guzzles fuel an order of magnitude faster than flying high. Meaning having to fuel in eastern Ukraine. But Russian long-range surveiliance drones have been monitoring Ukrainian airfields in the east, and spotting for ballistic missile strikes against Ukrainian planes.
Excellent report Mr. Binkov. I suppose the Saab Gripen is likely the best option. I say this as an American with Great Affection for the F 16. Can you look and explain to us the vulnerability on the ground? That is my greatest concern, since the planes will be on the ground most of the time, and the theater is within reach by missiles and drones.
@@cg986 A squadron of Mirage (witch is the number announced if I remember well), can be a perfect interception alert asset. That's how Mirages are still used today in France. And Mirages are part of the France's assets in the NATO deployment in the baltic. Sky police alert is what the Mirage had been designed for. With a squad, and regarding the relatively low aerial activity, a squad in alert to cover the territory is a good complement to the main F16 fleet, freeing planes and pilots for the other missions. As bonus, the Mirage got a very nice low terrain following radar, this give the plane a very good ability for low altitude raids. (Need to be confirmed, I know for sure that recon and CAS variants got this radars, I assume the 5 variant have it, but didn't checked.) And just as a note, this were announced for the end of this year, and France always delivered in time and even before announcements. I also hope that Dassault, Thales and other companies engineer are working hard to upgrades systems softwares with all the datas collected along the war, but it wouldn't surprise me, question of standing and commercial credibility for this companies.
I don't think that giving them fighters is the solution. Those western fighters were designed for western tactics. It takes a lot of resources to keep them in the air and it seems like those manpower and logistical resources would be better put toward air defense and land attack missiles. They have leveraged the Bradley way more than the Abrahms because it is better suited to the eastern european style of fighting. You are not doing hit and run attacks with an M-1 in muddy conditions. M-1s are great at large setpiece battles with the proper support while Bradleys can operate in the scout role. You can't teach a new battle doctrine overnight while fighting a war using the existing doctrine.
@@longshot7601 Just stop. "It's a Wweeeestern thing, so perhaps the Ukrainians shouldn't be confused with those (insert tanks, drones, missile systems etc)". That attitude has delayed the support more than long enough already. Had Europe's countries just adopted the same 'we'll get it to work'-mentality as shown time and time again on the Ukrainian side, this war would been long over. Here is the reality: * SAMs can only cover a limited area, takes a lot longer than aircraft to redeploy and above all, they are not available in anywhere near sufficient numbers. * Ukraine needs aircraft for drone-hunting, but they are running out of aircraft they had in short supply already before the invasion. * Any aircraft is a heck of a lot better than no aircraft. If those F-16s, Mirages and Gripens are what is available, that is what they will use. * The proper time to equip Ukraine is yesteryear, not tomorrow.
You are thinking in the big, peaceful, powerful industrial nation frame of reference here. To already bring a benefit, the F-16s in Ukraine don't even need to fire a single missile. Just the knowledge that F-16s are covering a certain section of the front line is enough to give Russia Air Force pause on how close they want to fly their Su planes for dropping the multi-ton glide bombs. It might just take a few flight hours and maybe 10 missiles of which 8 hit their targets to force a complete change in current air doctrine of the Russian side. These 1,5 and 3 ton glide bombs are horrible things, especially when used against populated areas. The soldiers in trenches will feel so much relief just knowing the F-16 is in the air to deal with the bombing runs.
It's pretty modernized, too bad they don't have the newer AESA radars tho, that could make a difference imo but Ok, these are very decent jets & also, western training & tactics are undoubtly better than russia has. The biggest challenge is keeping those jets safe on the ground. What I like most about F16 is that they're so versatile, it opens pandora's box with dozens of missiles that become compatible, some of those very effective like HArm-er, Jassm(ER), Lrasm, SDU bombs (gliding bombs which each F165 can carry 8 of). I thought a bunch of Jassm was already bogut for Ukraine. It only matters they're getting a continual flow of these bombs/missiles. Time they provide TAurus too.
It really is a sexy plane. Other than the massive intake, but then again it does have that sort of American Hot Rod appeal with a big ol blower coming out of your hood.
Yes but…. Mirage 2000 is an interceptor designed for air superiority missions. It is still today used by France for this. If you want to do bombing and ground support f16 will outpace mirage. F16 is good for a multirole usage. So Ukraine may use both for air superiority then dedicate F16 as wild weasel (SEAD air defense suppression) and then move to close air support (CAS).
@@vinceal6883 There exists ground attack version of the Mirage 2000... The 2000 D is more done for ground attack... and the interceptors last variants are 2000-5 and 2000-9... There was even a version to launch the ASMP (nuke) : 2000-N.
The Mirage 2000 is still an okay plane, but it’s getting outdated. Especially compared to 4.5 gen fighters (Eurofighter, Rafale, F-15EX etc) and 5th gen (F-35, J-20 etc).
Why be afraid? I don't think Taiwan has any plans of ever invading China, I have the impression they just want to be allowed to carry on as they have for 75 years.
My guess for these 2 platforms is that: -> Both will be used to take out cruise missiles / Shahed drones -> F-16s will be used for most of front line Air-to-Ground support missions (w/ stand-off weapons) & SEAD/DEAD missions (using HARMs) -> Mirage 2000s will be used for deep strike (using SCALP/Storm Shadow) & provide "some limited" air-to-ground support as well w/ Hammer kits. If they also get Exocet missiles, they may be used for some limited strikes against the Black Sea fleet (although most of those ships have moved to the eastern edge of the Black Sea by this point) -> Ukraine will still need more jets in quantity to build up their forces and to provide mass to turn the tide in the air & would REALLY benefit from Gripens to help with distributed operations so that they can locate the F-16s & MIrages deeper in the rear away from Ruzzian attacks...
I was thinking the same listening to the video. F-16s would be better suited to engage air to air targets and provide an anti armor/troop support. The Mirages would fight in a more standoff role against ground and naval targets.
i don't even need to watch the video, that's exactly how they should be used, the Mirage 2000 is also used has a sweep aircraft in the FAF, the MICA is limited but pretty good, he would probably take the lead if Ukraine decide to make a heavy aeriel raid (i higly doubt it but i think he could be used like that). But i may be wrong because Ukrainian pilotes arn't experimented as the french
@@user-pf3gd1zd2i, the situation with the SU-24s is becoming critical and it's the only aircraft capable of deploying the SCALPs/Storm Shadows currently. I personally think that France is looking to provide these aircraft because they recognize this situation too...
My thoughts are that they will probably just use the F-16s and Mirage as anti-missile planes for the most part. The thing is since they have them doing that other assets are freed up. One example would be any surviving legacy soviet equipment could be used far more aggressively as they now have platforms that can take the strain if they are shot down. Another possibility is that they could pulling off more SAM ambushes with the patriots again.
French Mirage 2000-5 is meant for air superiority with 6 MICA missiles and up to 3 drop tanks. RDY radar con fully exploit MICA EM range of 80km, so the estimates around 90km detection rate for RDY radar sound good. As far as I know French Mirage 2000-5 don't have Hammer/AASM rocket boosted GBU, SCALP cruise missile or Exocet anti ship missile integration. Only Greek or Taiwanese ones as France relies on two seater mirage 2000D for ground strikes thus they did not go for a multi role 2000-5 like the export variants. UAE 2000-9 are even more modern and fully multirole with recon suite and EW suite based on early Rafale Spectra protos and RDY-3 radar. My guess is that Ukraine will use French Mirage 2000-5 for air combat only. Unless they spend extra time and ressources integrating air to ground weapons and bringing the french mirages 2000-5 to greek or taiwanese standards to be multirole. Rocket boosted Hammer/AASM would be a compartive advantage over F-16 as it is very useful for ground hugging below radar DEAD missions thanks to the rocket boost you get 15km range on these GBUs at sea level, meanwhile gliding GBU need to be launched at medium altitude as a minimum to get decent range exposing the plane to ground AA or enemy figthers. Edit lastly another bonus point of Mirage 2000-5 is that they can do buddy buddy refueling, they just need to buy the centerline refueling probe. F-16 cannot do that and ukraine lacks tankers. Also a mirage is much more discreet than a large tanker.
I wonder how hard it is to produce a buddy refueling system for the F-16? Surely the US and Israel have investigated this idea in the past? I guess the problem is the F-16 doesn't use a drogue and probe system? I know refueling is going to be a huge issue for the F-16s given they will be limited to very low altitude.
@StromBugSlayer Israel relies on conformal fuel tanks to improve range. USA just sold Israel a few old tankers so Israel keeps to defending it's territory and does not go on deep strike raids to antagonize middle east regional rivals. That is how USA keeps israel on a leash. F-16, F-15, F-35 and F22 can only be refueled with a centerline boom arm from tankers. Only F-18 Super Hornet can do buddy buddy refueling.
@@Frencho9 I found a picture of an Indian F-16 with a probe fitted to its conformal tanks refueling from 2010. It's called CARTS. That's what Ukraine will need.
@StromBugSlayer India has no F-16. CARTS is a concept for probe and drogue for a brochure F16 variant proposed to india (F-21), a bid that LM lost when India chose the Dassault Rafale and Tejas MK2 instead. This concept is not past the demonstrator stage, so I would not count on it. The old F16s ukraine will receive don't even have CFTs. CARTS reminds me of the CFTs for F18 super hornet block 3, which existed as demonstrator but eventually were not deliverable because the CFT made access to critical parts maintenance too much of a hassle. Nice on paper but unpractical.
@@Alejandra-cv7rj fuel isn't an issue with an open market from the West. But crews and maintenance will be the bigger challenges, more so than defending the skies themselves.
They trained several sets of ground maintenance crews already. That was part of the delay. Spare parts have been procured, maintenance equipment delivered. Ukraine has made the flip from soviet to NATO equipment during a brutal invasion. It takes time when you are not even at war...
As one of many who have warned not to portray them as war winning wonder weapons, thinking about it they can really get 60-80 F-16's and a decent number are B/C models, that's no joke. Now if they can get enough pilots trained for that that's another question...
Yep. I was Infantry and even that takes a good couple years before you get good at it. I had one Commander (CPT) who was a helo pilot (incredible guys) and after his first training exercise with us told the unit how much more complicated it (Infantry) was than he had thought.
Pilots do NOT MATTER. What matters is th ground crew, the maintainers and armorers. Matter more because they make it so you have airframes available for missions. Then there is the logistics train that keeps it all working.
Only Greece operates both types. Pakistan operates some far older Mirage III and Mirage 5 from the 1970s and Turkey only operates American jets (and increasingly its own). In the case of Greece, it uses a slightly more advanced variant of the Mirage-2000 with a better radar, and has mostly been using them for air superiority, with a secondary role as SCALP carriers. The F-16 is used in a variety of roles, from dedicated strike aircraft, to SEAD, to air superiority with AIM-120C and IRIS-T missiles. The Rafale has recently taken over as the main air superiority fighter in the Hellenic Air Force, with its Meteor missiles.
On the other hand, the F-16 has 20 times the Grippen's presence in the world, with at least 20 times the number of different devices and weapons dozens of different nations having adapted to the F-16 in the last 45 years, with the US knowing about everyone of those weapons and devices, with it also being the largest repository of weapons. In trade-off's, you should, therefore, always go for the weapon platform giving you the most versatility.... esp. if you're Ukraine in the middle of a life and death war, where 95% of your hardware and software help is from outside....
@@kiabtoomlauj6249 Valid points but it seems that the places where they could operate from are very obvious for Russian strikes, with Grippen they could digg aircraft shelters under parts of the highway in ex. and distribute the fleet over the whole country.
@@robson668Quantity is the issue, though. If there were hundreds of Grippens being used all around the world by dozens of countries with deep inventories of a wide range of munition types, the Grippens would probably be better suited for Ukraine's purposes than the Falcons would be. But, none of that is the case. As it stands, Grippens could be used to great effect to _supplement_ the UAF, but you can't build an air force around them because there's just not enough of them out there. Besides, the more F-16s Ukraine has, the better it will be able to defend its airspace, and the better it can facilitate even more F-16s. The issue with suitable ground support elements will resolve itself over time, and thus, the advantage of the Grippen's usefulness as a bush fighter will diminish. I do agree that Ukraine should give the Grippens some serious consideration, however. It's just that, as a package deal, the F-16s are more valuable.
There are about 300 Gripens total and about 4,600 F-16s total. The nations that operate the Gripens don't have many to spare and those in assembly are already committed to the purchasing nations.
Just if the US doesn't stop it's support. That's why imo Ukraine also needs Gripen. It can take off from regular streets, can be operated with 5 men and 2 trucks, is cheaper to operate, can be moved around and could fully rely on european weapons, like the meteor missile
I think the only reason F-16 is a factor is because it is so available. The JAS-39 is better fit to austere operations but there are few spare airframe. I think F-16s will fill the gap as long as losses are manageable. JAS-39 only as they become available (C models likely) which is a smaller pool.
A reminder to all who watched and believed western news sources like this channel, Ukr and Nato+ have lost the war vs RF. You believed that RF was bad at war and was losing. You believed lies, again and again. Just like you did with Covid. So the question is, when are you all going to start gaining liberty for your mind?
I think Mirage 2000 biggest advantage is the buddy-buddy refueling capability. That can greatly increase range, mission flexibility and also aircraft dispersion as it gets less reliant on frontline bases. And (as in WWII) the biggest risk for aircraft is to be spotted and destroyed on the ground.
In both cases pilots and ground crews are the limiting factor. Ukraine doesn't have enough English speaking pilots to be trained to operate all of the Mirages available, let alone the F-16s and the idea of operating both in a reasonable time frame is completely absurd.
Most of logstics is easier than it looks if one copies the highly refined US system. PROCUREMENT is the hard part, not managing assets once available if proper tracking is maintained. That's why if a USAF jet breaks for a part while deployed one can be sourced from any base having it in stock.
If you knew sources inside the Taiwanese Air Force, they may be the best sources for you on this video. I think they're the only big operators of both F16s and Mirage 2000s, and certainly for the longest time (close to 30 years), up to the current day (however, both fighter types have been updated for TAF, including to the V standard for their old Vipers plus another 66 new-build Vs. TAF used the Mirages mostly for air interception (esp. at high altitudes), whereas the F16s do everything else.
I write before I watch: Pls also make something like that about Gripen. Imo it would be good, if Ukraine has a jet, they don't need the US for to operate it. The Gripen for example can use meteor missiles. Also the radar might not be that important, because Ukraine got multipe AWACS-like planes from Sweden, and they have a radar range around 500km, better than any fighter jet.
@@Retrosicotte Indeed, the limited operational range is offset by it's intended mission profile and it's ability to not be reliant on things like an airbase. Btw, I remember we had excercises where F-16's landed on our highways. It's not as purpose built for it as a griphen, but I think it's certainly possible to also employ the F16 in a more guerilla style warfare.
I assume that NATO is still flying AWACS around the Ukrainian border? If so, I wonder if NATO going to be supplying Ukraine with command and control and real-time targeting information?
Being French, I would think that the F16 is the obvious favorite, simply because there are thousands of these planes out there. Just like for the tanks : German Leopard 2 or US Abrams >> French Leclerc or British Challenger 2, because what is important is to be able to give a lot of them (and spare parts etc...). Opening a logistical web just for a few unique planes does seem suboptimal. On the other hand, just as France was happy to give its AMX10-RC, because they are being replaced anyway by the new Jaguar, giving the Mirage jets make sense as they are supposed to be replaced anyway by the Rafale. The only issue is that Dassault is victim of its success on the export market and despite trying to expand the factories, there is a long waiting line to buy Rafale jets, hence France is literrally weakening itself right now by giving Mirage jets early.
I know from personal experience that there are more than a few ex USMC jocks that would consider going to Ukraine.... unfortunately, the guys I know all have families and it would have to be a program of some sort, and not just buy a plane ticket to Ukraine and volunteer.
In theory, yes. But with Ukraine's limited number of pilots, and recent general manpower struggles, keeping to one air-frame simplifies things for them. Many F-16 operators are also out there, more so than the Mirage or Grippen, and with those countries replacing F-16s with either F-35s, or simply more modern F-16s like the V, it probably gives them better access to left-over parts and maybe even air frames. Somewhat similar to why they were given a good number of hand-me-down migs and such at the start, they already knew how to operate them, and even if they were in poor condition they could be used for parts If they were juggling a couple A-10s, some Grippens, Hawks, Eurofighters, it becomes much more chaotic and eventually some would just be left to rot
@@atomf9143 eurofighter isn't that much more maintenance intensive than an f-16. Like, I agree it's not ideal but none if these are. I would have loved to see a large 50-70 airframe donation of Tornados from UK/Germany a year ago. Still to maintenance intensive. Buy at the time the numbers could have been decisive.
Either%both are good options. Its down to maintenance schedules, and spares. Then amount of suitable ammunition for A2A and A2S roles. In the end I can see Ukraine run squardons of both. However, F16 better poor weather and night running capabilities make a huge difference. Specially for a Ukrainian winter of cold temperatures and long nights.
It's kind of the wrong question. It almost doesn't matter what fighter Ukraine has, as long as 1) it can fire most of the NATO ordnance, and 2) they can get an unlimited number of them. There are 4600 F-16s out there and many of their operators would be happy to be rid of them and get F-35's instead. THAT is why F-16 is the best plane. In principle I love how the Gripen was designed to fly from highways and so on, but I think the F-16's will be mostly based in other countries, and at most touch down in Ukraine to refuel and launch again. For other systems such as self-propelled artillery, Ukraine is in the sucky position of having like 5 each of 7 different models, but piloting is far more training than being an artillery crew. Just one plane across the board, use it for fighting, bombing, whatever. That's the way to go.
Good point about standardization and the challenge the Ukrainians face with armor, and so much more. AKs are so over rated its unreal and I carried one. But, the AK disassembles the same for LMGs, and what people think is a sniper rifle (PSLs that look like SVDs) but is a designated marksman rifle. The Soviet bloc only trained officers in what is about what a junior Sergeant in the US military learns. Point being, you can rapidly train up a conscript Army on the basics really fast
Probably they will have like one F16 per pilot in ukraine. The others that are a surplus will be stationed in NATO attending new pilots or a damage from the other f16
That's not happening. Most of the F16's aren't leaving where they're at until they're toast and can't fly. Spare parts has always been an issue for F16 operators. Where do you guys get these ideas that "we have unlimited this, unlimited that, unlimited the other thing"? Logistics, ammunition, expertise and spares are stretched to the max right now all over the west. What are you guys getting on about?
@@ASpyNamedJames The EuroPenises have always viewed the USA as a Welfare donor for useless parasites with unlimited funding. I exclude the former USSR slaves from that and they pull their load and I respect them, but Western EU? Maybe 10% like the Dutch have my respect
You're 100% wrong on those planes operating from other countries, as this would be a direct involvement into combat missions and that will not happen ( unless the orcs escalate to far, say biological/chemical/nuclear attacks ).
The F-16 will be used as a Multirole plane, The Mirage could definitely be used in air to air which is what it was originally designed to do. The F-16 can also do air to air.
@@forresttmYeah but Mirage was better to CAP mission. But F16 was more multirole. Greek Mirage have a kill to Turkish F16 😂. In fact their cool to use each other
I'm kind of sick of this question. If we had been asking this in 2014, I'd be up for the debate. Right now they just need something. Anything. If any of the audience members here have some mirages in their garages, feel free to donate them. Heck. Sell them even. If Ukraine can so much as park them in a threatening posture, then it will have an affect on Russia. 10 mirages and a cheap disinformation campaign saying volunteer French pilots are hiding in Ukraine ready to pounce would be more useful than nothing. The same can absolutely be said for the F-16 or the grippen or even a gift swap program for India's Mig 21s. If you've got em, give em. If you want Ukraine to win at least. To that end, simply promising you will keep sending equipment to Ukraine even if Ukraine is overrun and is reduced to opperating off of an old aircraft carrier in the Adriatic, is valid way to beat Russia. This is assuming we can back up that promise. Basically, Russia just needs to know that Ukraine is never going to run out of equipment no matter what it does. After we've established that fact and backed it up with tangible action, then we can debate about the most effecient procurement decisions long term.
It's very frustrating there's still MIGs in service in nato countries, and other haven't arranged exchanges for them. Bulgaria is in the process of getting F-16s, speed that up and get their MIGs into Ukraine
Why are you so frustrated? They won't change anything, it is just another piece of a puzzle. And sending your own pilots is a clear escalation of war. Nato wants to avoid escalating the conflict willy-nilly.
The Ukrainians are very inventive. I have been proud of how they have managed over the course of the war. The addition of mirage and f-16 to their tiny air force gives them teamed flight capabilities that they haven't had before. Even though nothing like link-16 capability, F16's paired with mirage or even their older Russian built aircraft would give them BVR parity with a similar flight of Russian aircraft. If they can build even 1/2 dozen functional squadrons, they could sequentially achieve pushback one region at a time to achieve dominance of most of their original land holdings, then secure a buffer for themselves to prevent future aggression.
Right now, at 12:25 PM, I'm in Seattle Washington watching thebBlue Angels practice for their annual show at the Seafair festival! (So this is an appropriate vid to watch as I wait for their next pass.) And it has me thinking- Has the F/A-18 a/b been considered for Ukraine? There are lot of the early/old ones being retired as F-35B replaces them in the Marine squadrons, and, as carrier aircraft, they have strengthened landing gear along with weatherproofing and general ruggedness- which makes them suitable for 'inperfect' airfields (which makes it seem, like Gripen, a good fit for the difficult demands for fighter/attack jets in Ukraine.)
@@unknownname6519 Huh... Interesting! 🤔 (I hadn't heard about that, but it kinda makes sense, especially re: availability and support infrastructure.) Was that the old A/B models? (The original Hornet was about as similar to the Super Hornet as the TU-22 was to its 'upgraded' (completely new) version.) Do you think the Hornet was really so bad vs. F-16? I suppose I can see that... (Yet, it may be more about their serviceability, trainability, supply chains, etc- and the weapons that they can carry, like SDB, JDAM, HARM, JAGM, and so on, even if they won't get escalatory game-changers like Tomahawk or JASSAM, SM-3, THAAD, etc, though that WOULD be amazing.) BTW- The Blue Angels are original Hornets, and were F'N LOUD today!! 😮👍. Cheers!
@@bholdr----0 i think the old Version.. A/B..pretty sure not the super hornet.. Well f16 ist far more common which is good for spare parts.. I also dont think that UA will get a wide range of weapons... They will stick to an core arsenal of weapons and thats it..
@@unknownname6519 the airframes in question needed their center barrels replaced, (essentially the main part of the fuselage). This would be an extremely time consuming and expensive operation which would ultimately not benefit Ukraine as these F/A-18s are also less capable than the F-16 and training pilots to fly them would be a waste of time.
If they had the Gripen and trained pilots and support personnel maybe it would be best, but the F-16 is all they have got for now. Hopefully one day they'll have some Gripens
Having both is better. The russian commandstructure is already pressed hard to keep up, having both planes, means their mission planning gets more complicated, putting more presure on a already soft area.
The problem with this is how much bang for your buck are you getting for just a few planes? Like, sure, in an ideal world more capability is better but differing systems are going to put additional strain on Ukraine's logistics, repair and resupply infrastructure. Though both can load the SCALP/Storm Shadow, so if nothing else you can use the limited Mirage fleet for delivery of those and the f16s for sead and air support missions. UK and Germany should have given them 50 tornados 18 months ago. We aren't using them and we have enough retired systems for spare parts. Uk already phased out and Germany is getting there. Modern f16s are better, don't get me wrong. But quantity and immediacy would have been decisive earlier in the war.
@@jonofpdx its pretty obvios i think, that Ukraine shoild try to keep their pilots and personal alive, i think they will get as meny planes as they can fly. But that is something we are going to have to wait and see. Ukraine have bin targeting russian air defence sigts for 2 months now, to me that looks like they plan on using the big mountain of gliding bombs they got. seems nato is outfacing a gliding bom, that we have big stores filled with. Not as big as the russian glide bombs, but propperly more on target. Also seems Ukraine are getting radar and messiles for their planes that are above russian standarts, And Ukraine dont get a few planes, they are getting close to 200 f-16. Holland, norway and Denmark alone have dedicated more than 50, because we alreadu have baught thge f-35. Near 200 F-16 are being packed. The bottelneck is the pilots and servise crews.
Thank you for presenting this. I've had so many arguments with people that think the planes are the best thing since sliced cheese. I kept saying it's NOT about the planes but the radars and missiles they come with. Older F16s don't solve much of Ukraine's problems unless they have the right upgrade standards. What Block are they getting, what missiles, and can the pilots truly do the missions with so little experience, not just in the planes but with NATO tactics.
They're both way better than everything Ukraine has now and the cost for either isn't a factor. The most important part is both easily interface with modern NATO weapon systems (most importantly HARM) that Ukraine either are going to get or already have. Honestly, the best choice for Ukraine is the Gripen....and it's sounding like they may be getting those as well.
Doesn’t matter, the abrams casualties showed that no matter how good a weapon is it Will only make a difference if it is used the right way, ukraine sent a abrams to the frontlines with zero infantry/air support and we saw how that went.
Danish f-16s have a good defensive suit, made by themselves that they integrated under the wing’s pilons as pods. But without that, the Mirage has a better defensive suit. However, there has been talks in France about what the Mirages to be sent to Ukraine could look like, and it is possible other capabilities and modernisation could be implemented. In effect they could be like 2000-9, a single engine baby Rafale.
Sure would be nice if Ukraine had 200 airframes of both platforms by now, that way we would have real data for this topic and Ukraine could properly control its own airspace.
@@silverletter4551 They're being used for air defence to stop the Russian bombardment of Ukrainian civilians. The frontline is covered with SAMs so it's unlikely they'll be used in offensive operations
The Gripen is the Plane that is best for Ukraine. made for roughf runways, freeways, under over pass and more quick turn around. ground maintence is made easy agin for quick turn around. Its is fully updated with all Nato mutations.
In reality the "which is better" question is a lot more simple than plane stats and I wish you had focused more on it: it's going to be determined mostly by logistics, servicing and training pipeline limitations. The more parts, fuel, armaments, ground personnel, maintainers and training capacity that is available, as well as the number of platforms overall, the more effective the airframe is going to be, regardless of it's stats. In fact that will have *by far* the biggest impact such that the other factors do not really even matter . It's also a relatively easy one to answer: there is *far more* capacity for supporting the F-16 because of the sheer numbers of the thing, so enabling that is just a matter of political will. It's so clear that the better question is whether it's actually worth trying to adopt the M2k at all because that is going to take up valuable personnel and complicate already hellish logistics even further, so it may not even be worth it to have the jet in inventory, but that one is a lot closer and we don't know how much support France is willing to supply in terms of personnel, so it's harder to say
according to Zelensky himself, they need at least 128 F-16s to make any noticable impact; I doubt there will be that many ready for combat anytime soon, not to mention 2x that many pilots.
Huge problem is that where are the pilots, maintenance crews are all the sudden coming from. Normally training a pilot to use fighter takes about 6 years. Just training someone to fly those might go faster but using so complicated weapon system is whole different thing.
There is an adequate supply of trained pilots and maintenance crews for both these planes. The issue, like the entire Ukraine war, is that NATO focuses on escalation risk. Prior to USA entry in WW2, Americans were flying against Germans by joining the RAF and Japanese by flying for China. Russians flew in Korea and Vietnam and Israel (post 6 day war). Mercenaries have a long and mixed history in warfare. Its just for some reason today draftees are acceptable but not western mercenaries in this conflict.
neither nor, Gripen would be the best way to go.... and it´s by far the newes, most capable and robust system. Especially, when it comes to smal numbers: easy to hide and having the greatest capabilities and the biggest punsh.
Mirage 2000 is the obvious choice but it lack numbers so the F-16 is necessary and Ukraine will get both anyway, Mirage 2000 should be sued for interception and bombing while F-16 should be used in closer combat against Russians aircrafts.
Vipers for strike missions and Wild Weasel missions as the Mirage 2000s provide top cover and are used as bait for the WWs. This will take another year or two to get going but could be really effective for Ukraine in the future. Dang, If Ukraine could get a couple hundred fighters going forward including updating the F16s to at least Block 52 (Block 70?) and any attained Mirages to -5/9, they would really have a solid Air Force.
@@TheSmeikindependent country would be able to win this war with strong positions when Russia proposed peace on favorable terms for Ukraine. But somehow this independent country was forced by NATO to continue war to the last Ukrainian. And now we have this situation. So much for being independent.
@@MrZlocktar Russia proposed peace on favorable terms for Ukraine? What alternate universe do you live in? And no, Ukraine was not forced by anyone else than Russia to continue the war, since it is Russia that is attacking Ukraine.
@@AlexKall In my universe Russia proposed peace trough which Ukraine would be able to restore control of Donbass region with Russia's help, and would be able to rent Crimea later. Russia wasn't planning to take any new territory before March 28 2022 All Ukraine had to do was to decrease military and to officially declare that they are neutral country as buffer zone between NATO and Russia without significant military power. Ukraine was allowed to join EU and Russia was supposed to help them with that by making sure that country is no longer at a war state. Then Boris Jonson and other foreign actors came in and forced Ukraine to stop negotiations with Russia and said that they should keep fighting to the last Ukrainian. Now Russia is going to take every pro-Russia region because they are at war with NATO and there is no reason to hold back as Putin recently said. There was a chance for favorable peace for Ukraine. But it's gone.
A few notes on missile performance: A comprehensive guide would take an entire book. The part where Binkov said "100km is probably only at sea level" is a bit misleading. Missiles have much shorter range at low altitude due to increased air density and, therefore, drag. The rule of thumb being max range is against a "cooperative target" at 30,000ft. This range is halved at 20,000ft, with around 25% maximum range at 10,000ft. A cooperative target is one that flies straight at you. Which nobody would do if they wanted to stay alive. Standard procedure for defeating a missile is to decrease altitude whilst flying (as fast as possible) at a 90° angle to it. This bleeds it of energy as it has to turn to gain a lead, whilst being pulled down to denser air. The AMRAAM graphs that Binkov referenced are for the aforementioned "cooperative target" that flies directly at the firing at low altitude, whilst the firing aircraft fires from high altitude. In this situation a missile will be able to "coast" (when out of fuel) down onto the target from altitude. Imagine throwing a rock from a second storey building. You might be able to hit the building 75m away, but you won't be able to hit the second storey window as the rock will have fallen. A target moving perpendicular to the missile halves the range (at the same altitude) of a missile. A target moving away drops it down to below 25% (depending on speed). Anyway... take "maximum range" with a grain of salt. They are under ideal conditions which war never is. Same with rate of climb, radar detection ranges, maximum speed and altitude figures. All of these figures are of "clean" aircraft carrying no weapons. And a clean fighter jet is nothing more than a one-man airliner, and roughly as useful in a war zone.
It's a lot more due to a lack of investment in the defense. Dassault could technically increase the scale of production for a large command of Rafale. The governement is simply not willing to do it because there is no immediate need for it.
Mirage 2000 is a very good platform but for the few aircraft that France will offer it is not even worth starting to train pilots and establish a logistical scale. The F-16 can be supplied in several hundred copies. Ukraine already struggles with 15 different models of assault rifles, 10 different types of battle tanks and 10 different types of infantry transport vehicles and fighter jets are much more complicated to operate than a ground combat vehicle.
I read an article, in a fairly reputable source, well over a year ago, that ukrainian pilots were in france, training on the mirage. this was even before ukraine was confirmed to be trained on the f16.... it was just a rumor, but that would be ideal if ukrainians were already trained on the mirage.
The war is already lost. These should have been delivered a year ago. Sure maybe Ukraine can get enough pilots to fly these, but they no longer have the numbers to press the advantage during the time window when Ukraine can keep partial air superiority before Russia destroys their numbers.
The writings on the wall at this point, Ukraine never had the men or materials necessary to actually win this war, and are quickly approaching a point where just hanging on is becoming less and less strategically viable. This is exactly why several heavily fortified areas on the front that had held all this time are suddenly breaking all at once, and Ukraine doesn't have enough lines of defense behind them to do much about it...
You do realize we are in the conventional war stage right? No, Ukraine has not lost in any shape or form and in the highly unlikely case Russia takes over it would devolve into a very deadly insurgency.
11:08 Yes, both the Dutch and Belgium F-16's are fitted with them. I found images of J-008 and J-020, both RNLAF 312 squadron, flying with the an/alq-162(v)6 and a video, named "Frisian Flag 2023 - Mass Launch from Inside Leeuwarden Air Base", which shows Belgium F-16's with this system.
Define me a win... Russia is not controlling a single of the four territories it "annexed", lost couple hundred thousand men, same number is crippled. Ran through 60%+ of usable vehicle storage, which took 70 years to build. Isolated itself from civilized world even more than before, seen worst budget balances since Russia became Russia, regime lost credibility among its peoples,... Even if the war ended tommorow with Ukraine surrendering the four oblasts and Zelenskyy was replaced with Yanukovich-style puppet(could't be Yanukovich himself anymore), it wouldn't even be pyrrhic victory, but a poorly veiled loss.
You didn’t cover an important difference. The fragile landing gear and low slung intake of the Viper mean that it’s a much more finicky beast when it comes to air field requirements, and that’s not even taking into account the reserve power units odd requirements. The Mirage is much more capable of operating off austere air strips, like cleared stretches of highway, but the F-16 need pristine airfields with very thorough foreign object sweeps.
@@tedarcher9120The F-16 Block 70/72 is still in production for export customers, it’s still useful for defending friendly air space with the support of ground based air defence and radar systems. The F-35 is useful for penetrating enemy air space where enemy air defence and radar systems have to be avoided, e.g., the recent IDF precision strike on Tehran.
It would be interesting to see some advanced weapon development using Ukraines F-16s as the launch platform, think AIM-260, MAKO etc Much cheaper then conventional testing 🤔
Copium of you two is reached level: infinite 😂 It's like someone would say that Canada stands a chance aginst US (just for comparison purpose i use those two)
@jeromeportier4914 agree, but the Gripen is the easiest to maintain , apparently the ground crew can be a mobile unit, so they can launch and land from highways if needed. Maybe I'm wrong but I think the Gripen is better than anything Russia has atm.
@@phil3038 It may or may not be easier to maintain than other planes, I don’t know. Many other planes can take off from and land on a road. I’m not sure the Gripen is massively different in that respect. It’s a great multi-role fighter. But it’s not necessarily better than its Russian counterparts. Does it fight BVR better than a Su-30? Does it dogfight better than Mig-29? Not necessarily…
If politics wasn't an issue (They're not going to say no to America offering F16s), I'd say the SAAB Gripen would fit. Low operating costs and easy for crews to quickly refuel and rearm, using roads as runways.
Not really sure it’s going to be an air to air battle. Better to look at the standoff launching of various ordnance like laser guided (via drone or soldier) or cruise missiles. And HARM especially.
🇫🇷 has announced the AASM rocket propelled bombs will also be integrated to 🇺🇦 F-16 in a joint statement. Mirage 2000 biggest advantage is the buddy-to-buddy refueling capabilities, which early F-16 only being refueled using the less convenient boom-and-stick refueling method relying on large tankers. In flight refueling greatly increases range, mission flexibility and aircraft dispersion. Because as of now, the biggest risk to fighters is when they are on the ground (due to drones and missile attacks).
So, the F-16 is the better option for 1 key reason. Numbers. There have been 4600 built versus 600. 24 countries operate F-16s versus just 7 for the Mirage. What that means is the availability of parts, platforms, and weapons systems is better and more diverse, meaning that if one country uses missile type A but runs low, another country can send missile type B and so on. This war is a numbers game at this point.
If you do another comparison, it might be worth mentioning the logistical tail of each jet. I remember one comparison of f16 and gripen mentioned how the gripen was slightly easier to maintain and was less picky about runways to take off from. Something about the F16s intakes being more prone to sucking in detritus.
We know more from released Ukrainian materials. Ukrainian F-16 received newer radar, newer helmets with screens, pylon mounted pods with flares, targeting sensors, chaff and warning sensors.
Both are very capable. Mirage 2000-5 are actually used by French specialist of CAP ( Combat Air Patrol ) The Mirage can land and take off on improved base or Highway, too risky for F16. But i think F16 was better to Bombing mission. Mirage can carry Meteor ou MICA IR/ER ( and MAGIC ) air to Air missile. They Can carry the SCALP 300km Air to Ground Missile. And all generation of Exocet Air to Sea missile ( but the Black Sea Fleat was deep in Azov sea 😂 ) Maybe Mirage 2000-5 can protect the West of Ukraine of Russian Missile or drone for use more Patriot / S300 / Mamba near frontline.
The fact that there are many other NATO countries that also possess the armament, replacement parts, and operating systems, allows them to be repaired easier and more often. Another factor is that being trained for the F=16, they can fly many other F-16 jets from other countries, whereas the only ones trained on the Mirage has to have them in their arsenal. Like how the Russians jets like the MIG - 29 were easier to get parts from other countries, when they aren't available from Russia itself.
F-16 A/B NLU is equivalent to F-16C Block 50. Meaning F-16 is capable of carrying most, if not all NATO munitions, due to Link16 data bus. Including HMQS and AIM-9X Block I/II. Mirage 2000-5 can carry Sniper and SniperXR targeting pod, as can F-16. F-16 is better for Ukraine, as F-16 is standard NATO fighter. However both should be given to Ukraine. 404 Russians
Thanks for your interesting and well-documented presentation. Talking about the Mirage 2000 family, you mixed up pics or videos of Mirages 2000-5Fs, which are essentially interceptors, twin-seater Mirage 2000Bs, essentially instructional aircraft (they both have the same gray and pale blue livery) and twin-seater Mirages 2000D, specilized in low-altitude air-to-ground strikes, and absolutely not as interceptors. Their livery is our version the NATO central Europe camo (dark green and gray). As far as I know, the only Mirages that could possibly be sent to Ukraine would be Mirages 2000-5Fs and not 2000Ds, unfortunately Our 2000Ds have recently been modernized with a new radar, a new glass cockpit, new pods, includind a 30mm gun pod. My opinion is that they would be formidable in Ukraine. Picture: a French Mirage 2000D fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_2000#/media/Fichier:Mirage2000Dardennes.jpg
Get the Binkov plushie here: crowdmade.com/collections/binkovsbattlegrounds/products/binkovs-battlegrounds-plush
What is best for Ukraine? Accept the peace agreement and hold new elections
Unless someone pulls some unexpected integration here, I don't see any solution for the glide bombers - the biggest front-line threat - from either of these planes. They drop their bombs 35-50km from the front, at high altitude and speed. These planes would be approaching low and have to maintain some distance from the front. AMRAAM performance from low altitude to high just isn't sufficient. Meteor would be perfect for the role, but at least as far as what's publicly known, nobody's offering it and nothing Ukraine is getting can carry it.
Gripen can, but... *sigh*.
There's the other problem in that flying low guzzles fuel an order of magnitude faster than flying high. Meaning having to fuel in eastern Ukraine. But Russian long-range surveiliance drones have been monitoring Ukrainian airfields in the east, and spotting for ballistic missile strikes against Ukrainian planes.
Excellent report Mr. Binkov.
I suppose the Saab Gripen is likely the best option.
I say this as an American with Great Affection for the F 16.
Can you look and explain to us the vulnerability on the ground? That is my greatest concern, since the planes will be on the ground most of the time, and the theater is within reach by missiles and drones.
So basically they are a good addition to each other.
@@cg986
A squadron of Mirage (witch is the number announced if I remember well), can be a perfect interception alert asset. That's how Mirages are still used today in France. And Mirages are part of the France's assets in the NATO deployment in the baltic.
Sky police alert is what the Mirage had been designed for. With a squad, and regarding the relatively low aerial activity, a squad in alert to cover the territory is a good complement to the main F16 fleet, freeing planes and pilots for the other missions.
As bonus, the Mirage got a very nice low terrain following radar, this give the plane a very good ability for low altitude raids. (Need to be confirmed, I know for sure that recon and CAS variants got this radars, I assume the 5 variant have it, but didn't checked.)
And just as a note, this were announced for the end of this year, and France always delivered in time and even before announcements. I also hope that Dassault, Thales and other companies engineer are working hard to upgrades systems softwares with all the datas collected along the war, but it wouldn't surprise me, question of standing and commercial credibility for this companies.
The best fighters are the ones that they actually possess and have the pilots, munitions, and maintenance infrastructure to leverage them.
Facts
I don't think that giving them fighters is the solution. Those western fighters were designed for western tactics. It takes a lot of resources to keep them in the air and it seems like those manpower and logistical resources would be better put toward air defense and land attack missiles. They have leveraged the Bradley way more than the Abrahms because it is better suited to the eastern european style of fighting. You are not doing hit and run attacks with an M-1 in muddy conditions. M-1s are great at large setpiece battles with the proper support while Bradleys can operate in the scout role. You can't teach a new battle doctrine overnight while fighting a war using the existing doctrine.
@@longshot7601 Just stop. "It's a Wweeeestern thing, so perhaps the Ukrainians shouldn't be confused with those (insert tanks, drones, missile systems etc)".
That attitude has delayed the support more than long enough already. Had Europe's countries just adopted the same 'we'll get it to work'-mentality as shown time and time again on the Ukrainian side, this war would been long over.
Here is the reality:
* SAMs can only cover a limited area, takes a lot longer than aircraft to redeploy and above all, they are not available in anywhere near sufficient numbers.
* Ukraine needs aircraft for drone-hunting, but they are running out of aircraft they had in short supply already before the invasion.
* Any aircraft is a heck of a lot better than no aircraft. If those F-16s, Mirages and Gripens are what is available, that is what they will use.
* The proper time to equip Ukraine is yesteryear, not tomorrow.
You are thinking in the big, peaceful, powerful industrial nation frame of reference here. To already bring a benefit, the F-16s in Ukraine don't even need to fire a single missile. Just the knowledge that F-16s are covering a certain section of the front line is enough to give Russia Air Force pause on how close they want to fly their Su planes for dropping the multi-ton glide bombs. It might just take a few flight hours and maybe 10 missiles of which 8 hit their targets to force a complete change in current air doctrine of the Russian side. These 1,5 and 3 ton glide bombs are horrible things, especially when used against populated areas. The soldiers in trenches will feel so much relief just knowing the F-16 is in the air to deal with the bombing runs.
indeed, and that could be just about anything, as long as its something....
Despite the F-16's old age, it still looks so modern. Such a beautiful aircraft
It's pretty modernized, too bad they don't have the newer AESA radars tho, that could make a difference imo but Ok, these are very decent jets & also, western training & tactics are undoubtly better than russia has. The biggest challenge is keeping those jets safe on the ground. What I like most about F16 is that they're so versatile, it opens pandora's box with dozens of missiles that become compatible, some of those very effective like HArm-er, Jassm(ER), Lrasm, SDU bombs (gliding bombs which each F165 can carry 8 of). I thought a bunch of Jassm was already bogut for Ukraine. It only matters they're getting a continual flow of these bombs/missiles. Time they provide TAurus too.
It really is a sexy plane. Other than the massive intake, but then again it does have that sort of American Hot Rod appeal with a big ol blower coming out of your hood.
The Mirage 2000 made its first flight only 4 years after the F-16's and was put into service only 6 years after the F-16 was.
When I started following this channel it was all about theoretical wars...how times have changed.
Still his analysis goes wrong 😂
"Hypothetical"
(Pedantic, sorry. I'll see myself out..)
In Greece we use both of them. From pilots interviews we know that Mirage is much much more easy to use and learn than F-16.
In the few red flag exercices where they participated, Mirage have often had the edge over the F-16...
Yes but…. Mirage 2000 is an interceptor designed for air superiority missions. It is still today used by France for this. If you want to do bombing and ground support f16 will outpace mirage. F16 is good for a multirole usage.
So Ukraine may use both for air superiority then dedicate F16 as wild weasel (SEAD air defense suppression) and then move to close air support (CAS).
@@vinceal6883 There exists ground attack version of the Mirage 2000... The 2000 D is more done for ground attack... and the interceptors last variants are 2000-5 and 2000-9... There was even a version to launch the ASMP (nuke) : 2000-N.
@@vinceal6883 It is technically possible to upgrade the Mirage 2000-5 as 2000-9 like, so adding air-to-ground capacities
@@vinceal6883 Ukraine definitely isn't gonna do air raids or CAS anytime soon. They don't need a multirole fighter, only an interceptor.
as a Chinese, I can say we were very afraid of Taiwan's Mirage 2000s until the J-20. still its formidable.
The Mirage 2000 is still an okay plane, but it’s getting outdated. Especially compared to 4.5 gen fighters (Eurofighter, Rafale, F-15EX etc) and 5th gen (F-35, J-20 etc).
There's no reason to be afraid of Taiwan, they just want peace
@@goprojoe7449 mistranslation. Taiwan actually said they want Peas (thats plural)
@@nimaiiikun I doubt that's an issue in Mandarin
Why be afraid? I don't think Taiwan has any plans of ever invading China, I have the impression they just want to be allowed to carry on as they have for 75 years.
My guess for these 2 platforms is that:
-> Both will be used to take out cruise missiles / Shahed drones
-> F-16s will be used for most of front line Air-to-Ground support missions (w/ stand-off weapons) & SEAD/DEAD missions (using HARMs)
-> Mirage 2000s will be used for deep strike (using SCALP/Storm Shadow) & provide "some limited" air-to-ground support as well w/ Hammer kits. If they also get Exocet missiles, they may be used for some limited strikes against the Black Sea fleet (although most of those ships have moved to the eastern edge of the Black Sea by this point)
-> Ukraine will still need more jets in quantity to build up their forces and to provide mass to turn the tide in the air & would REALLY benefit from Gripens to help with distributed operations so that they can locate the F-16s & MIrages deeper in the rear away from Ruzzian attacks...
One of the better takes in these comments.
I was thinking the same listening to the video. F-16s would be better suited to engage air to air targets and provide an anti armor/troop support. The Mirages would fight in a more standoff role against ground and naval targets.
i don't even need to watch the video, that's exactly how they should be used, the Mirage 2000 is also used has a sweep aircraft in the FAF, the MICA is limited but pretty good, he would probably take the lead if Ukraine decide to make a heavy aeriel raid (i higly doubt it but i think he could be used like that). But i may be wrong because Ukrainian pilotes arn't experimented as the french
@@user-pf3gd1zd2i, the situation with the SU-24s is becoming critical and it's the only aircraft capable of deploying the SCALPs/Storm Shadows currently.
I personally think that France is looking to provide these aircraft because they recognize this situation too...
My thoughts are that they will probably just use the F-16s and Mirage as anti-missile planes for the most part. The thing is since they have them doing that other assets are freed up. One example would be any surviving legacy soviet equipment could be used far more aggressively as they now have platforms that can take the strain if they are shot down. Another possibility is that they could pulling off more SAM ambushes with the patriots again.
French Mirage 2000-5 is meant for air superiority with 6 MICA missiles and up to 3 drop tanks. RDY radar con fully exploit MICA EM range of 80km, so the estimates around 90km detection rate for RDY radar sound good. As far as I know French Mirage 2000-5 don't have Hammer/AASM rocket boosted GBU, SCALP cruise missile or Exocet anti ship missile integration. Only Greek or Taiwanese ones as France relies on two seater mirage 2000D for ground strikes thus they did not go for a multi role 2000-5 like the export variants. UAE 2000-9 are even more modern and fully multirole with recon suite and EW suite based on early Rafale Spectra protos and RDY-3 radar. My guess is that Ukraine will use French Mirage 2000-5 for air combat only. Unless they spend extra time and ressources integrating air to ground weapons and bringing the french mirages 2000-5 to greek or taiwanese standards to be multirole. Rocket boosted Hammer/AASM would be a compartive advantage over F-16 as it is very useful for ground hugging below radar DEAD missions thanks to the rocket boost you get 15km range on these GBUs at sea level, meanwhile gliding GBU need to be launched at medium altitude as a minimum to get decent range exposing the plane to ground AA or enemy figthers. Edit lastly another bonus point of Mirage 2000-5 is that they can do buddy buddy refueling, they just need to buy the centerline refueling probe. F-16 cannot do that and ukraine lacks tankers. Also a mirage is much more discreet than a large tanker.
Too difficult to maintain. Logistical nightmare. Very few maintenance personnel in France who can keep up. F-16 is a smart choice.
I wonder how hard it is to produce a buddy refueling system for the F-16? Surely the US and Israel have investigated this idea in the past? I guess the problem is the F-16 doesn't use a drogue and probe system? I know refueling is going to be a huge issue for the F-16s given they will be limited to very low altitude.
@StromBugSlayer Israel relies on conformal fuel tanks to improve range. USA just sold Israel a few old tankers so Israel keeps to defending it's territory and does not go on deep strike raids to antagonize middle east regional rivals. That is how USA keeps israel on a leash. F-16, F-15, F-35 and F22 can only be refueled with a centerline boom arm from tankers. Only F-18 Super Hornet can do buddy buddy refueling.
@@Frencho9 I found a picture of an Indian F-16 with a probe fitted to its conformal tanks refueling from 2010. It's called CARTS. That's what Ukraine will need.
@StromBugSlayer India has no F-16. CARTS is a concept for probe and drogue for a brochure F16 variant proposed to india (F-21), a bid that LM lost when India chose the Dassault Rafale and Tejas MK2 instead. This concept is not past the demonstrator stage, so I would not count on it. The old F16s ukraine will receive don't even have CFTs. CARTS reminds me of the CFTs for F18 super hornet block 3, which existed as demonstrator but eventually were not deliverable because the CFT made access to critical parts maintenance too much of a hassle. Nice on paper but unpractical.
Whichever gets delivered first.
That's F-16; they were already spotted in Ukrainian skies.
@@TheCrazyFinn 15 million their rubles bounty for another game changer (about $200K)
I mainly worry that Ukraine won't have the crew to give those planes proper maintenance. Jet fuel will also be a big issue.
@@Alejandra-cv7rj fuel isn't an issue with an open market from the West. But crews and maintenance will be the bigger challenges, more so than defending the skies themselves.
They trained several sets of ground maintenance crews already. That was part of the delay. Spare parts have been procured, maintenance equipment delivered. Ukraine has made the flip from soviet to NATO equipment during a brutal invasion.
It takes time when you are not even at war...
As one of many who have warned not to portray them as war winning wonder weapons, thinking about it they can really get 60-80 F-16's and a decent number are B/C models, that's no joke. Now if they can get enough pilots trained for that that's another question...
America has alot of f15 and 16 in storage, how quickly they can reenable these is yet to be seen
they’ll be piloted and maintained by foreign “volunteers”
thats what the year long delay has been about, a massive intensive training regime
Yep. I was Infantry and even that takes a good couple years before you get good at it. I had one Commander (CPT) who was a helo pilot (incredible guys) and after his first training exercise with us told the unit how much more complicated it (Infantry) was than he had thought.
Pilots do NOT MATTER. What matters is th ground crew, the maintainers and armorers. Matter more because they make it so you have airframes available for missions. Then there is the logistics train that keeps it all working.
I am surprised there was no discussion of tactics used by Greece, Turkey and Pakistan who all operate both types.
Only Greece operates both types. Pakistan operates some far older Mirage III and Mirage 5 from the 1970s and Turkey only operates American jets (and increasingly its own).
In the case of Greece, it uses a slightly more advanced variant of the Mirage-2000 with a better radar, and has mostly been using them for air superiority, with a secondary role as SCALP carriers. The F-16 is used in a variety of roles, from dedicated strike aircraft, to SEAD, to air superiority with AIM-120C and IRIS-T missiles. The Rafale has recently taken over as the main air superiority fighter in the Hellenic Air Force, with its Meteor missiles.
TAF arent operate MLU types. TAF Operates block30 40 50. They are have ge f110 129 which is stronger engine than pw f100. Ukrainian f16s have f100
No, only greeks
Greeks and Taïwan use the two types ...
@@jeremypintsize7606 And the UAE, though it uses the more advanced F-16E/F block 60.
Ideally the Saab Grippen for it's ability to take off from rough improvised air strips and it's limited ground crew requirements.
On the other hand, the F-16 has 20 times the Grippen's presence in the world, with at least 20 times the number of different devices and weapons dozens of different nations having adapted to the F-16 in the last 45 years, with the US knowing about everyone of those weapons and devices, with it also being the largest repository of weapons.
In trade-off's, you should, therefore, always go for the weapon platform giving you the most versatility.... esp. if you're Ukraine in the middle of a life and death war, where 95% of your hardware and software help is from outside....
Its also nato compatible and its hud/detection systems are much better than the migs for example
@@kiabtoomlauj6249 Valid points but it seems that the places where they could operate from are very obvious for Russian strikes, with Grippen they could digg aircraft shelters under parts of the highway in ex. and distribute the fleet over the whole country.
@@robson668Quantity is the issue, though.
If there were hundreds of Grippens being used all around the world by dozens of countries with deep inventories of a wide range of munition types, the Grippens would probably be better suited for Ukraine's purposes than the Falcons would be. But, none of that is the case. As it stands, Grippens could be used to great effect to _supplement_ the UAF, but you can't build an air force around them because there's just not enough of them out there.
Besides, the more F-16s Ukraine has, the better it will be able to defend its airspace, and the better it can facilitate even more F-16s. The issue with suitable ground support elements will resolve itself over time, and thus, the advantage of the Grippen's usefulness as a bush fighter will diminish.
I do agree that Ukraine should give the Grippens some serious consideration, however. It's just that, as a package deal, the F-16s are more valuable.
There are about 300 Gripens total and about 4,600 F-16s total. The nations that operate the Gripens don't have many to spare and those in assembly are already committed to the purchasing nations.
Mirage jets are good ! I am a big fan .
Which is better? The one that gets delivered and makes a difference.
There is no difference. They aren't getting the territory of 1991 back
@@silverletter4551yup zelensky started to accept russian conditions because west failed to deliver what was neded to keep the Frontline defended... 😢
It won't make any difference whatsoever.
@@peterpanini96 - the West gave support, but it's unrealistic to expect to fight a war with just foreign aid alone.
@@TheBigExclusivethe help was way to low for that kind of war...
Best? Which ever has fewest restrictions and let Ukraine do what they want
Probably Mirage then.
F-16 will be pull out from the front line after a couple of it get shot down like Abrams and Challanger
Probably the F-16.
@@Supertobias7 the US ? the same ones that limited the use of their weapons in Russia ? lmao
The f16 works better with the American munitions so I believe it would be better for Ukraine (commented before watching)
Just if the US doesn't stop it's support. That's why imo Ukraine also needs Gripen. It can take off from regular streets, can be operated with 5 men and 2 trucks, is cheaper to operate, can be moved around and could fully rely on european weapons, like the meteor missile
@leonnunhofer3453 while gripen would be cool, Ukrainian maintainers are already stressed as is… managing so many air platforms of varying ages.
France is only offering a handful of Mirage 2000-5 jets. It's not even worth the effort.
I think the only reason F-16 is a factor is because it is so available. The JAS-39 is better fit to austere operations but there are few spare airframe. I think F-16s will fill the gap as long as losses are manageable. JAS-39 only as they become available (C models likely) which is a smaller pool.
I'm pretty sure all NATO weaponry is compatible with everyone's platforms.
4:19 the mirage can carry ARH micas on all 6 pylons
9:58 the mirage 2000 has the DDM-2000 missile approach warning sensor
A reminder to all who watched and believed western news sources like this channel, Ukr and Nato+ have lost the war vs RF. You believed that RF was bad at war and was losing. You believed lies, again and again. Just like you did with Covid.
So the question is, when are you all going to start gaining liberty for your mind?
Are you talking about the older variants he is describing?
@@elijah_9392 the Mirage 2000 have a MAW from the C variants, so yes, the Mirages that Ukraine will get will also have a Missile Approach Warning
@@Alex_Fikota
Thank you for explaining. That is cool.
I think Mirage 2000 biggest advantage is the buddy-buddy refueling capability. That can greatly increase range, mission flexibility and also aircraft dispersion as it gets less reliant on frontline bases. And (as in WWII) the biggest risk for aircraft is to be spotted and destroyed on the ground.
Whichever they can get more of + proper long term support for it
@@ommsterlitz1805 if they're in close combat against russian aircraft something has gone very wrong and everyone is about to die to IADS.
Long term support is one thing they won't need.
In both cases pilots and ground crews are the limiting factor. Ukraine doesn't have enough English speaking pilots to be trained to operate all of the Mirages available, let alone the F-16s and the idea of operating both in a reasonable time frame is completely absurd.
F-18s should be the first choice then as there are 200 being replaced by F-35s
@@michalandrejmolnar3715UA refused to use australian f18.. They said that the f18 are just junk
It’s all about availability. What is ready right now..
Not just that but what can be reused without a crippling amount of logistic required.
Exactly!
I'm tired of "promises" I want to see REAL jets I'm Ukraine NOW, not "promised" imaginary jets.
As Perun often brings up, I feel for anyone involved with Ukrainian logistics.
Most of logstics is easier than it looks if one copies the highly refined US system. PROCUREMENT is the hard part, not managing assets once available if proper tracking is maintained. That's why if a USAF jet breaks for a part while deployed one can be sourced from any base having it in stock.
If you knew sources inside the Taiwanese Air Force, they may be the best sources for you on this video. I think they're the only big operators of both F16s and Mirage 2000s, and certainly for the longest time (close to 30 years), up to the current day (however, both fighter types have been updated for TAF, including to the V standard for their old Vipers plus another 66 new-build Vs. TAF used the Mirages mostly for air interception (esp. at high altitudes), whereas the F16s do everything else.
Despite being an older model, the F-16 remains impressive. A very beautiful aircraft!
I write before I watch:
Pls also make something like that about Gripen. Imo it would be good, if Ukraine has a jet, they don't need the US for to operate it. The Gripen for example can use meteor missiles.
Also the radar might not be that important, because Ukraine got multipe AWACS-like planes from Sweden, and they have a radar range around 500km, better than any fighter jet.
Sweden sells the Gripen which I LOVE, but the F-16s are essentially free and may end up where they're totally free.
It is unlikely they'll be given Meteor, given its the most bleeding edge A2A weapon in the world right now.
Problem with Gripen is the operational range is so short, they may have to base out of areas vulnerable to drone and cruise missile attack.
@@pilferedserenity1570 Gripen's range is just fine for needs there even from the very border if needs be.
@@Retrosicotte Indeed, the limited operational range is offset by it's intended mission profile and it's ability to not be reliant on things like an airbase.
Btw, I remember we had excercises where F-16's landed on our highways. It's not as purpose built for it as a griphen, but I think it's certainly possible to also employ the F16 in a more guerilla style warfare.
I assume that NATO is still flying AWACS around the Ukrainian border? If so, I wonder if NATO going to be supplying Ukraine with command and control and real-time targeting information?
Do you mean, will NATO _continue_ to supply this intel?
Ans: Yes.
Being French, I would think that the F16 is the obvious favorite, simply because there are thousands of these planes out there.
Just like for the tanks : German Leopard 2 or US Abrams >> French Leclerc or British Challenger 2, because what is important is to be able to give a lot of them (and spare parts etc...).
Opening a logistical web just for a few unique planes does seem suboptimal.
On the other hand, just as France was happy to give its AMX10-RC, because they are being replaced anyway by the new Jaguar, giving the Mirage jets make sense as they are supposed to be replaced anyway by the Rafale.
The only issue is that Dassault is victim of its success on the export market and despite trying to expand the factories, there is a long waiting line to buy Rafale jets, hence France is literrally weakening itself right now by giving Mirage jets early.
F16s. There are thousands of airframes and spares available. Also, there is a much larger pool ot possible merc pilots.
They just aren’t in Ukraine…
I know from personal experience that there are more than a few ex USMC jocks that would consider going to Ukraine.... unfortunately, the guys I know all have families and it would have to be a program of some sort, and not just buy a plane ticket to Ukraine and volunteer.
You don't mention the use of the planes for cruise missiles and large drones interception.
That could be a very useful and (almost) risk free mission
Not very cost effective for drones.
Wouldn't this be a both..both is good meme thing?
In theory, yes. But with Ukraine's limited number of pilots, and recent general manpower struggles, keeping to one air-frame simplifies things for them. Many F-16 operators are also out there, more so than the Mirage or Grippen, and with those countries replacing F-16s with either F-35s, or simply more modern F-16s like the V, it probably gives them better access to left-over parts and maybe even air frames.
Somewhat similar to why they were given a good number of hand-me-down migs and such at the start, they already knew how to operate them, and even if they were in poor condition they could be used for parts
If they were juggling a couple A-10s, some Grippens, Hawks, Eurofighters, it becomes much more chaotic and eventually some would just be left to rot
@Joesolo13 A-10s and Eurofighter would be horrible ideas lmao.
@@atomf9143 eurofighter isn't that much more maintenance intensive than an f-16.
Like, I agree it's not ideal but none if these are.
I would have loved to see a large 50-70 airframe donation of Tornados from UK/Germany a year ago. Still to maintenance intensive. Buy at the time the numbers could have been decisive.
@@jonofpdx I'm not talking maintenance. Eurofighter needs longer runways, more ground personnel, etc. F-16 is the best choice for a reason.
I ♥ funny younglings...
Either%both are good options.
Its down to maintenance schedules, and spares.
Then amount of suitable ammunition for A2A and A2S roles.
In the end I can see Ukraine run squardons of both.
However, F16 better poor weather and night running capabilities make a huge difference. Specially for a Ukrainian winter of cold temperatures and long nights.
It's kind of the wrong question. It almost doesn't matter what fighter Ukraine has, as long as 1) it can fire most of the NATO ordnance, and 2) they can get an unlimited number of them. There are 4600 F-16s out there and many of their operators would be happy to be rid of them and get F-35's instead. THAT is why F-16 is the best plane. In principle I love how the Gripen was designed to fly from highways and so on, but I think the F-16's will be mostly based in other countries, and at most touch down in Ukraine to refuel and launch again. For other systems such as self-propelled artillery, Ukraine is in the sucky position of having like 5 each of 7 different models, but piloting is far more training than being an artillery crew. Just one plane across the board, use it for fighting, bombing, whatever. That's the way to go.
Good point about standardization and the challenge the Ukrainians face with armor, and so much more. AKs are so over rated its unreal and I carried one. But, the AK disassembles the same for LMGs, and what people think is a sniper rifle (PSLs that look like SVDs) but is a designated marksman rifle. The Soviet bloc only trained officers in what is about what a junior Sergeant in the US military learns. Point being, you can rapidly train up a conscript Army on the basics really fast
Probably they will have like one F16 per pilot in ukraine. The others that are a surplus will be stationed in NATO attending new pilots or a damage from the other f16
That's not happening. Most of the F16's aren't leaving where they're at until they're toast and can't fly. Spare parts has always been an issue for F16 operators. Where do you guys get these ideas that "we have unlimited this, unlimited that, unlimited the other thing"? Logistics, ammunition, expertise and spares are stretched to the max right now all over the west. What are you guys getting on about?
@@ASpyNamedJames The EuroPenises have always viewed the USA as a Welfare donor for useless parasites with unlimited funding. I exclude the former USSR slaves from that and they pull their load and I respect them, but Western EU? Maybe 10% like the Dutch have my respect
You're 100% wrong on those planes operating from other countries, as this would be a direct involvement into combat missions and that will not happen ( unless the orcs escalate to far, say biological/chemical/nuclear attacks ).
The F-16 will be used as a Multirole plane, The Mirage could definitely be used in air to air which is what it was originally designed to do. The F-16 can also do air to air.
The f16 was designed for air to air before it became multi roll.
@@forresttmYeah but Mirage was better to CAP mission. But F16 was more multirole. Greek Mirage have a kill to Turkish F16 😂.
In fact their cool to use each other
BOTH , THANK YOU TO THE DONORS OF BOTH
Birb vs Baguette. The classic rivalry.
I'm kind of sick of this question. If we had been asking this in 2014, I'd be up for the debate. Right now they just need something. Anything.
If any of the audience members here have some mirages in their garages, feel free to donate them. Heck. Sell them even. If Ukraine can so much as park them in a threatening posture, then it will have an affect on Russia.
10 mirages and a cheap disinformation campaign saying volunteer French pilots are hiding in Ukraine ready to pounce would be more useful than nothing.
The same can absolutely be said for the F-16 or the grippen or even a gift swap program for India's Mig 21s.
If you've got em, give em. If you want Ukraine to win at least.
To that end, simply promising you will keep sending equipment to Ukraine even if Ukraine is overrun and is reduced to opperating off of an old aircraft carrier in the Adriatic, is valid way to beat Russia. This is assuming we can back up that promise.
Basically, Russia just needs to know that Ukraine is never going to run out of equipment no matter what it does.
After we've established that fact and backed it up with tangible action, then we can debate about the most effecient procurement decisions long term.
It's very frustrating there's still MIGs in service in nato countries, and other haven't arranged exchanges for them. Bulgaria is in the process of getting F-16s, speed that up and get their MIGs into Ukraine
Why are you so frustrated? They won't change anything, it is just another piece of a puzzle. And sending your own pilots is a clear escalation of war. Nato wants to avoid escalating the conflict willy-nilly.
"Ukraine is never going to run out of equipment no matter what" - they can run out of soldiers unless NATO members send them with disguise
The Ukrainians are very inventive. I have been proud of how they have managed over the course of the war. The addition of mirage and f-16 to their tiny air force gives them teamed flight capabilities that they haven't had before. Even though nothing like link-16 capability, F16's paired with mirage or even their older Russian built aircraft would give them BVR parity with a similar flight of Russian aircraft. If they can build even 1/2 dozen functional squadrons, they could sequentially achieve pushback one region at a time to achieve dominance of most of their original land holdings, then secure a buffer for themselves to prevent future aggression.
Right now, at 12:25 PM, I'm in Seattle Washington watching thebBlue Angels practice for their annual show at the Seafair festival! (So this is an appropriate vid to watch as I wait for their next pass.)
And it has me thinking- Has the F/A-18 a/b been considered for Ukraine? There are lot of the early/old ones being retired as F-35B replaces them in the Marine squadrons, and, as carrier aircraft, they have strengthened landing gear along with weatherproofing and general ruggedness- which makes them suitable for 'inperfect' airfields (which makes it seem, like Gripen, a good fit for the difficult demands for fighter/attack jets in Ukraine.)
They were.. But ukraine didnt want to purchase them.. Australia wanted to sell their old ones.. And ukraine called them flying junk..
@@unknownname6519
Huh... Interesting! 🤔 (I hadn't heard about that, but it kinda makes sense, especially re: availability and support infrastructure.)
Was that the old A/B models? (The original Hornet was about as similar to the Super Hornet as the TU-22 was to its 'upgraded' (completely new) version.)
Do you think the Hornet was really so bad vs. F-16? I suppose I can see that... (Yet, it may be more about their serviceability, trainability, supply chains, etc- and the weapons that they can carry, like SDB, JDAM, HARM, JAGM, and so on, even if they won't get escalatory game-changers like Tomahawk or JASSAM, SM-3, THAAD, etc, though that WOULD be amazing.)
BTW- The Blue Angels are original Hornets, and were F'N LOUD today!! 😮👍.
Cheers!
@@bholdr----0 i think the old Version.. A/B..pretty sure not the super hornet.. Well f16 ist far more common which is good for spare parts.. I also dont think that UA will get a wide range of weapons... They will stick to an core arsenal of weapons and thats it..
@@unknownname6519 the airframes in question needed their center barrels replaced, (essentially the main part of the fuselage). This would be an extremely time consuming and expensive operation which would ultimately not benefit Ukraine as these F/A-18s are also less capable than the F-16 and training pilots to fly them would be a waste of time.
My answer to the title question : the Gripen 😂 - thank you for the great material in this video.
Unit for unit, that may be true. But 20 Grippens are a much worse deal than 100 Falcons, no matter how you slice it.
@@dextercochran4916 I'd debate the economical aspect. But, let's simply do then 100 + 20 😁
The latest E version maybe. The older ones: no.
If they had the Gripen and trained pilots and support personnel maybe it would be best, but the F-16 is all they have got for now. Hopefully one day they'll have some Gripens
@@Djamonja How would having Gripens be better than having F-16s?
Having both is better. The russian commandstructure is already pressed hard to keep up, having both planes, means their mission planning gets more complicated, putting more presure on a already soft area.
The problem with this is how much bang for your buck are you getting for just a few planes?
Like, sure, in an ideal world more capability is better but differing systems are going to put additional strain on Ukraine's logistics, repair and resupply infrastructure.
Though both can load the SCALP/Storm Shadow, so if nothing else you can use the limited Mirage fleet for delivery of those and the f16s for sead and air support missions.
UK and Germany should have given them 50 tornados 18 months ago. We aren't using them and we have enough retired systems for spare parts. Uk already phased out and Germany is getting there.
Modern f16s are better, don't get me wrong. But quantity and immediacy would have been decisive earlier in the war.
@@jonofpdx its pretty obvios i think, that Ukraine shoild try to keep their pilots and personal alive, i think they will get as meny planes as they can fly. But that is something we are going to have to wait and see.
Ukraine have bin targeting russian air defence sigts for 2 months now, to me that looks like they plan on using the big mountain of gliding bombs they got.
seems nato is outfacing a gliding bom, that we have big stores filled with. Not as big as the russian glide bombs, but propperly more on target. Also seems Ukraine are getting radar and messiles for their planes that are above russian standarts,
And Ukraine dont get a few planes, they are getting close to 200 f-16. Holland, norway and Denmark alone have dedicated more than 50, because we alreadu have baught thge f-35. Near 200 F-16 are being packed. The bottelneck is the pilots and servise crews.
Both good
Both are game changer...
Wondering when F/A-18s from Canada / Australia / Finland will be in Ukraine?
Ua refused the australian f18s...
I think Ukraine refused those aircraft were worn out.
Thank you for presenting this. I've had so many arguments with people that think the planes are the best thing since sliced cheese. I kept saying it's NOT about the planes but the radars and missiles they come with. Older F16s don't solve much of Ukraine's problems unless they have the right upgrade standards. What Block are they getting, what missiles, and can the pilots truly do the missions with so little experience, not just in the planes but with NATO tactics.
Neither...
The Swedish Gripen would have been ideally for Ukraine...distributed firepower for a reasonable price and effort to mantain
Nobody's gonna give up their fancy new planes. F-16s are literally free
@@tedarcher9120... you did not read what Sweden has said about a possible transfer, have you?
@@rick7424*POSSIBLE
....All 20 of them. 🤣
Sure and why not rafale or f22 ?
They're both way better than everything Ukraine has now and the cost for either isn't a factor. The most important part is both easily interface with modern NATO weapon systems (most importantly HARM) that Ukraine either are going to get or already have. Honestly, the best choice for Ukraine is the Gripen....and it's sounding like they may be getting those as well.
The only issue, like the M1 Abrams tanks, these are older F-+6s
Coping harder to deny seething is not a long term solution.
Doesn’t matter, the abrams casualties showed that no matter how good a weapon is it Will only make a difference if it is used the right way, ukraine sent a abrams to the frontlines with zero infantry/air support and we saw how that went.
@@Random_merkava_enjoyer Fact is, no version of M1 can survive the modern battlefield vs near peers.
@@TheBelrick with proper air and infantry support the abrams can be very effective (shown in iraq 2003)
@@Random_merkava_enjoyer You haven't been paying attention.
Tanks no longer have armour, they are just targets for drones.
Danish f-16s have a good defensive suit, made by themselves that they integrated under the wing’s pilons as pods. But without that, the Mirage has a better defensive suit.
However, there has been talks in France about what the Mirages to be sent to Ukraine could look like, and it is possible other capabilities and modernisation could be implemented. In effect they could be like 2000-9, a single engine baby Rafale.
"F-16 runs on whiskey, Mirage on red wine and cheese."
Hey binkov you should definitely make a video about Ukraine's offensive in the Kursk Region
Sure would be nice if Ukraine had 200 airframes of both platforms by now, that way we would have real data for this topic and Ukraine could properly control its own airspace.
Ukraine will receive more NATO standard fighters than they can produce fighter pilots trained to fly NATO fighters.
It's never nice to want to continue a war
@@silverletter4551
They're being used for air defence to stop the Russian bombardment of Ukrainian civilians. The frontline is covered with SAMs so it's unlikely they'll be used in offensive operations
@@silverletter4551 Shockingly people don't like being conqured
@silverletter4551 So I guess everyone should just surrender immediately if a war starts?
The Gripen is the Plane that is best for Ukraine. made for roughf runways, freeways, under over pass and more quick turn around. ground maintence is made easy agin for quick turn around. Its is fully updated with all Nato mutations.
In reality the "which is better" question is a lot more simple than plane stats and I wish you had focused more on it: it's going to be determined mostly by logistics, servicing and training pipeline limitations. The more parts, fuel, armaments, ground personnel, maintainers and training capacity that is available, as well as the number of platforms overall, the more effective the airframe is going to be, regardless of it's stats. In fact that will have *by far* the biggest impact such that the other factors do not really even matter .
It's also a relatively easy one to answer: there is *far more* capacity for supporting the F-16 because of the sheer numbers of the thing, so enabling that is just a matter of political will. It's so clear that the better question is whether it's actually worth trying to adopt the M2k at all because that is going to take up valuable personnel and complicate already hellish logistics even further, so it may not even be worth it to have the jet in inventory, but that one is a lot closer and we don't know how much support France is willing to supply in terms of personnel, so it's harder to say
The jet's maneuverability will help them drag R-37 missile (over 300km range) and out maneuver them.
The Mirage 2000-5 two seater is in fact a dedicated ground attack aircraft
The the Mirage 2000D.
The Mirage 2000-5 is multi role
There's no -5 two seater. The 2000D is the two seater.
@@jeromeportier4914 I apologize, but you are mistaken. There is a Mirage 2000-5 multi seat. The Qatar Air Force is one of the operators that fly them
@@juliomaldonado4028 You’re right! I didn’t know about the 2000-5DDA! But it’s a trainer, not an attack aircraft.
@@jeromeportier4914 I have learned something new as well. I was not aware of it as a dedicated trainer.
Thank you
according to Zelensky himself, they need at least 128 F-16s to make any noticable impact; I doubt there will be that many ready for combat anytime soon, not to mention 2x that many pilots.
Huge problem is that where are the pilots, maintenance crews are all the sudden coming from. Normally training a pilot to use fighter takes about 6 years. Just training someone to fly those might go faster but using so complicated weapon system is whole different thing.
There is an adequate supply of trained pilots and maintenance crews for both these planes. The issue, like the entire Ukraine war, is that NATO focuses on escalation risk. Prior to USA entry in WW2, Americans were flying against Germans by joining the RAF and Japanese by flying for China. Russians flew in Korea and Vietnam and Israel (post 6 day war). Mercenaries have a long and mixed history in warfare. Its just for some reason today draftees are acceptable but not western mercenaries in this conflict.
neither nor, Gripen would be the best way to go.... and it´s by far the newes, most capable and robust system.
Especially, when it comes to smal numbers: easy to hide and having the greatest capabilities and the biggest punsh.
Mirage 2000 is the obvious choice but it lack numbers so the F-16 is necessary and Ukraine will get both anyway, Mirage 2000 should be sued for interception and bombing while F-16 should be used in closer combat against Russians aircrafts.
Vipers for strike missions and Wild Weasel missions as the Mirage 2000s provide top cover and are used as bait for the WWs. This will take another year or two to get going but could be really effective for Ukraine in the future.
Dang, If Ukraine could get a couple hundred fighters going forward including updating the F16s to at least Block 52 (Block 70?) and any attained Mirages to -5/9, they would really have a solid Air Force.
sure... remember what happen with Leopards 1 and 2, Abrams, Challengers, Bradleys... poor training, high loses
The last time I checked, Ukraine has continued to be an independent country.
Yet russia still hasn't defeated the poorest country in europe...
@@TheSmeikindependent country would be able to win this war with strong positions when Russia proposed peace on favorable terms for Ukraine. But somehow this independent country was forced by NATO to continue war to the last Ukrainian. And now we have this situation. So much for being independent.
@@MrZlocktar Russia proposed peace on favorable terms for Ukraine? What alternate universe do you live in? And no, Ukraine was not forced by anyone else than Russia to continue the war, since it is Russia that is attacking Ukraine.
@@AlexKall In my universe Russia proposed peace trough which Ukraine would be able to restore control of Donbass region with Russia's help, and would be able to rent Crimea later. Russia wasn't planning to take any new territory before March 28 2022 All Ukraine had to do was to decrease military and to officially declare that they are neutral country as buffer zone between NATO and Russia without significant military power. Ukraine was allowed to join EU and Russia was supposed to help them with that by making sure that country is no longer at a war state. Then Boris Jonson and other foreign actors came in and forced Ukraine to stop negotiations with Russia and said that they should keep fighting to the last Ukrainian. Now Russia is going to take every pro-Russia region because they are at war with NATO and there is no reason to hold back as Putin recently said. There was a chance for favorable peace for Ukraine. But it's gone.
A few notes on missile performance:
A comprehensive guide would take an entire book.
The part where Binkov said "100km is probably only at sea level" is a bit misleading. Missiles have much shorter range at low altitude due to increased air density and, therefore, drag.
The rule of thumb being max range is against a "cooperative target" at 30,000ft. This range is halved at 20,000ft, with around 25% maximum range at 10,000ft.
A cooperative target is one that flies straight at you. Which nobody would do if they wanted to stay alive.
Standard procedure for defeating a missile is to decrease altitude whilst flying (as fast as possible) at a 90° angle to it. This bleeds it of energy as it has to turn to gain a lead, whilst being pulled down to denser air.
The AMRAAM graphs that Binkov referenced are for the aforementioned "cooperative target" that flies directly at the firing at low altitude, whilst the firing aircraft fires from high altitude.
In this situation a missile will be able to "coast" (when out of fuel) down onto the target from altitude.
Imagine throwing a rock from a second storey building. You might be able to hit the building 75m away, but you won't be able to hit the second storey window as the rock will have fallen.
A target moving perpendicular to the missile halves the range (at the same altitude) of a missile. A target moving away drops it down to below 25% (depending on speed).
Anyway... take "maximum range" with a grain of salt. They are under ideal conditions which war never is. Same with rate of climb, radar detection ranges, maximum speed and altitude figures. All of these figures are of "clean" aircraft carrying no weapons.
And a clean fighter jet is nothing more than a one-man airliner, and roughly as useful in a war zone.
feels strange that the french even still have the mirage
France isn't that rich to get all the Mirage 2000 replaced by overpriced Rafale. Numbers of them still flying.
@@jayjay53313 Yeah and the french navy needs the rafale
It's a lot more due to a lack of investment in the defense. Dassault could technically increase the scale of production for a large command of Rafale. The governement is simply not willing to do it because there is no immediate need for it.
MiirGe is like renault cars... everywhere stuck on the road. 😅
@@jayjay53313yes they still fly... its an aircraft...
😂
Mirage 2000 is a very good platform but for the few aircraft that France will offer it is not even worth starting to train pilots and establish a logistical scale. The F-16 can be supplied in several hundred copies. Ukraine already struggles with 15 different models of assault rifles, 10 different types of battle tanks and 10 different types of infantry transport vehicles and fighter jets
are much more complicated to operate than a ground combat vehicle.
The Mirages' only interest is in securing another family in the event of a drop in US support with Trump.
The answer is: Gripen.
No way.. they don't deserve such a advanced aircraft.
@@mackjsm7105 YOU dont deserve the oxygen you are breathing, but here we are...
ORLY? Where will those come from?
F-16 can also carry out the SEAD/DEAD mission, and that is the critical difference/advantage that the Falcon gives.
Haha "the falcon" wise up.
The one with the ejection seat.
Your uncle hold your hand while you went out of the bathroom with him, didn't he?
@@Haunuva You say no ejection seat...ok i understand😂
@@nlo8548 🤣
Lol 😂
10:02 From what I know. If Ukraine gets Mirages upgraded to 5F standard, those do appear to have a Missile Approach Warning System
Gripen! Haven't watched yet tho. :D
I read an article, in a fairly reputable source, well over a year ago, that ukrainian pilots were in france, training on the mirage. this was even before ukraine was confirmed to be trained on the f16.... it was just a rumor, but that would be ideal if ukrainians were already trained on the mirage.
The war is already lost. These should have been delivered a year ago. Sure maybe Ukraine can get enough pilots to fly these, but they no longer have the numbers to press the advantage during the time window when Ukraine can keep partial air superiority before Russia destroys their numbers.
Except that that's not what we are seeing. Russia is running out of resources.
Go back to drinking your vodka.
The war is lost? For Russia absolutely, for Ukraine we have many years left still to find out.
The writings on the wall at this point, Ukraine never had the men or materials necessary to actually win this war, and are quickly approaching a point where just hanging on is becoming less and less strategically viable.
This is exactly why several heavily fortified areas on the front that had held all this time are suddenly breaking all at once, and Ukraine doesn't have enough lines of defense behind them to do much about it...
You do realize we are in the conventional war stage right? No, Ukraine has not lost in any shape or form and in the highly unlikely case Russia takes over it would devolve into a very deadly insurgency.
Russian trolls have been saying this for 2.5 years.
11:08 Yes, both the Dutch and Belgium F-16's are fitted with them. I found images of J-008 and J-020, both RNLAF 312 squadron, flying with the an/alq-162(v)6 and a video, named "Frisian Flag 2023 - Mass Launch from Inside Leeuwarden Air Base", which shows Belgium F-16's with this system.
Neither will make a difference, are we still pretending Ukraine can win?....
Are you still pretending they can't? After all they have resisted Russia's best efforts this long..
@@Markus117d Nato and all the west. But I bet your bottom dollar it ends by january
@@Squalleternally No, NATO and "all the west" aren't fighting. Russia is fighting Ukraine.
Define me a win...
Russia is not controlling a single of the four territories it "annexed", lost couple hundred thousand men, same number is crippled. Ran through 60%+ of usable vehicle storage, which took 70 years to build. Isolated itself from civilized world even more than before, seen worst budget balances since Russia became Russia, regime lost credibility among its peoples,...
Even if the war ended tommorow with Ukraine surrendering the four oblasts and Zelenskyy was replaced with Yanukovich-style puppet(could't be Yanukovich himself anymore), it wouldn't even be pyrrhic victory, but a poorly veiled loss.
You didn’t cover an important difference. The fragile landing gear and low slung intake of the Viper mean that it’s a much more finicky beast when it comes to air field requirements, and that’s not even taking into account the reserve power units odd requirements. The Mirage is much more capable of operating off austere air strips, like cleared stretches of highway, but the F-16 need pristine airfields with very thorough foreign object sweeps.
The Russian ability to adapt these sophisticated western weapons makes me fear the F16 might run out for future customers
Are you writing from 1973? F-16s are not produced for decades
@@tedarcher9120The F-16 Block 70/72 is still in production for export customers, it’s still useful for defending friendly air space with the support of ground based air defence and radar systems. The F-35 is useful for penetrating enemy air space where enemy air defence and radar systems have to be avoided, e.g., the recent IDF precision strike on Tehran.
@@tedarcher9120 are u replying from 1974? If then I'll guide u to the future... I'll tell u what exactly is happening 😂
@@tedarcher9120you couldn't do a quick search? The Viper is still in production
If the Russians were adapting to these sophisticated Western weapons, why are so many of them still dying in Ukraine?
It would be interesting to see some advanced weapon development using Ukraines F-16s as the launch platform, think AIM-260, MAKO etc
Much cheaper then conventional testing 🤔
Слава Україні!
Героям слава!
✌️☮️❤️🇦🇺🍻
Good Hunting
Ultranationalist slogans to fuel Putin's propaganda
What about HARM missiles for the F-16?
They will be supplied.
The West should be building SAAB Gripens under license by now.
Well peace treaty is better option
Boring! Jk of course
Why?
The APG-66 on transferred F-16 were replace with an APG-68 but am not sure of the model. It is possible (v)9.
None of them will make a difference
You're right .Russia is going to lose one way or another brokadyl bot.
But they will help to make the difference. F-16 + Mirage 2000 + Patriot + Nasams + radars + awacs = no air superiority for Russia.
"as Russia will collapse first" there, I finished your incomplete sentance 😂
Copium of you two is reached level: infinite 😂
It's like someone would say that Canada stands a chance aginst US (just for comparison purpose i use those two)
@@aleksandarzoric2452 I suggest that you try some 🐊 it 's better than the imaginary substance you speak of 🤣🤣🤣
Gripen is perhaps the best option, shame there's limited supply
The Gripen is a good airplane, but it's not better than the F-16 or the Mirage, unless you're talking about he latest version.
@jeromeportier4914 agree, but the Gripen is the easiest to maintain , apparently the ground crew can be a mobile unit, so they can launch and land from highways if needed.
Maybe I'm wrong but I think the Gripen is better than anything Russia has atm.
@@phil3038 It may or may not be easier to maintain than other planes, I don’t know. Many other planes can take off from and land on a road. I’m not sure the Gripen is massively different in that respect.
It’s a great multi-role fighter. But it’s not necessarily better than its Russian counterparts. Does it fight BVR better than a Su-30? Does it dogfight better than Mig-29? Not necessarily…
F-16, more spare parts available and many of the components and parts from newer F-16s are compatible
Gripen would be the best fit for Ukraine can take off and land just about anywhere
Russia will be watching airfields closely for any signs of them.
Everyone makes a big deal of the Gripen landing everywhere, but I don't see the 2000 having any issues with that either.
Russian's MiG-29 could also take off and land everywhere though.
@@KhanhLam777 Exactly! People talk about it as if the Gripen was doing something no other plane can, but it’s pretty standard…
@@jeromeportier4914 No, it's not that standard.
@@hermes6910 OK: so which modern jet fighter can’t do it?
If politics wasn't an issue (They're not going to say no to America offering F16s), I'd say the SAAB Gripen would fit. Low operating costs and easy for crews to quickly refuel and rearm, using roads as runways.
Not really sure it’s going to be an air to air battle. Better to look at the standoff launching of various ordnance like laser guided (via drone or soldier) or cruise missiles. And HARM especially.
The version of the Mirage supplied to the Ukrainians is for air superiority, not a multi-role aircraft like the F16, Rafale or Typhoon.
Uh? Anything they can get their hands on? That required a lot of analysis and a half hour of time (Actually about ten seconds or less)
Excellent well researched video!
🇫🇷 has announced the AASM rocket propelled bombs will also be integrated to 🇺🇦 F-16 in a joint statement.
Mirage 2000 biggest advantage is the buddy-to-buddy refueling capabilities, which early F-16 only being refueled using the less convenient boom-and-stick refueling method relying on large tankers. In flight refueling greatly increases range, mission flexibility and aircraft dispersion. Because as of now, the biggest risk to fighters is when they are on the ground (due to drones and missile attacks).
So, the F-16 is the better option for 1 key reason. Numbers. There have been 4600 built versus 600. 24 countries operate F-16s versus just 7 for the Mirage. What that means is the availability of parts, platforms, and weapons systems is better and more diverse, meaning that if one country uses missile type A but runs low, another country can send missile type B and so on. This war is a numbers game at this point.
If you do another comparison, it might be worth mentioning the logistical tail of each jet. I remember one comparison of f16 and gripen mentioned how the gripen was slightly easier to maintain and was less picky about runways to take off from. Something about the F16s intakes being more prone to sucking in detritus.
We know more from released Ukrainian materials. Ukrainian F-16 received newer radar, newer helmets with screens, pylon mounted pods with flares, targeting sensors, chaff and warning sensors.
Excellent report. Thanks.
Both are very capable. Mirage 2000-5 are actually used by French specialist of CAP ( Combat Air Patrol )
The Mirage can land and take off on improved base or Highway, too risky for F16. But i think F16 was better to Bombing mission.
Mirage can carry Meteor ou MICA IR/ER ( and MAGIC ) air to Air missile. They Can carry the SCALP 300km Air to Ground Missile. And all generation of Exocet Air to Sea missile ( but the Black Sea Fleat was deep in Azov sea 😂 )
Maybe Mirage 2000-5 can protect the West of Ukraine of Russian Missile or drone for use more Patriot / S300 / Mamba near frontline.
FYI Mirage 2000-5 was never upgraded to carry Meteor missile.
Only Rafale F3R and later versions can fire Meteor
The mirage 2000 is by far the best and it is beautiful 🇨🇵❤️😍
The IRIS-T on the norwegian F-16 can be a big advantage. With them it's possible to destroy incoming AA missiles
The fact that there are many other NATO countries that also possess the armament, replacement parts, and operating systems, allows them to be repaired easier and more often. Another factor is that being trained for the F=16, they can fly many other F-16 jets from other countries, whereas the only ones trained on the Mirage has to have them in their arsenal.
Like how the Russians jets like the MIG - 29 were easier to get parts from other countries, when they aren't available from Russia itself.
BOTH... both is good
F-16 A/B NLU is equivalent to F-16C Block 50. Meaning F-16 is capable of carrying most, if not all NATO munitions, due to Link16 data bus. Including HMQS and AIM-9X Block I/II. Mirage 2000-5 can carry Sniper and SniperXR targeting pod, as can F-16. F-16 is better for Ukraine, as F-16 is standard NATO fighter. However both should be given to Ukraine. 404 Russians
Thanks for your interesting and well-documented presentation. Talking about the Mirage 2000 family, you mixed up pics or videos of Mirages 2000-5Fs, which are essentially interceptors, twin-seater Mirage 2000Bs, essentially instructional aircraft (they both have the same gray and pale blue livery) and twin-seater Mirages 2000D, specilized in low-altitude air-to-ground strikes, and absolutely not as interceptors. Their livery is our version the NATO central Europe camo (dark green and gray).
As far as I know, the only Mirages that could possibly be sent to Ukraine would be Mirages 2000-5Fs and not 2000Ds, unfortunately Our 2000Ds have recently been modernized with a new radar, a new glass cockpit, new pods, includind a 30mm gun pod. My opinion is that they would be formidable in Ukraine.
Picture: a French Mirage 2000D fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_2000#/media/Fichier:Mirage2000Dardennes.jpg