Looks like a minimum of a hundred million dollars worth of currently irreplaceable jets that the terrorists in the Kremlin can’t use anymore to invade their peaceful neighbor.
I don’t have deep expertise on airframes, but it was my understanding Su-34s are primarily meant for use against ground targets, while F-16s are air superiority fighters. To me, this seems like the Su-34s wouldn’t pose a major direct threat needing to be cleared out for F-16s to be able to fly. It does seem to mean a loss of Russian air-to-ground bombing ability for the low cost of a drone attack though.
My comment was meant in reply to the idea that destroying them was to “pave the way for F-16s”, which I took to mean as a presumption Su-34s were a threat preventing F-16s from being able to be deployed. My reply was that, to my knowledge, Su-34s themselves did not present the kind of threat to F-16s that would keep the F-16s from being used. Taking out the Su-34s seems not directly tied to getting F-16s in the air to me.
Yeah, misunderstanding. When I said “clearing the way” I meant in the sense that they’re shaping the battlefield so they can use the F-16s without getting them blown up.
Looks like a minimum of a hundred million dollars worth of currently irreplaceable jets that the terrorists in the Kremlin can’t use anymore to invade their peaceful neighbor.
Clearing the way for the F-16s I assume.
I don’t have deep expertise on airframes, but it was my understanding Su-34s are primarily meant for use against ground targets, while F-16s are air superiority fighters. To me, this seems like the Su-34s wouldn’t pose a major direct threat needing to be cleared out for F-16s to be able to fly. It does seem to mean a loss of Russian air-to-ground bombing ability for the low cost of a drone attack though.
Even during war air superiority aircraft spend most of their time on the ground.
I’m assuming taking out bombers makes it much harder for the Kremlin to launch a complex attack with cruise missiles.
Maybe even AGM or glide bombs, but I think airfields will have strong AA coverage.
I think you have misunderstood my meaning.
My comment was meant in reply to the idea that destroying them was to “pave the way for F-16s”, which I took to mean as a presumption Su-34s were a threat preventing F-16s from being able to be deployed. My reply was that, to my knowledge, Su-34s themselves did not present the kind of threat to F-16s that would keep the F-16s from being used. Taking out the Su-34s seems not directly tied to getting F-16s in the air to me.
Yeah, misunderstanding. When I said “clearing the way” I meant in the sense that they’re shaping the battlefield so they can use the F-16s without getting them blown up.