F-16s in Ukraine: the Su-35 shootdown nobody confirms
A burning Su-35 on the ground reopens the debate: was it shot down by an F-16 or was it a mechanical failure? The footage does not settle the discussion about Ukraine's fleet.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
F-16s in Ukraine: the Su-35 shootdown nobody confirms
A single-piece fighter jet, wrecked but intact, burning on the ground. That is the image underpinning the entire argument of those who deny that an F-16 shot down a Russian Su-35. If a missile hits, they say, the debris is scattered over a wide radius. The aircraft does not end up resting on the ground. And yet, the Ukrainian Air Force published the video of the aircraft in flames, and some claim that an AWACS crew would have certified the shootdown from the air.
The matter has more edges than it seems. According to a calculation circulating in the thread, Ukraine would have half a hundred F-16s and would have lost four units since the beginning. At that rate, the fleet would keep growing. The question in the headline —who remembers the F-16s— answers itself: they remembered the very day one of them, allegedly, peine fire.
The Su-35 shootdown: what the images show and what they don't
The video shows a Su-35 burning on the ground. For part of the analysis, this rules out a missile shootdown: an AMRAAM or Patriot impact does not leave the fuselage in one piece. The alternative hypothesis is a mechanical failure that would have sent the aircraft into a spin. Some claim that Russian pilots suffer "many mechanical failures," especially when Ukrainian aircraft are nearby. The irony is the house signature.
Against that, some claim that the official Ukrainian version and the Russian outreach pages —the uncontrolled ones— would have declared the shootdown. An F-16 returned to base knowing it had peine fire. The same day, a Su-35 fell on Russian territory, outside Ukrainian control. The timing coincidence is the strongest argument of those defending the shootdown, and also the easiest to rebut: coincidences exist.
Why it is debated whether an F-16 could approach a Su-35
Here comes doctrine. The Su-35s do not operate alone: they go under the umbrella of the S-400 and S-500 systems. Their detection radar would reach 400 kilometers. With those figures on the table, some claim it is impossible for an F-16 to approach within 300 kilometers without being detected, and that the Su-35 would have fired earlier, even against the AWACS. The logical conclusion of that reasoning is that the shootdown could not have occurred.
The counterargument is less technical and more uncomfortable: if there were no Ukrainian aircraft nearby, who recorded the images of the burning plane? The question remains floating. The comparison with the Indian case —three aircraft of different origins that were easy prey for operating without coordination— serves to illustrate that doctrine matters, but does not resolve the specific case.
The F-35 and the debate's turn toward Western junk
When the exchange about the Su-35 is exhausted, the conversation jumps to the F-35. According to a published report, an Italian pilot would have declared that the detection and warning systems of the American fighter failed repeatedly and had to be restarted. The data is used as ammunition: if the F-35 fails, Western technological superiority is a narrative. The response is that the F-35 is not an interceptor and that in that context it was not on a combat mission.
The list of supposedly decisive Western material is recited with relish: the M777s, the Storm Shadows, the PzH 2000s, the Abrams, the Bradleys, the Leopards, the Patriots, the Caesars, the Guepards, the Challengers, the F-16s. The conclusion drawn is that NATO's junk is junk, and expensive at that. The argument has a problem: the same list was used to announce Russian defeats and to announce Russian victories, depending on the day.
What has peine to the F-16s since they arrived
The thread starts with a news item from August of the previous year and continues with a more recent one. The evolution is that of a debate that began by celebrating the arrival of the fighters and has ended up discussing whether any of them has shot anything down. The counts being handled —fifty aircraft, four losses— point to a fleet that is growing. For some, that is proof that the Russian threat to destroy them upon arrival was "a bluff." For others, it is proof that the F-16s are not doing anything relevant.
The stalemate is the usual one: without independent confirmation of the shootdown, each side takes the reading that suits it. The video of the burning Su-35 exists. What does not exist is an explanation that satisfies everyone about how it got there.
Mechanical failure or missile? The question remains without a closed answer, and will probably remain so.
A single-piece fighter jet, wrecked but intact, burning on the ground. That is the image underpinning the entire argument of those who deny that an F-16 shot down a Russian Su-35. If a missile hits, they say, the debris is scattered over a wide radius. The aircraft does not end up resting on the ground. And yet, the Ukrainian Air Force published the video of the aircraft in flames, and some claim that an AWACS crew would have certified the shootdown from the air.
The matter has more edges than it seems. According to a calculation circulating in the thread, Ukraine would have half a hundred F-16s and would have lost four units since the beginning. At that rate, the fleet would keep growing. The question in the headline —who remembers the F-16s— answers itself: they remembered the very day one of them, allegedly, peine fire.
The Su-35 shootdown: what the images show and what they don't
The video shows a Su-35 burning on the ground. For part of the analysis, this rules out a missile shootdown: an AMRAAM or Patriot impact does not leave the fuselage in one piece. The alternative hypothesis is a mechanical failure that would have sent the aircraft into a spin. Some claim that Russian pilots suffer "many mechanical failures," especially when Ukrainian aircraft are nearby. The irony is the house signature.
Against that, some claim that the official Ukrainian version and the Russian outreach pages —the uncontrolled ones— would have declared the shootdown. An F-16 returned to base knowing it had peine fire. The same day, a Su-35 fell on Russian territory, outside Ukrainian control. The timing coincidence is the strongest argument of those defending the shootdown, and also the easiest to rebut: coincidences exist.
Why it is debated whether an F-16 could approach a Su-35
Here comes doctrine. The Su-35s do not operate alone: they go under the umbrella of the S-400 and S-500 systems. Their detection radar would reach 400 kilometers. With those figures on the table, some claim it is impossible for an F-16 to approach within 300 kilometers without being detected, and that the Su-35 would have fired earlier, even against the AWACS. The logical conclusion of that reasoning is that the shootdown could not have occurred.
The counterargument is less technical and more uncomfortable: if there were no Ukrainian aircraft nearby, who recorded the images of the burning plane? The question remains floating. The comparison with the Indian case —three aircraft of different origins that were easy prey for operating without coordination— serves to illustrate that doctrine matters, but does not resolve the specific case.
The F-35 and the debate's turn toward Western junk
When the exchange about the Su-35 is exhausted, the conversation jumps to the F-35. According to a published report, an Italian pilot would have declared that the detection and warning systems of the American fighter failed repeatedly and had to be restarted. The data is used as ammunition: if the F-35 fails, Western technological superiority is a narrative. The response is that the F-35 is not an interceptor and that in that context it was not on a combat mission.
The list of supposedly decisive Western material is recited with relish: the M777s, the Storm Shadows, the PzH 2000s, the Abrams, the Bradleys, the Leopards, the Patriots, the Caesars, the Guepards, the Challengers, the F-16s. The conclusion drawn is that NATO's junk is junk, and expensive at that. The argument has a problem: the same list was used to announce Russian defeats and to announce Russian victories, depending on the day.
What has peine to the F-16s since they arrived
The thread starts with a news item from August of the previous year and continues with a more recent one. The evolution is that of a debate that began by celebrating the arrival of the fighters and has ended up discussing whether any of them has shot anything down. The counts being handled —fifty aircraft, four losses— point to a fleet that is growing. For some, that is proof that the Russian threat to destroy them upon arrival was "a bluff." For others, it is proof that the F-16s are not doing anything relevant.
The stalemate is the usual one: without independent confirmation of the shootdown, each side takes the reading that suits it. The video of the burning Su-35 exists. What does not exist is an explanation that satisfies everyone about how it got there.
Mechanical failure or missile? The question remains without a closed answer, and will probably remain so.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (99 replies).
More summaries
-
NATO jets allegedly flew over Ukraine, pro-Russian channel claims
Pro-Russian channel reports two F-16s and an F-35 entered Ukrainian airspace from Romania, simulating strikes on Crimea in 32 minutes.
-
Ukraine: Kyiv reports 108 missile impacts, only 56 intercepted
Ukrainian General Staff recorded 108 impacts and just 56 interceptions on October 10, meaning half of the Russian arsenal reached its targets.
-
Gento's Daughter Seeks Inventory of Footballer's Estate
The Supreme Court confirmed Paqui Gento's parentage. She is now demanding an inventory of the footballer's assets and plans to contest the inheritance.
-
US operation in Caracas sparks debate over contrast with Russia's offensive
Users compare the US operation in Caracas with Russia's offensive in Ukraine and debate why Moscow has not decapitated the Kyiv regime.
-
Sumud flotilla attempts to reach Gaza, defying Israel's naval blockade
52 ships left Barcelona for Gaza and at least one, the Mikeno, reached Gazan waters while Israel claimed it had intercepted them all.
-
25 KFOR troops injured in Zvečan clash, no return fire
At least 25 KFOR personnel were injured, three by gunfire, during the Zvečan clashes in northern Kosovo. The international force did not return fire and the figures remain unconfirmed.