You don't need F-16s at all if you have cheap drones. Why send an expensive plane with a pilot to bomb some country if you can send a drone that costs as little as a basic SUV instead?
Opening up ways to pressure the Russian economy in a war of choice does equate to achieving decisive battlefield advantages.
There's a reason those drones hit oil refineries and not steel works.
That's not to undermine how the strategic environment has changed, but to imagine that now - after the change - it'll obviously stay that way forever is ridiculous.
Ukraine is not being destroyed by unstoppable swarms of cheap drones which Russia is perfectly capable of producing. So clearly this story is more complicated.
Mostly on foot now. They tried using tanks today in Dobropillia, which was very rare and surprising! 28 (https://nitter.tiekoetter.com/NotWoofers/status/208005697904... didnt even know they had that many left and concentrated in one spot) destroyed in an ~hour, attack routed.
>Ukraine is not being destroyed by unstoppable swarms of cheap drones which Russia is perfectly capable of producing.
They arent unstoppable to Ukrainians _now_. Even mighty US just gave up its bases letting Iran destroy hundreds of millions of infrastructure (and kill base staff) with zero attempts at defense. Afaik only Baghdad base has a C-Ram that actually works against flying lawnmovers.
Yes, its more complicated, horses for courses etc. But the idea one needs a jet or cruise missiles to bomb an adversary is an outdated one and whoever clings to it will pay dearly. Its probably a matter of time before Iran tries mass drones launched off a container ship into continental US with zero resistance.
Cheap drones are only effective against soft targets. Many high priority targets are not soft. Even Ukraine invests in expensive systems to defeat harder targets.
An F-16 can't get them all. The goal of war isn't to dog fight, its to bomb, and the F-16 can't stop them.