Since yesterday, social media has been abuzz with reports that a Russian Aerospace Forces (RuAF) Su-34 was lost in a fight by Ukrainian forces.

The Russian Defense Ministry has not issued an official statement on the alleged loss of the Su-34 on Saturday, and the Ukrainian Defense Ministry has not commented.

What we think we know

Forbes published a report yesterday summarizing all the claims surrounding the alleged incident.

The RuAF Su-34 was shot down about 50 km (30 miles) from the front.

An American-made F-16 Fighting Falcon shot down the Russian fighter-bomber.

The Russian pilot did not survive. (In fact, the Su-34 is flown by a crew of two.)

The FighterBomber Telegram channel may have first reported the incident with a post that read, “Earth is heaven, brothers,” accompanied by a monochrome photo of a Su-34 diving toward the ground.

The post most likely confirms the loss of a Su-34 and its crew.

In the past, the FighterBomber channel has provided good insight, probably based on sources still serving the RuAF. However, the FighterBomber channel was occasionally wrong.

The Telegram post does not specifically suggest that the aircraft or its crew were lost to enemy attacks, but the somber tone suggests so. The fact that the article does not provide any additional information about the loss also suggests a loss due to enemy action.

Analysis of claims

Suppose there was a loss of the aircraft and its crew. How likely is it then that the loss was attributed to the Ukrainian military? Let's start with the aircraft's reported position – about 50 km from the front.

This would be approximately the distance a Su-34 would be from the front line when firing UMPK-equipped glide bombs at targets behind the Ukrainian front line.

This would also be the time and distance at which the Su-34 would be most vulnerable – when flying above 6 km altitude, clearly visible to all radars – ground-based or air-based fighters – and at low speed after a zoom climb.

UMPK-equipped glide bombs reportedly have a range of about 70 km, so it is likely that the Su-34 fighters will fire them about 50 km from the front line.

At the time of the UMPK bombing, a Su-34 would be extremely vulnerable to either a ground-based Patriot MIM-104-launched interceptor or a flying F-16-launched AIM-120 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile).

If the crew loss is true, it would indicate that the Su-34 was hit in the cockpit area, meaning that the Su-34 was moving in the general direction of the enemy missile launch platform.

In other words, all claims made appear logical and suggest that the loss of a Su-34, if indeed lost, was likely due to enemy action.

The Patriot is more likely

As for the enemy platform responsible for the shoot-down, the case for the F-16 is not as convincing as for the Patriot PAC-3 interceptor.

The AIM-120's standard warhead is a blast fragmentation warhead based on the principle of using an explosive charge to create a destructive radius of shrapnel or shrapnel.

This warhead is designed to be effective against aircraft and to cause sufficient structural damage upon impact or in close proximity to disable or destroy the target.

The likelihood of the warhead hitting the cockpit and instantly killing the crew is low because the targeting capability of the AIM-120 missile's active radar seeker is unlikely to be accurate enough to hit the cockpit.

In contrast, the PAC-3 Patriot interceptor, which adopts a “hit-to-kill” approach, uses a more powerful active radar seeker that steers it to directly collide with the target. The hit-to-kill approach requires high precision, which the PAC-3 active radar seeker offers.

The PAC-3 is designed to attack and destroy ballistic missiles. In its final phase it has much more kinetic energy than an air-to-air missile. A PAC-3 attack on the cockpit would kill the crew instantly.

Finally, it is likely that RuAF Su-34 fighters will operate under top cover of Su-35, Su-30SM or MiG-31BM fighters, ensuring that no Ukrainian fighters come within the missile firing range of the heavily loaded Su34 reach.

While a low-flying Ukrainian Air Force fighter can approach the front line while avoiding ground-based radar detection, it is unlikely it can avoid detection by Russian fighters providing cover for a Su-34 attack package.

No convincing evidence

What I have presented is not conclusive evidence excluding an AIM-120 shoot down by a Ukrainian Air Force F-16 for the following reasons.

It is possible, although highly unlikely, that the AIM-120 delivered to Ukraine was equipped with a different type of warhead, such as a continuous rod warhead.

This type of warhead uses a series of interconnected rods that form a continuous ring or net-like structure when detonated. When the warhead explodes, the rods expand and rotate, maintaining their integrity and cutting through the target like a saw.

It is also possible that the crew survived the initial explosion and ejection attempt. We don't know the full facts.

Finally, it is also possible that the Ukrainian F-16s are equipped with electronic warfare equipment that can hide their approach to the front line from Russian fighters and thus provide top cover.

If a RuAF Su-34 was indeed lost, the Ukrainian authorities' lack of claim is astounding. Or maybe not.

The withholding of information may well be aimed at creating a “Spirit of Kiev”-like myth around the F-16, which has so far had no significant impact on the course of Russian special military operations.

• Vijayinder K Thakur is a retired IAF Jaguar pilot, author, software architect, entrepreneur and military analyst.
• PERSONAL VIEWS OF THE AUTHOR
• Follow the author @vkthakur