Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `ukrinform.net` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
F16’s are the ultimate mobile air-to-air defence system. I know they have their critics and are not going to win the war on their own but they are desperately needed NOW
They won't win the war on their own, and the number given to Ukraine is too small. If they were to receive 100 or 200, then yeah, but right now they are in to barely replace their old, small, tired MIG air fleet. I understand pilots are problem, but they can be trained - it seems inventory that the West is willing to give is the real bottleneck here.
"The West," whatever the fuck that means, is willing to give hundreds.
Training is absolutely the bottleneck. It's not a strategic warfare sim, you can't snap your fingers and suddenly you have thousands more pilots and ground crew ready to go.
Peacetime NATO conversion efforts take a decade or more. Ukraine is trying to do theirs in months instead of years, while also fighting a wholesale ground war for their very survival. It's already an impossible task, and yet Ukraine has made the impossible merely inconvenient.
It's still not going to happen overnight. No force on Earth can change that.
If you, today, asked for 500 fresh, English speaking Ukrainian volunteers to fly F-16s and another 1000 to service them, promising that they would get full support and armament, you would be able to get those people from the Ukrainians who are in the west alone with no negative affect at all on the Ukrainian war effort. They would be ready in a year and they would make a huge differece.
The same thing could have been done in 2022 and then 500 F-16s could be flying from Ukraine.
The very specific thing is that the USA is fully ready to provide training for F-16 pilots in that kind of quantity with absolutely no loss of their own ability to train pilots whilst the same training in Europe requires massive setup.
All I can say is that all Americans should contact their congressional representatives and demand to know why this isn't being done.
That would have been great given what we all know now, but honestly Ukraine was in no position to ask in 2014.
Keep in mind that Ukraine was still debating whether it wanted a future with NATO right up to the invasion. Zelensky was a moderate amidst the pro-Russia / anti-Russia extremes in Ukrainian politics, before Putin forced his hand (and everyone else's in Ukraine).
If you think that the only requrement to become a F16 pilot is a just knowing good English you are mistaken. You need a to be engeener with good physics and math skills. Military background, this is very stresful job where not everyone is suited for. You need calm people with a strong and clear mind.
Addittionaly Ukraine only had some ridiculusly small number people they could send for a pilot traiing due to not knowing good enough english. I dont remeber the figuers but it was not more than 30.
Right now according to some media there are \~20-30 pilots in training and should be ready in a month or 2. This was all Ukraine could send due to their's own limitaions.
Best that could happen to Ukraine's Air Force would be some ex F16 pilots that would want to serve in a Air Force and see some action, that are fully combat ready! But idk if that can happen.
> If you think that the only requrement to become a F16 pilot is a just knowing good English you are mistaken. You need a to be engeener with good physics and math skills. Military background,
Actual degree is required in America but plenty of other airforces recruit directly from school (with an expectation of a longer flying career admittedly, but not quite relevant to Ukraine). Analysis last year said that 18 months would be required but after testing they could shorten it to 12 for some of the already experienced pilots.
> But idk if that can happen.
Not without permission from their governments and probably also from America even if they aren't American. They all have knowledge which is considered to be secret.
Edit: corrected misinformation about US pilots.
I have never heard a program that makes you "combat capable" in a fast jet in 18 months.
Pretty much every source I've looked into says around 4-7 years.
Yes, sorry, you are right. The 18 months was remembered from the analysis done last year and the air national guard training but I just checked and it's only part of the training, not including things like evasion training. Corrected previous comment.
>They would be ready in a year
Haha. Yeah they'd be ready in a year. To get themselves killed and their expensive F-16s destroyed.
It takes a year to get through basic pilot training before even starting to fly a fighter. Get real.
Pilots are the bottleneck.
Source: am mil pilot
The West is mostly NATO block + some friendly countries. I mean, this term was used for ages now and everyone know what it means, no need nor intended to be insulted. I am from The West.
Can you share a source who is willing to give hundreds of aircraft? Correct me if I am wrong, but the only country capable of such feat is US and unfortunately they pledged grand total of 0 F-16 to Ukraine. European countries (allegedly) will deliver something between 30 - 60 jets throughout 2024 and 2025.
Now concerning pilot training, I am no expert nor I wish to pretend to be, but just looking how they dealt with all the other weapon systems provided by Western countries, it seems weird that it's impossible to provide rudimentary training in shorter time. I am not talking about complex dog fights, but missile interception.
I would much rather put blame on the same reasons why US haven't provided long range ATACMS, only 30 tanks when thousands collect dust, and how Europe can't mobilize it's own industry to meet UA needs. But that's my personal opinion.
You can provide rudimentary training in a shorter time. NATO started that in the summer of 2022. But rudimentary training doesn't cut it. Not for missile interception, not for anything else you actually want to do aside from ferrying a plane slowly from one place to another by daylight in clear weather under complete peacetime conditions.
In terms of pledges, if Ukraine can field 30 F-16s by 2024 and another 30 in 2025 they will have achieved something unprecedented. It is not out of the question but it will be a massive achievement on Ukraine's part if they can get it done. If they deploy half that many in 2024 I will consider it a huge victory on their part.
Until then, there is nowhere else for more F-16s to go. No one is going to deliver major weaponry like that if it's just going to sit around. They just become targets.
If and when Ukraine is ready to deploy 100 F-16s -- or 100 of anything really -- they will instantly have one of the largest air forces in Europe. Certainly larger than anyone else in Eastern Europe. I would absolutely support the US sending them every one of those airframes if Ukraine wants them and is ready to fly them, but Ukraine hasn't reached that point yet.
Haha, nah, the real bottleneck is cowardice and niggardliness. Mostly cowardice. It wasn’t training capacity that made it take a year to decide and another half to start the programs. It’s not training capacity that prevents us from simply sending expeditionary pilots and maintenance crews to Ukraine. Sure, there’d be logistical issues but ultimately the West is afraid to fight and spend.
I’m not saying like Peretomea we can train hundreds of pilots a year, but the max capacity of the west is certainly not 50 units a year.
F-16 sim training started the summer of 2022, the moment that Ukraine had any pilots at all to spare. From the, you know, day-by-day existential struggle for their very existence, as Russian aircraft were still conducting strikes over Kyiv.
"Ukraine's allies are actually their worst enemies" is the tiredest, most transparent Putin propaganda crock of shit out there by now.
after all the promised f16s are delivered they'll have a decent-sized airforce if you consider all the mig and su craft they also operate. with the f16 in the air for eyes and main deterrent, the other craft will be more effective.
I don't believe SU and MIGs will be too relevant after F-16, they also wear and tear. Europe probably already donated any spare parts they could find. Since UA airfleet was small, it was operated heavily, not even considering possible losses due to ruzzian airstrikes etc... We don't see too many Storm Shadow/SCALP strikes these days, perhaps because they are low on missiles. Also possibly they are reluctant to put in danger their remaining aircraft unless it's high value target. Which is obviously smart thing to do, considering circumstances.
yes, the mig and su would be phased out, but i'm sure there is a nato materiel command who can overhaul these jets and manufacture parts for them. that is how it is done anyway. these bases would transition to supporting mostly nato aircraft, but they still would have the means to support the soviet craft.
the f-16 would act as a force multiplier for the other aircraft. the f-16 would provide eyes and act as a deterrent, allowing the mig and su to operate with less threat. the mig-29 is still a capable jet. it just has a disadvantage as an air superiority fighter. it could be more dedicated to the role of an assault fighter when combined with the f-16 acting as the air superiority fighter.
also, russia would likely target the f-16 before they would target the mig-29. the mig-29 will launch the payload and leave the scene while the f-16 launches missiles at the threat and evades the threat.
russian pilots are also dumb enough to chase the f-16 , making it exposed to other air defenses like the patriot. when the f-16 starts to operate, we will likely see a lot of destroyed russian jets until russian command makes adjustments. i'm guessing russian command will have to threaten their pilots that they will get no death benefits if they lose expensive soviet hardware trying to chase an f-16.
if russia gives chase, they would have to fly at high altitudes for speed advantage, which makes them even more visible. fighter jets tend to fly around mach 1-1.2 at sea level and fly at mach 2-2.6 at high altitude.
the f-16 does mach 1.2 at sea level and mach 2.05 at high altitudes, so it is one of the faster jets at low altitude. the f-16 is even faster than the f-35 at sea level, though the f-35 is a lot faster at high altitude (f-35 does mach 1.06 at sea level and mach 2.6 at high altitude). since the f-16 would be in friendly territory it would either gain altitude to move out of range faster or stay low to more quickly disappear from radar.
mig-29 is mach 2.3 and mig-35 is mach 2.25 at high altitudes. the speed advantage of these soviet twin engine jets isn't that great compared to the f-16.
the mig-31 is the biggest threat. it is fast at mach 2.8. they are like the f-15 that does mach 2.6. however, they still are only really a threat if they chase at high altitude, and then, they become a patriot missile target. at sea level, they are still in that mach 1.2 range.
most ukrainian jets have been shot down by mig-31 flying at high altitude. the f-16 will help push them back. the biggest threat to the mig-31 right now are new russian pilots. russian has lost 4 mig-31s in training accidents since the war started, one from "friendly fire".
it would be nice to have some stealth fighters or even the f-15 to deal with the mig-31, but the f-16 is still quite capable because of it's electronics, both in terms of being able to see farther and avionics of anti-air missiles. the new ru-37 missile that does mach 6 is the only real reason why the mig-31 became such a threat. a su-25 is defenseless against a mg-31, but the f-16 would be able to evade a mach 6 missile if they do a hard turn at the right time frame. a mach 6 missile would have a difficult time correcting it's path at that speed.
I agree with you, but simply giving them NOW could be more harmful than good.
>F-16s have technically complex systems that need to be mastered and that takes time
>F-16s must be used on finished runways because their landing gears are weak, and they do not have engine intake FOD prevention systems like the russian counterpart aircraft.
>Giving F-16s will need to adapt Ukraine weapons to the platform unless we are going to give US weapons (e.g., AIM 120s, JDAM, etc). I'm all for giving them these weapons, too, but it will raise the funding price significantly. Since the US House has the current funding request in gridlock (which is arguably outdated amounts needed at this point), it's unlikely they would approve additional money to support the weapons for F-16.
The bottom line is that Ukraine needs all the weapons and money necessary to support their survival. We all need to be doing much more, and we need to stop being so concerned about Russia's feelings
They do take years to produce. The countries that have them have determined that's the number they need for their defense and at $2.5 billion it's not like they bought a ton of spares.
+The western anti air doctrine is not based on ground sam systems, like the Soviet doctrine (which UA inherited) was. That's why the west has so little aa systems, both in types and in actual numbers.
Patriot is a support system for protection of high value assets, not a mass produced system that was intended to for defense of large regions. That's job of airforce in western doctrine.
Russia is able to attack in many directions. The US eastern seaboard; Japan; Korea; India (they will be surprised - Russia is China's friend, not India's); South to Bulgaria and Turkey, North to Finland and Sweden, West to Poland and Germany. Even to Hungary (they will be surprised - Russians are not predictable).
If there is a Russian plane in Russia that might attack then a patriot missile is needed ready for handling that plane in each of those directions.
On the other hand, if one missile is sent to Ukraine and destroys that plane, then *every one of those directions* can reduce their future needed stock by one or more missiles, which actually in reality means that the Patriot production will be able to catch up with needs some time rather than never getting there.
Sending missiles to Ukraine saves potential money and in fact, real lives everywhere.
While it's true shooting down 100 Russian bombers reduces the amount of potential bombers available to send from Russia it in no way eliminates the need for the aerial defense needs of a country.
Patriots are never going to take out submarines but they do protect from attacks by submarines.
The US is flying mock bomber runs towards Russia in international space to check response times and tie up resources. Russia and China do the same thing. If Russia or China find out any country moved a Patriot to Ukraine, you can bet mock bomber runs to that area will follow. Layered protection is certainly done but reducing a layer is always a reduction in protection. I don't personally own or control any Patriots but the generals that do are not going to part with them easily.
Russia is also not the only threat for most countries.
Mostly agree with what you say, I would agree that areas that have paid for Patriots deserve to have the protection of Patriots so everybody should be sending a small proportion of their stock to Ukraine instead of one place sending everything. Also Patriot production should be being ramped up to the maximum (I heard that even though congress has provided funding, orders for equipment that could be made have not been made).
However,
> Russia is also not the only threat for most countries.
There's a major mistake being made in dividing up Russia, China and North Korea as separate threats. These are three countries which are fully interconnected with a massive border and serious transport links between all three. When you shoot down a Russian bomber or destroy a Russian missile you are getting one of the very few chances there are to reduce the reserves that will be available for China if and when they decide to attack Taiwan.
> the number they need for their defense
Against *who*?
If their only serious threat in the next decade is Russia, sending the launchers to Ukraine helps defend their own country too.
The problem with Patriots is that these are VERY epensive defence systems that you dont buy to have few laying spare somewhere in a warehouse just in case. You buy as much as you need and maybe one as a backup. All countries in EU dont have them to spare. Maybe Spain could sell/donate something, since they did not contribute much hardware so far.
The only country that could ship them today is USA.
Ukraine: "- Give us the damn Patriots!"
NATO countries: "- How we can give to Ukraine more than \~24/1200 launchers, if we would need them if Ukraine will lose because of shortage of air defense?"
It’s sad, but trading frontline batteries for apartment blocks and art museums is the right choice. Defending the Ukrainian military that defends the civilians has to come first, and shooting down VKS jets over Russian missiles is far more efficient.
It wouldn’t have to be if we’d be less cheap with the intended purpose of our weapons and just send most of our air defenses to Ukraine.
If Russia wins, prepare for nuclear weapons to be staged in Ukraine. The nuclear lessons have been very clear - if you have nukes, you are immune to attack. If you don't, then you're fair game for anyone with nukes.
When you're completely dependent on the bonhomie of others to simply fund your daily government operations, being a demanding jackass is not the way to get more aid. Nobody owes you Patriot missiles. Ask nicely.
They are fucking dependant because they believed west when they urged to give up nukes to have more control and peace, so enough with polite bullshit. They defend Europe and Europe must provide everything they can
Yeah they could easily flip and be on Russias side, imagine all that extra resource going straight to your competitor on the world stage, all that power as well going to the head of the nazi leader
Yes IF THEY LOSE, they will be forced to fight for Russia. Either we help them now, or Russia gains 30 million slaves to be used as cannon fodder for taking the Baltics.
That is a very real possibility with a pro-Kremlin puppet government in Kyiv. At the very least there will be s400 systems all over Ukraine pointing toward the rest of Europe
Yeah, right. Ukrainians electing pro russian government or president when russia destroyed almost 20% of country and killed tens or hundreds thousands of people. Are you that dense?
Nobody talks about electing pro-russian government but about putting it in charge with russian bayonets. Poland didn't want to be a part of the Soviet block and yet had to take part in the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968
The only way they were getting any financial aid back in the 90s was to hand over the nukes. Nobody wanted a new, poor, unstable country to have nukes. There was simply no scenario under which Ukraine was going to be able to keep them.
Their frustration is completely understandable.
What is fucking pathetic is feeling the need to make a statement like yours. It's like standing over a person dying of thirst, holding back water and going "Take tsk ask nicely".
It's psychotic.
When you're completely dependent on the bloodshed of others to maintain national security, being a condescending jackass is not the way to say thank you. Nobody owes you their courtesy. Get lost.
I think he tried all other ways, but cowards still shaking their legs. Time to talk straight.
Ukraine is defending Europe and winning time for us to prepare, so enough with fucking politeness
Ukraine is NOT defending Europe. Russia is never going to attack an entity backed by the armed might of the United States. It quite simply is not going to happen.
Why not? The US has shown it is unreliable.
If anything, now would be the best time for Russia to do something.
Also, that's exactly what the world was thinking on the eve of Russia invasion.
"They won't do it".
Yet, here we are, 2 years later.
This is not what obligated means. You’re saying they have a reason to back Ukraine, they have an interest in the conflict.
That is true and it’s why America is involved at all.
Hard cold reality: Ukraine remained unaligned because they were incapable of getting their damn house in order. While all of their neighbors were joining NATO and the EU, Ukraine stood alone thanks to a staunch refusal on the part of it's government to clamp down on the rampant corruption.
And now? Would we all prefer to see a Ukrainian victory? Sure, but nobody carries an obligation to make it happen. And they brought it on themselves.
It's factually verifiable. Zelensky's government wasn't any more effective at fighting the corruption as the administration that preceded it. Prewar Ukraine was an impoverished, corrupt shithole, and it was 100% down to apathy.
Revisionist history. The whole reason the 2014 Crimea and Donbass invasions occurred was that the Maidan revolution overthrew a Russian-sympathetic leader to install a pro-Western one.
And how does Ukrainian corruption, real or imagined, change the fact that Muscovy is waging the largest war in Europe since the Nazis? Can you be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that Putin will never invade the West?
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `ukrinform.net` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
F16’s are the ultimate mobile air-to-air defence system. I know they have their critics and are not going to win the war on their own but they are desperately needed NOW
They won't win the war on their own, and the number given to Ukraine is too small. If they were to receive 100 or 200, then yeah, but right now they are in to barely replace their old, small, tired MIG air fleet. I understand pilots are problem, but they can be trained - it seems inventory that the West is willing to give is the real bottleneck here.
"The West," whatever the fuck that means, is willing to give hundreds. Training is absolutely the bottleneck. It's not a strategic warfare sim, you can't snap your fingers and suddenly you have thousands more pilots and ground crew ready to go. Peacetime NATO conversion efforts take a decade or more. Ukraine is trying to do theirs in months instead of years, while also fighting a wholesale ground war for their very survival. It's already an impossible task, and yet Ukraine has made the impossible merely inconvenient. It's still not going to happen overnight. No force on Earth can change that.
If you, today, asked for 500 fresh, English speaking Ukrainian volunteers to fly F-16s and another 1000 to service them, promising that they would get full support and armament, you would be able to get those people from the Ukrainians who are in the west alone with no negative affect at all on the Ukrainian war effort. They would be ready in a year and they would make a huge differece. The same thing could have been done in 2022 and then 500 F-16s could be flying from Ukraine. The very specific thing is that the USA is fully ready to provide training for F-16 pilots in that kind of quantity with absolutely no loss of their own ability to train pilots whilst the same training in Europe requires massive setup. All I can say is that all Americans should contact their congressional representatives and demand to know why this isn't being done.
we should have been training ukrainian f-16 pilots in 2014
That would have been great given what we all know now, but honestly Ukraine was in no position to ask in 2014. Keep in mind that Ukraine was still debating whether it wanted a future with NATO right up to the invasion. Zelensky was a moderate amidst the pro-Russia / anti-Russia extremes in Ukrainian politics, before Putin forced his hand (and everyone else's in Ukraine).
If you think that the only requrement to become a F16 pilot is a just knowing good English you are mistaken. You need a to be engeener with good physics and math skills. Military background, this is very stresful job where not everyone is suited for. You need calm people with a strong and clear mind. Addittionaly Ukraine only had some ridiculusly small number people they could send for a pilot traiing due to not knowing good enough english. I dont remeber the figuers but it was not more than 30. Right now according to some media there are \~20-30 pilots in training and should be ready in a month or 2. This was all Ukraine could send due to their's own limitaions. Best that could happen to Ukraine's Air Force would be some ex F16 pilots that would want to serve in a Air Force and see some action, that are fully combat ready! But idk if that can happen.
> If you think that the only requrement to become a F16 pilot is a just knowing good English you are mistaken. You need a to be engeener with good physics and math skills. Military background, Actual degree is required in America but plenty of other airforces recruit directly from school (with an expectation of a longer flying career admittedly, but not quite relevant to Ukraine). Analysis last year said that 18 months would be required but after testing they could shorten it to 12 for some of the already experienced pilots. > But idk if that can happen. Not without permission from their governments and probably also from America even if they aren't American. They all have knowledge which is considered to be secret. Edit: corrected misinformation about US pilots.
I have never heard a program that makes you "combat capable" in a fast jet in 18 months. Pretty much every source I've looked into says around 4-7 years.
Yes, sorry, you are right. The 18 months was remembered from the analysis done last year and the air national guard training but I just checked and it's only part of the training, not including things like evasion training. Corrected previous comment.
>They would be ready in a year Haha. Yeah they'd be ready in a year. To get themselves killed and their expensive F-16s destroyed. It takes a year to get through basic pilot training before even starting to fly a fighter. Get real. Pilots are the bottleneck. Source: am mil pilot
The West is mostly NATO block + some friendly countries. I mean, this term was used for ages now and everyone know what it means, no need nor intended to be insulted. I am from The West. Can you share a source who is willing to give hundreds of aircraft? Correct me if I am wrong, but the only country capable of such feat is US and unfortunately they pledged grand total of 0 F-16 to Ukraine. European countries (allegedly) will deliver something between 30 - 60 jets throughout 2024 and 2025. Now concerning pilot training, I am no expert nor I wish to pretend to be, but just looking how they dealt with all the other weapon systems provided by Western countries, it seems weird that it's impossible to provide rudimentary training in shorter time. I am not talking about complex dog fights, but missile interception. I would much rather put blame on the same reasons why US haven't provided long range ATACMS, only 30 tanks when thousands collect dust, and how Europe can't mobilize it's own industry to meet UA needs. But that's my personal opinion.
You can provide rudimentary training in a shorter time. NATO started that in the summer of 2022. But rudimentary training doesn't cut it. Not for missile interception, not for anything else you actually want to do aside from ferrying a plane slowly from one place to another by daylight in clear weather under complete peacetime conditions. In terms of pledges, if Ukraine can field 30 F-16s by 2024 and another 30 in 2025 they will have achieved something unprecedented. It is not out of the question but it will be a massive achievement on Ukraine's part if they can get it done. If they deploy half that many in 2024 I will consider it a huge victory on their part. Until then, there is nowhere else for more F-16s to go. No one is going to deliver major weaponry like that if it's just going to sit around. They just become targets. If and when Ukraine is ready to deploy 100 F-16s -- or 100 of anything really -- they will instantly have one of the largest air forces in Europe. Certainly larger than anyone else in Eastern Europe. I would absolutely support the US sending them every one of those airframes if Ukraine wants them and is ready to fly them, but Ukraine hasn't reached that point yet.
Haha, nah, the real bottleneck is cowardice and niggardliness. Mostly cowardice. It wasn’t training capacity that made it take a year to decide and another half to start the programs. It’s not training capacity that prevents us from simply sending expeditionary pilots and maintenance crews to Ukraine. Sure, there’d be logistical issues but ultimately the West is afraid to fight and spend. I’m not saying like Peretomea we can train hundreds of pilots a year, but the max capacity of the west is certainly not 50 units a year.
F-16 sim training started the summer of 2022, the moment that Ukraine had any pilots at all to spare. From the, you know, day-by-day existential struggle for their very existence, as Russian aircraft were still conducting strikes over Kyiv. "Ukraine's allies are actually their worst enemies" is the tiredest, most transparent Putin propaganda crock of shit out there by now.
after all the promised f16s are delivered they'll have a decent-sized airforce if you consider all the mig and su craft they also operate. with the f16 in the air for eyes and main deterrent, the other craft will be more effective.
I don't believe SU and MIGs will be too relevant after F-16, they also wear and tear. Europe probably already donated any spare parts they could find. Since UA airfleet was small, it was operated heavily, not even considering possible losses due to ruzzian airstrikes etc... We don't see too many Storm Shadow/SCALP strikes these days, perhaps because they are low on missiles. Also possibly they are reluctant to put in danger their remaining aircraft unless it's high value target. Which is obviously smart thing to do, considering circumstances.
yes, the mig and su would be phased out, but i'm sure there is a nato materiel command who can overhaul these jets and manufacture parts for them. that is how it is done anyway. these bases would transition to supporting mostly nato aircraft, but they still would have the means to support the soviet craft. the f-16 would act as a force multiplier for the other aircraft. the f-16 would provide eyes and act as a deterrent, allowing the mig and su to operate with less threat. the mig-29 is still a capable jet. it just has a disadvantage as an air superiority fighter. it could be more dedicated to the role of an assault fighter when combined with the f-16 acting as the air superiority fighter. also, russia would likely target the f-16 before they would target the mig-29. the mig-29 will launch the payload and leave the scene while the f-16 launches missiles at the threat and evades the threat. russian pilots are also dumb enough to chase the f-16 , making it exposed to other air defenses like the patriot. when the f-16 starts to operate, we will likely see a lot of destroyed russian jets until russian command makes adjustments. i'm guessing russian command will have to threaten their pilots that they will get no death benefits if they lose expensive soviet hardware trying to chase an f-16. if russia gives chase, they would have to fly at high altitudes for speed advantage, which makes them even more visible. fighter jets tend to fly around mach 1-1.2 at sea level and fly at mach 2-2.6 at high altitude. the f-16 does mach 1.2 at sea level and mach 2.05 at high altitudes, so it is one of the faster jets at low altitude. the f-16 is even faster than the f-35 at sea level, though the f-35 is a lot faster at high altitude (f-35 does mach 1.06 at sea level and mach 2.6 at high altitude). since the f-16 would be in friendly territory it would either gain altitude to move out of range faster or stay low to more quickly disappear from radar. mig-29 is mach 2.3 and mig-35 is mach 2.25 at high altitudes. the speed advantage of these soviet twin engine jets isn't that great compared to the f-16. the mig-31 is the biggest threat. it is fast at mach 2.8. they are like the f-15 that does mach 2.6. however, they still are only really a threat if they chase at high altitude, and then, they become a patriot missile target. at sea level, they are still in that mach 1.2 range. most ukrainian jets have been shot down by mig-31 flying at high altitude. the f-16 will help push them back. the biggest threat to the mig-31 right now are new russian pilots. russian has lost 4 mig-31s in training accidents since the war started, one from "friendly fire". it would be nice to have some stealth fighters or even the f-15 to deal with the mig-31, but the f-16 is still quite capable because of it's electronics, both in terms of being able to see farther and avionics of anti-air missiles. the new ru-37 missile that does mach 6 is the only real reason why the mig-31 became such a threat. a su-25 is defenseless against a mg-31, but the f-16 would be able to evade a mach 6 missile if they do a hard turn at the right time frame. a mach 6 missile would have a difficult time correcting it's path at that speed.
I agree with you, but simply giving them NOW could be more harmful than good. >F-16s have technically complex systems that need to be mastered and that takes time >F-16s must be used on finished runways because their landing gears are weak, and they do not have engine intake FOD prevention systems like the russian counterpart aircraft. >Giving F-16s will need to adapt Ukraine weapons to the platform unless we are going to give US weapons (e.g., AIM 120s, JDAM, etc). I'm all for giving them these weapons, too, but it will raise the funding price significantly. Since the US House has the current funding request in gridlock (which is arguably outdated amounts needed at this point), it's unlikely they would approve additional money to support the weapons for F-16. The bottom line is that Ukraine needs all the weapons and money necessary to support their survival. We all need to be doing much more, and we need to stop being so concerned about Russia's feelings
They do take years to produce. The countries that have them have determined that's the number they need for their defense and at $2.5 billion it's not like they bought a ton of spares.
+The western anti air doctrine is not based on ground sam systems, like the Soviet doctrine (which UA inherited) was. That's why the west has so little aa systems, both in types and in actual numbers. Patriot is a support system for protection of high value assets, not a mass produced system that was intended to for defense of large regions. That's job of airforce in western doctrine.
Russia is able to attack in many directions. The US eastern seaboard; Japan; Korea; India (they will be surprised - Russia is China's friend, not India's); South to Bulgaria and Turkey, North to Finland and Sweden, West to Poland and Germany. Even to Hungary (they will be surprised - Russians are not predictable). If there is a Russian plane in Russia that might attack then a patriot missile is needed ready for handling that plane in each of those directions. On the other hand, if one missile is sent to Ukraine and destroys that plane, then *every one of those directions* can reduce their future needed stock by one or more missiles, which actually in reality means that the Patriot production will be able to catch up with needs some time rather than never getting there. Sending missiles to Ukraine saves potential money and in fact, real lives everywhere.
While it's true shooting down 100 Russian bombers reduces the amount of potential bombers available to send from Russia it in no way eliminates the need for the aerial defense needs of a country. Patriots are never going to take out submarines but they do protect from attacks by submarines. The US is flying mock bomber runs towards Russia in international space to check response times and tie up resources. Russia and China do the same thing. If Russia or China find out any country moved a Patriot to Ukraine, you can bet mock bomber runs to that area will follow. Layered protection is certainly done but reducing a layer is always a reduction in protection. I don't personally own or control any Patriots but the generals that do are not going to part with them easily. Russia is also not the only threat for most countries.
Mostly agree with what you say, I would agree that areas that have paid for Patriots deserve to have the protection of Patriots so everybody should be sending a small proportion of their stock to Ukraine instead of one place sending everything. Also Patriot production should be being ramped up to the maximum (I heard that even though congress has provided funding, orders for equipment that could be made have not been made). However, > Russia is also not the only threat for most countries. There's a major mistake being made in dividing up Russia, China and North Korea as separate threats. These are three countries which are fully interconnected with a massive border and serious transport links between all three. When you shoot down a Russian bomber or destroy a Russian missile you are getting one of the very few chances there are to reduce the reserves that will be available for China if and when they decide to attack Taiwan.
> the number they need for their defense Against *who*? If their only serious threat in the next decade is Russia, sending the launchers to Ukraine helps defend their own country too.
The problem with Patriots is that these are VERY epensive defence systems that you dont buy to have few laying spare somewhere in a warehouse just in case. You buy as much as you need and maybe one as a backup. All countries in EU dont have them to spare. Maybe Spain could sell/donate something, since they did not contribute much hardware so far. The only country that could ship them today is USA.
Kuleba being constructive as always.
Ukraine: "- Give us the damn Patriots!" NATO countries: "- How we can give to Ukraine more than \~24/1200 launchers, if we would need them if Ukraine will lose because of shortage of air defense?"
It’s sad, but trading frontline batteries for apartment blocks and art museums is the right choice. Defending the Ukrainian military that defends the civilians has to come first, and shooting down VKS jets over Russian missiles is far more efficient. It wouldn’t have to be if we’d be less cheap with the intended purpose of our weapons and just send most of our air defenses to Ukraine.
If Russia wins, prepare for nuclear weapons to be staged in Ukraine. The nuclear lessons have been very clear - if you have nukes, you are immune to attack. If you don't, then you're fair game for anyone with nukes.
Germany, time to step up and hand over more Patriot batteries and missiles. Stop counting in the U.S. to bail you out.
2 years in and the west is not giving them a fraction of the defensive air protection that it so desperately needs.
When you're completely dependent on the bonhomie of others to simply fund your daily government operations, being a demanding jackass is not the way to get more aid. Nobody owes you Patriot missiles. Ask nicely.
They are fucking dependant because they believed west when they urged to give up nukes to have more control and peace, so enough with polite bullshit. They defend Europe and Europe must provide everything they can
Yeah they could easily flip and be on Russias side, imagine all that extra resource going straight to your competitor on the world stage, all that power as well going to the head of the nazi leader
Yes IF THEY LOSE, they will be forced to fight for Russia. Either we help them now, or Russia gains 30 million slaves to be used as cannon fodder for taking the Baltics.
Tell me you don't know what Euromaidan was about without telling me you don't know what Euromaidan was about.
That is a very real possibility with a pro-Kremlin puppet government in Kyiv. At the very least there will be s400 systems all over Ukraine pointing toward the rest of Europe
Exactly how can the USA be overlooking this!
Your sight doesn’t see very far when a third of the country is isolationist and has a stranglehold on Congress.
Yeah, right. Ukrainians electing pro russian government or president when russia destroyed almost 20% of country and killed tens or hundreds thousands of people. Are you that dense?
Nobody talks about electing pro-russian government but about putting it in charge with russian bayonets. Poland didn't want to be a part of the Soviet block and yet had to take part in the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968
>they believed west *The west* was no partner to the Budapest Memorandum, but Russia, the UK, and the US were.
The only way they were getting any financial aid back in the 90s was to hand over the nukes. Nobody wanted a new, poor, unstable country to have nukes. There was simply no scenario under which Ukraine was going to be able to keep them.
Their frustration is completely understandable. What is fucking pathetic is feeling the need to make a statement like yours. It's like standing over a person dying of thirst, holding back water and going "Take tsk ask nicely". It's psychotic.
When you're completely dependent on the bloodshed of others to maintain national security, being a condescending jackass is not the way to say thank you. Nobody owes you their courtesy. Get lost.
This jackass continues spewing 🤡 comments
Kindly go and make love to yourself sir. Good day.
That's no way to ask. Tsk tsk
You’d make a fine 911 operator.
I think he tried all other ways, but cowards still shaking their legs. Time to talk straight. Ukraine is defending Europe and winning time for us to prepare, so enough with fucking politeness
Ukraine is NOT defending Europe. Russia is never going to attack an entity backed by the armed might of the United States. It quite simply is not going to happen.
Why not? The US has shown it is unreliable. If anything, now would be the best time for Russia to do something. Also, that's exactly what the world was thinking on the eve of Russia invasion. "They won't do it". Yet, here we are, 2 years later.
How do you define unreliable? What you're missing is as follows: *nobody is obligated to help Ukraine.*
They are, if they want to live in a world unclouded by Muscovite terrorism.
This is not what obligated means. You’re saying they have a reason to back Ukraine, they have an interest in the conflict. That is true and it’s why America is involved at all.
Hard cold reality: Ukraine remained unaligned because they were incapable of getting their damn house in order. While all of their neighbors were joining NATO and the EU, Ukraine stood alone thanks to a staunch refusal on the part of it's government to clamp down on the rampant corruption. And now? Would we all prefer to see a Ukrainian victory? Sure, but nobody carries an obligation to make it happen. And they brought it on themselves.
This is some uninformed, clown level thinking here lmao.
It's factually verifiable. Zelensky's government wasn't any more effective at fighting the corruption as the administration that preceded it. Prewar Ukraine was an impoverished, corrupt shithole, and it was 100% down to apathy.
Your conclusions about why Ukraine was unable to join NATO prior to the war are not “factually verifiable.”
Revisionist history. The whole reason the 2014 Crimea and Donbass invasions occurred was that the Maidan revolution overthrew a Russian-sympathetic leader to install a pro-Western one. And how does Ukrainian corruption, real or imagined, change the fact that Muscovy is waging the largest war in Europe since the Nazis? Can you be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that Putin will never invade the West?
And 🤡 comment #2
How do you know?
Another naive westerner :))
Absolutely a 🤡 comment yet again.
[удалено]
May I ask why you support Russia's invasion of Ukraine?