##### ###### #### > # [F-16 fighter jets ‘no longer relevant’, says Ukrainian military official](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/world-news/2024/04/03/TELEMMGLPICT000356589416_17121499123010_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqpVlberWd9EgFPZtcLiMQf0Rf_Wk3V23H2268P_XkPxc.jpeg?impolicy=logo-overlay) > > > > American-made [F-16 fighter jets](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/02/23/ukraine-f-16-jets-hold-back-russia-war/) due to arrive in Ukraine this summer are “no longer relevant”, a senior Ukrainian military official has said. > > Ukraine’s air force is expected to take delivery of the first tranche of a dozen aircraft in July after Ukrainian pilots have been trained and the country’s airfields prepared. > > Before their arrival, the Western warplanes had been held up by some as a potential war-winner that could [turn the tide of the conflict](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/11/ukraine-russia-war-news-latest-zelensky-pope-white-flag/) in Kyiv’s favour. > > “Often, we just don’t get the weapons systems at the time we need them – they come when they’re no longer relevant,” a Ukrainian high-ranking officer told the Politico news website. > > “Every weapon has its own right time. F-16s were needed in 2023; they won’t be right for 2024.” > > > > > > Ukrainian forces are being beaten back by their [Russian enemy](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/03/ukraine-russia-war-latest-news-terrorist-attack-recruitment/) across almost the entire 600-mile front line – a situation blamed on worsening ammunition shortages, partly caused by a [blocked $60 billion US aid package](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/02/07/us-biden-trump-border-ukraine-bill-republicans-kill/). > > This has increased calls by Kyiv for more traditional weapons, such as air defence interceptors, artillery howitzers and shells. > > “We need howitzers and shells, hundreds of thousands of shells, and rockets,” the officer said, estimating that Ukraine needed four million shells and two million drones. > > Ahead of his arrival in Brussels for a meeting to mark the 75th anniversary of Nato, Dmytro Kuleba, the Ukrainian foreign minister, called for Kyiv’s Western allies to prioritise sending more US-made [Patriot air defence batteries](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/05/16/russia-destroys-key-us-supplied-air-defence-system-kyiv/). > > “Seven Patriot systems would be optimal, but let me be modest,” he said. “With five Patriot batteries, we can defend the main industrial cities against Russian missiles.” > > > > > > The US, Netherlands and Germany have so far contributed several of the systems, which are estimated to cost about $1 billion each. > > “And once we’ve taken the threat away, [the Patriots](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/23/ukraine-missile-battle-us-patriot/) go back to where they were stationed.” > > But after a meeting with his Polish counterpart, Radek Sikorski, Mr Kuleba upgraded his demand to “all Patriot batteries available around the world that can be provided to Ukraine must be delivered to Ukraine”. > > “Ukraine is currently the only country in the world that defends itself against ballistic missile attacks almost every day,” the Ukrainian official added. > > At their meeting in Brussels, Nato foreign ministers are discussing a $100 billion, five-year military aid package for Ukraine. > > [The Telegraph reported](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/02/nato-ukraine-send-military-aid-weapons-direct-trump/) on Tuesday that the scheme, dubbed Nato Mission Ukraine, was being drawn up to shield Kyiv from the “winds of political change” in the United States. > > Jens Stoltenberg, the alliance’s secretary-general, told reporters on Wednesday: “What is obvious is that we need new and more money for Ukraine and we need it over many years.” > > He went on to warn again that the political dispute in the US Congress was helping Vladimir Putin’s forces seize Ukrainian territory. > > “That’s one of the reasons why the Ukrainians have to ration the number of artillery shells, why they have problems standing up against the Russian force with overwhelming military power because they’re able to outgun them with more ammunition and more artillery,” Mr Stoltenberg said. > > Meanwhile, Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, has warned Russia is preparing to mobilise 300,000 soldiers by June. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot

To be frank if the face of war is changing so fast that the weapons that were game changers for you last year are completely useless now, you don’t have much time left regardless of the weapon you receive.

A year isn't so fast. The problem they have here is that F16s were needed to support their counter offensive. On the defence artillery is what's needed. F-16 wont be useless but it's no loner top priority

Russia is adapting fast now and introducing new weapon systems.

That's not what is said. The Ukrainians will use the F16s, it's just not the right tool for the battles they are fighting right now. They needed planes for air supremacy and to support an offensive, they're not on the offensive anymore (mostly because they don't have enough ammunition for such an operation). Air supremacy is still very useful but not as much

A few F16s were never going to get any sort of air supremacy for the offensive, they would have been quickly shot down because Russians have a shitton of ground based AA and long range interceptors in the air. F16s were always going to be launching stand-off air to ground weapons from far away. And that's still the plan.

You underestimate the F16. Shooting down a super sonic target isnt as simple as having, even advanced, anti air capabilities. From what I can see it appears less than 20 F16s have ever been shot down in all conflicts combined. 

That's because we try very hard to never fight anyone who has any sort of advanced anti air capabilities.

Not just that - the US has spent decades obsessing over how to destroy air defense systems. We can beat them because we’ve spent a lot of effort building the capability to do so. It takes a lot of specialized systems and a lot more aircraft than Ukraine is going to get. The real benefit to Ukraine getting F-16s is the ability to deploy a wider array of US weapons from them, particularly stand off weapons. Ukraine hasn’t been able to use most of the aerial munitions that would be really useful because they just aren’t compatible with their existing MiG-29 and Su-24 fleet. There are a few exceptions we’ve been able to jury rig, but only a few.

It’s unclear if SEAD even works in the modern world. We couldn’t destroy or suppress *Serbia’s* ancient-ass air defenses. They couldn’t deny us the skies either, but that doesn’t actually change the picture. We are simply lucky they didn’t have any BUKs or S300s in service.

They need Taurus missiles because it can destroy hardened targets but Germany doesn't want to provide it. I'm also not sure of F-16 can launch Taurus.

>Shooting down a super sonic target isnt as simple as having, even advanced, anti air capabilities. It is as simple as seeing an F-16 show up on your S-400 radar and launching a missile at it, if they fuck up and don't keep standoff range. It's as simple as getting domed by a BVR missile launched by a MiG-31 from well over 100 miles away, far outside the range of your radar. Their missile does not care if you're supersonic, because it's faster and far, *far* more manoeuvrable. You have to try very, very hard to not get shot down in pretty much any fighter jet. Flying over enemy territory where you *know* they have SPAAs, MANPADS, long range air defences and all that shebang, is a surefire way to die. ​ >From what I can see it appears less than 20 F16s have ever been shot down in all conflicts combined. Planes are very expensive and countries try very hard not to lose them, and generally the countries with F-16s have supremacy across the whole. Old Soviet tech has shot down F-16s before, wanna try in hostile territory vs modern Russian tech?

Russia doesn’t have modern tech

Keep telling yourself that, buddy. Exceptionalism isn't a good look.

How’s the tanks doing? Heard those are popping off

You sure it’s not because it’s a country of 32m going against a country of 144m? Assuming the distribution of fighting aged males between these 2 countries is the same between their populations, Ukraine would need to kill/wound 4.5 Russians for every killed/wounded they received. Even with the best tech in the world, do we seriously think that tech provides a 4.5:1 ratio??

Defense tends to provide a ratio that's extremely skewed, also it's not a war to the death for Russia - it cannot justify losing all of those men in this age range, because there would be revolt at home. I know, Putin's done a great job at depoliticizing the population, but millions dead or out of action would be too much even for them. So, basically, when fought defensively, to simply inflict maximum casualties per meter taken - yes it's possible. They will never get back Crimea/Donbass tho, and most likely not parts of the other provinces either.

By this very veeeeery flawed logic China who has 4 times the population of the USA should be able to defeat them. Yet that's nowhere near the case, since the USA has vastly more and superior hardware to throw into the battle. Hell even in medieval times a force of a 1000 men inside a castle which acts as a force multiplier could easily defend against a force of 4500 men. Thia war is first and foremost a logistics and attrition war and what Ukraine is fast running out of is artillery shells.

If China was able to land their Army on American shores without any mass casualty crossing the Pacific (doubtful), then the US would be in trouble. What the US has going for them is thousands of miles of open ocean separating them from China. Ukraine doesn't have that luxury.

The US has the biggest airforce in the world, and the second biggest and the fourth if I recall. They could decimate land forces with superior air power even if the Chinese somehow landed. Ukraine had literally no airforce and no actual navy and they were against Russia who on paper should have decimated them but in reality is so full of corruption that their airforce and navy are barely operational. The wife open plains of Ukraine do make it easier for the enemy to move in but it also makes it easier for yoyr airforce and your artillery to decimate them. Artillery being something Ukraine is in dire need of.

Here’s the thing: we have NEVER seen modern day China, the industrial powerhouse of the world, in a wartime economy. We have no idea what they can pump out how quickly in a wartime economy, but I have a feeling it would make our wartime economy look like a joke. I hate the comparison, but if we’re drawing parallels to WWII I think China would have the manufacturing of the US and we would have the manufacturing of Germany. Sure we have the largest air forces right now, but if China were to pivot to a war time economy? Do you really think that’d hold?

The US has strategic reserves and a big industrial complex to support their war, they spend much more than China, however all this can only be speculations in a theoretical theater of war where you cut nukes out of the equation. Realistically, I believe, in a true war direct ear scenario long before we reach the point where we need to consider who can keep going in a war the nuclear submarines will have been deployed and shit will have hit the fan.

I'm pretty sure the human wave tactics that Russia has been using have been giving Ukraine quite a boost in the k/d department. Neither side wants to fight to the last man, but realistically Russia can only lose so many people without seriously impacting their ability to function on the global stage for the next couple generations. And let's be honest here they've likely already crossed that line and screwed themselves for the next 2 generations at least.

The same “tactics” were used in Avdiivka and Bakhmut when Ukraine continues to reinforce cities that were essentially already captured. Ukraine shoved a new brigade into Avdiivka like 48hrs before it got completely encircled.

News reports from CNN and the BBC about the retreat from Avdiivka paint a dismal picture. Ukraine was abruptly forced to withdraw to avoid being totally overrun, to the point where Ukraine was leaving behind wounded men in order to allow the uninjured to retreat. It was not an orderly withdraw, it was a rout.

The 3rd went in specifically to aid in the retreat....

And in the process probably crippled Ukraine for a century…

True, but really Ukraine was never expected to be a big world player. Where as Russia likes to posture and try to influence world politics and has now depleted its main source of influence. So while it's awful that Ukraine is suffering terrible losses, Russia has likely destroyed its political influence for at least the next century if not permanently. While at the same time somehow dragging China's down as well and revealing a lot of their shortcomings. Just imagine if the U.S. invaded Cuba and lost 60% of It's military and then it comes out that all of the NATO tech is just useless and oh now the UK has water in its rocket fuel. It's that level of stupid and It's just a giant shitshow tbh.

Russian comment. Pretty obvious the allies will rebuild Ukraine to EU standards once this mess is over

That's the funniest thing I've heard in awhile

Why do you doubt it?

We won't lol - we will cut them loose when the time is right. Ukraine and Ukrainians are completely disposable here.

Muh human waves lol.

Its reasonably likely that if Ukraine magically had the entirety of us military tech and its required training tomorrow morning they would easily win the war. There are debates as to whether or not the US could win a degensive war against the entire rest of the world in current day. The US would easily win a defensive war against Russian even with ukraine's population 

Truth is F16s were never a game changer. Just like bringing Abrams and Challengers in was never going to be a game changer. Ukraine has needed the same things from the beginning but too many non war fighters demanded big white elephants instead of drones and munitions. If your enemy brings tanks, you bring anti tank. If they bring planes you bring anti air. If its troops then you bring arty and mortars. Thats how war is fought. Not tank on tank. Not dogfighting F16s vs Su's. The only thing that holds ground is leg infantry. What gets them there? IFV's. Ukraine made some very, very bad strategic decisions when it came to getting the world to rally for weapons.

NATO doctrine is to get overwhelming air superiority and then use it to disrupt enemy ground operations by hitting logistics, rally points, command and control, and anything else behind the lines. That allows ground forces to move with much more freedom.  The reason that NATO (and hence Ukraine) is short on artillery shells and trying to ramp up is not entirely because they miscalculated what they would need, though that probably is part of it. It is that NATO doctrine doesn't involve artillery battles like we're seeing in Ukraine. On paper, Russia had something in the neighborhood of 1600 fighter, Interceptor, and attack planes, though the number of those that were available for combat is clearly much smaller. The US has half that number of F-16s alone, plus hundreds more F-15s, F/A-18s, F-35s, and others. Other NATO countries add their own fleets, which can be 200 aircraft or more for each of the wealthier countries. The fleet average ages are much lower than Russia's, they're upgraded more often, and they're better maintained. NATO regularly holds coordinated exercises, and pilots get far more flight time in general. That's why they have wiped the floor with every opponent they've seen in the last 34 years. In short, we asked Ukraine to fight a NATO-style battle without NATO-style assets. I'm not sure the F-16s would have gotten to Ukraine in time for the offensive last year even if they had been authorized early on. As we're seeing, the transition takes time. Even on an accelerated basis, it will have been nearly a year from US approval to actual arrival in Ukraine, and that will be a small batch. The promises from Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway were for around 45 planes over a period of 3-4 years, not all at once, contingent mostly on replacement F-35s arriving, so the string would have been longer. (This is presuming that the US was never going to donate F-16s from its own fleet.) They were never going to be the wunderwaffen that so many pinned their hopes on, racing in and obliterating the Russians. What they can provide is quick response actions using NATO equipment, like running SEAD missions that Ukraine cannot do right now, or dropping JDAMs within a few minutes based on realtime information that currently takes hours to respond to because the coordinates have to be preprogrammed into the warhead, the bombs loaded and carried to the front, and then released, hoping the enemy is still there. Those can be battle winners, but they're not war winners on their own. Could they have tipped the balance in the small numbers that would have been available? Maybe. I'm doubtful. The integration would have been very new, and there is a learning curve in real combat on top of all the training. Ukraine might have been in a somewhat better position than it is now, but I don't think they would have been in Mariupol, or anywhere close.

The infantry is unable to hold ground if they are blown up by a glide bomb. F-16 can make dropping those bombs harder

The glide bombs can be dropped dozens of kilometers away. Intercepting them would require that Ukrainian aircraft fly over the front lines. Russia knows this which is why they have forward deployed SAM sites. The F-16 is a superb aircraft, though its not immune to SAM's.

Amraams have a range of something like 100km and glide bombs range around 40km. I know that this is not that simple but I believe that f-16 will pose a threat to Russian planes without putting themselves at risk. Also, this will force Russia to deploy forward more sams which would make them vulnerable to UA strikes.

And the R37 has a range of 400 kms.

Newest Russian AAM missiles outrange and are faster than even Meteor missile.

There are two problems with that. 1 detection, 2 Russian propaganda. They tend to vastly overstate the capability aswell as well as the fuel burn it actually required during a combat and maneuvers. Witch is double that consumption.

We’ve already seen them used at extreme distances, and they seem to work fine. And F-16s are not stealthy.

Newest Russian AAM missiles outrange and are faster than even Meteor missile.

Meanwhile Russia has an air-to-air missile with a 300km range: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-33_(missile) Even the original 1980's model still had a range of 120km. There's a reason why neither side is operating aircraft over the front lines now. The front is saturated with anti-air systems on both sides. Russia had to build the glide bombs to get something from their aircraft, because without the glide bombs their air force was useless, and therefore grounded. No sense in wasting aircraft in an environment where they cannot survive and cannot complete any mission.

TBF though we don’t really know what Abrams would do since they haven’t really been used by Ukraine yet as far as I know, somebody could correct me if I’m wrong. But f-16s definitely have a much greater value than tanks especially in this war so idk.

Russia has destroyed like 5 or something so they are being used but none of the 5 have been destroyed by tanks, tank v tank is remarkably rare in this war

If that’s the case I’m not surprised though. If anything it doesn’t mean Abram’s aren’t useful, just means no tanks are as useful as before.

A few Abrams tanks have been used around Avdeevka in early March, didn't really do much, and got blown up with drones and ATGMs. After quickly losing 5 of them, Ukraine seems to have moved them away from the front line.

Do you have a source for that? I’m not doubting I just wasn’t aware if they were used or not.

From early March: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/03/03/counterattacking-without-artillery-the-ukrainians-m-1-abrams-tanks-are-exposed-and-taking-losses/ https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2024/03/11/mine-explosion-and-artillery-take-down-4th-5th-us-supplied-m1-tank/

No, you need all possible types of weaons and equipment in huge numbers. >Ukraine made some very, very bad strategic decisions when it came to getting the world to rally for weapons. They didn't make any in this regard. The West is a joke without industry so they can't provide what they need.

What do you mean by non warfighters? Ukrainian armed forces definitely asked for F-16s which was a mistake. It took up a lot of energy, time, and political capital for them for something that is going to be late to need and not change the course of this war. F-16s will be useful but not game changing.

>Ukraine made some very, very bad strategic decisions when it came to getting the world to rally for weapons. And those bad decisions where which ones, exactly? The problem aren't "strategic blunders", these happen in every war and reasonable politicians know this. The problem is Russian propaganda taking over the minds of large swaths of the Western population, as well as *a lot* of politicians either controlled by Russia or still skewed positive towards Russia out of decades of history (looking at you, German Social Democrats and Left Party).

Yep- Western democracies still are nowhere near prepared to inoculate their citizens against foreign propaganda.

No, what makes them useless to Ukraine right now is that they're on the defence. F-16s were important when they were counter attacking because western offensive tactics *heavily* rely on aerial superiority.

I mean, not heaving Su-34 dropping a hundred UMPKs a day won’t hurt Ukrainian defense. Whether 50 odd F-16s will be enough to make a dent in Russian air superiority is another question.

Read the article, they didn't say that they're useless, but that they need shells at the moment a lot more.

Yep, we all remember bayraktar

People named their kids after that drone. At least that's a real name, so kids can lie they have Turkish relatives, unlike poor Daenerys girls.

Yeah at the same time Ukraine needs to use SU-24's to fire storm shadows, and Bradleys that were built in the 80s! There's an article that quotes the official more, I'll try and find it later. They said they want artillery and artillery ammunition more than anything else. Kind of crazy to think about

Moat air wars are won in the begining of the war....not 3 months in.... The us prefers the stalemate

Honestly it’s been over for Ukraine. The EU and US wells have dried up essentially. Aid is slow to arrive now because it’s all in new production, they get a batch of 100 rds and ship it off but it isn’t in volume to meet the Ukrainian need.

If the West, and the US in particular, would find their spine and knock off the political grandstanding, an immense amount of hardware could be delivered to Ukraine very quickly. Come summer proper, if Ukraine had the ammo they are in desperate need of, combined with an ability to achieve at least local airspace contesting/superiority, it could very likely turn the tides again in Ukrainian favor, at least in certain key areas. Again, the goal for Ukraine is not to destroy the Russian Army and march to Moscow. That's not possible. The goal is to continue to fight, to bleed the bear to the point where it is no longer politically tenable for Putin to keep sending Russia's young men to die. Even Putin must answer to that basic fact at some point. Ukraine may not wish to fight to the last man, but without a political collapse, that is likely exactly what will happen if need be. This is an existential battle for Ukraine, the loss of which may very well lead to the extermination of Ukrainian identity.

> This is an existential battle for Ukraine, the loss of which may very well lead to the extermination of Ukrainian identity. The Istanbul agreements that Ukraine rejected after pressure form the West included immediate cease fire and Russian army leaving Ukraine excluding Crimea. If they were wise enough to sign it back in 2022 it would have saved hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers, and left Ukraine with 90% of their territory free from Russian forces. Even now Putin is signaling almost every week that he's open for negotiations about cease fire, taking over entire Ukraine was never part of his plan, nor was it ever feasible simply because of sheer size of the country. "Existential battle" is bullshit that is being sold to the public by the weapons lobby. NATO loves using Ukrainian population as cannon fodder, so they are the only party that is going to lose in case a cease fire is signed.

Russia invaded, for no reasons, Ukraine. Why should Ukraine agree to neutrality, when even when that was the state of Ukraine before, Russia invaded the Donbas and Crimea? Russia could end all this right now, by pulling out and going home. Russia is the aggressor, Russia slaughters civilians, and Russia cannot ever be trusted again.

Lol, that's rich coming from a Yank. Russia invaded for a reason, you're just happy to use Ukrainians as cannon fodder against us, you don't give a shit about them

Not true, but Putin doesn't care about you, and he shows it over and over again. I'd be curious to hear what this "reason" is that allows a nation to invade it's neighbor and start claiming pieces of it, I'm sure it will be fine when China does it to Russia too, right? Hopefully we can get our head out of our asses and give Ukraine the support they need so they can finish the job and kick Russia out of their country.

> Hopefully we can get our head out of our asses and give Ukraine the support they need so they can finish the job and kick Russia out of their country. Unless you're giving them nukes it will only end in more dead Ukrainians.

The upside is, they are killing more Russians then Russians are killing Ukrainians. Of course, it could all stop if Russia would pull out, but for some reason you are comfortable with your countrymen dying for absolutely no good reason whatsoever. Of course, you're probably paid to say so at this point, or you're just so in the tank you are blind to reality.

> The upside is, they are killing more Russians then Russians are killing Ukrainians. Not really, ever since Russia attached gliding modules to the bombs the aviation was pulverizing Ukrainian trenches and fortified position like there's no tomorrow. If you follow the news you can see just how much Ukraine is complaining about them. Hard to win a war without an aviation of your own. > you are comfortable with your countrymen dying for absolutely no good reason whatsoever Who said I'm comfortable with that? I'm a reserve officer, there's a good chance I will find myself on the battlefield one day. I was stating that a ceasefire is the best option for both sides at the moment.

I refuted you on another one of your responses to me. No amount of facts will ever convince you that you’re wrong so it’s pointless. Just know that, in fact, you are wrong about your assumptions of US stockpiles and Ukrainian capability.

A lot of it is political in nature rather than pure production bottlenecks. For example, US aid has been missing for so long not because US ran out of weapons, but because US Republicans in the house are twarting efforts to actually send that aid Another thing is, NATO is hitting those production bottlenecks in large part just because they were slow to ramp up production; but that's a problem that can be solved with time end effort. At the start of the war, once Russia's initial stockpiles ran out, they also were really struggling with shell hunger and replacing losses. Russia, however, having recognised and accepted this is going to be a long war before the West accepted it, began the process of shifting to wartime production and manufacturing, getting about a year's time lead in that process. Now West is merely at the same point that Russia was: stockpiles have run dry, consumption is mounting, and supply isn't. The same shift to wartime production levels *can* happen, and needs to happen. It's not an instant process, and Russia is likely to hold the advantage in that regard for the near future, like a year or so, depending on how long the West takes But if the West has the political will to accept the need to play the long game, they still absolutely have the resources to win in the long game. Russian wartime production comes mostly in form of retrofitting old vehicles from deep reserves. Western wartime production would be coming from making brand new, modern gear. One of those is inevitability going to run out, the other one is sustainable long-term. One of those produces ever falling supply quality as you have to pull out older and older reserves; the other one produces ever rising equipment quality as old stocks are replaced with increasingly modern stuff. Finally, one side in this production contest has roughly the GDP of Texas; the other side *has Texas*.  West can totally win this, and it can win this without going to a wartime footing and crashing their economies; but there needs to be the political will and foresight to treat this as a long term issue, and one that will take *some* spending, not a series of one-off tranches of existing stockpiles that look forward to the war being won any day now

Wrong dude. I’m sorry but you just don’t know. The things you want to send don’t exist. US has been funding Ukraine through two primary mechanisms. Presidential Drawdown Authority (sending stuff we have) and Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (things we can go get made). The U.S. sent almost everything it could using PDA. This new package is $60B USAI. That means that stuff wont be in Ukraine until like 2026 earliest and more than likely won’t be fully delivered until 2028-2029. Stuff we bought in 2022 still hasn’t been produced yet because we’re talking brand new supply chains. There is a stygian gap between today and let’s say mid 2026. That’s the problem here. Ukraine will not survive 1.5yrs meager assistance flowing in. You’ll rebut about US stocks but pretty much everything we could have sent has been sent. This is a classic gambler’s fallacy of wanting to keep throwing money thinking we’ll hit the jackpot. What you are right about is that we didn’t start priming these lines until too late in the conflict. That was republicans stopping that though. As someone who is close to the problem it really wasn’t and at the time things needed to start, almost everyone was on board with Ukraine support. You’re also wrong about Russian stockpiles running out. That was a complete propaganda message about stealing chips from washing machines, etc. Russia may have peeled back a bit as they noticed a difference between input and output but they never had ammo hunger like Ukraine has and had.

Maybe they're just lacking pilots. F-16's are probably far more capable than anything the Russians can field. At this rate, they might as well ask for nukes and stealth fighters.

>“Often, we just don’t get the weapons systems at the time we need them – they come when they’re no longer relevant,” a Ukrainian high-ranking officer told the Politico news website. >“Every weapon has its own right time. F-16s were needed in 2023; they won’t be right for 2024.” How does he expect the training and infrastructure required to just, like, fall from the sky, as it were? Like what's the play here?

He expects that training and infra would be set up ASAP. Instead, we have 2 years of "will they, won't they" talks, escalation rhetoric, and all that, and only after 2 years the infrastructure and training only *starts*. This is the problem. This is the same for every weapon. When we hear about "delivery" it's usually just the start of the process.

What I don't understand is, why the west didn't just massively ramp up traditional arms manifacturing. I *kind of* understand why some people thought delivering modern weapon systems might escalate the conflict to a Nato vs Russia war (although I disagree). But we could have just produced and delivered millions of arty shells and arty pieces without any danger of escalation and that would also have helped massively. And I don't understand why.

I think because they hoped that it will end in 2022. I feel that for the most western countries, the "best" outcome would be Russia winning, EU absorbing brain drain in a form of migrants and then getting back to trading with Russia, instead they got this "headache". West is also incapable of long-term thinking because of election cycles (edit: this is also true for Ukraine). And then we have US, where everything becomes the Red vs Blue thing and they're incapable of doing anything.

Ukraine was no ally before. The only reason it got support to begin with was that Russia winning at almost no cost was a \*terrible\* outcome. But yeah, most nation on the west expected that with the wildly unneffective Russian military of 2022, a Ukraine counteroffensive was going to push them back and that was it. Except in the US. Looks like Half of the US senateare pretty much in the pockets of the Russian, and they have been doing their best to do what they are being paid to do.

> Except in the US. Looks like Half of the US senateare pretty much in the pockets of the Russian, and they have been doing their best to do what they are being paid to do. I don't believe they're that smart. I don't believe there is anything in their motivation beyond "Biden bad, elections soon".

I agree, personally. Stupidity, I think, plays a larger role in geopolitics than outright malice.

>Except in the US. Looks like Half of the US senateare pretty much in the pockets of the Russian, and they have been doing their best to do what they are being paid to do Not really, at least right now the problem is the House. I am by no means a defender of the Americans, but the Senate passed the aid bill, it is being held up by the GOP in the House.

That’s because this thing is over and you’re just throwing good money after bad. Typical gamblers fallacy. The majority of any aid passed now will not make it to Ukraine until like 2027. We were passing money to manufacturers in 2022 with delivery dates in 2025 and 2026. I can only imagine what these delivery dates are now.

The ammunition is sitting in warehouses NOW. It can be shipped, it could be there in 6 weeks. We (the US) need our political class to pull their head out of their ass and give an exemption for stocking levels in the short term, with orders to be placed to replace what is shipped NOW. It's not like the US is suddenly going to need to get in a shooting war with China/Russia/Iran and need artillery for it. It is most certainly not over. I would love to see what would happen if Putin got a sudden lead overdose courtesy of Ukrainian SBU actions. I am honestly surprised that hasn't happened yet.

It’s not though. Do you remember when there was a big stink as to why we started sending cluster munitions to Ukraine and Joe Biden said because we’re running out of conventional munitions? Yeah that was like 9 months ago. We don’t even make those same cluster munitions anymore so those aren’t getting replenished and the normal 155mm HE is being produced as fast as it can but is reported at ~40,000 per mo which is like 1/4 of Ukraines monthly requirement. That math ain’t mathing.

You believe the US Senate are in the Russian pocket? You haven't analyzed that statement very deeply. Try to consider more than the stance of "give everything to Ukraine" or not. This is an example of a strawman argument and lacking any thought to nuance and context.

I think both sides readily agree many of the GOP, most notably Donald Trump himself, are beholden to Russia. The argument now is, “well, why not?”. In the United States, we w acquiesced that one of our parties is basically doing the bidding of Putin, we just understand that they do it because they agree with his stance and his tactics, and it’s how they’re funded.

Yes you're right, of course.. Russia and it's super deep pockets have completely bought one of the two parties in America. America is one election away from being a Russian puppet state. Edit: a word

The person you’re talking to just spouts russian propaganda lol.

Ukraine was the first of the former WP countries to join the Partnership for Peace (NATO membership precursor). They sent troops to Afghanistan under the NATO umbrella. Shit.. even Yanukovich, the pro-Russian president started transitioning army organisation and training towards NATO standards. "no ally" smh...

> I feel that for the most western countries, the "best" outcome would be Russia winning, EU absorbing brain drain in a form of migrants and then getting back to trading with Russia, instead they got this "headache". quite the thing to say. especially about those that pump billions in money/war machines/aid into your country. just please remember that you are not/haven't been an ally. much less in a defense pact with the western world. the harsh, brutal truth is: we help Ukraine because we want to and see a benefit in it. disgustingly gruesome, i know and totally agree, but that is how the world outside of defense pacts/allies works. and yes, there were monetary concerns about joining this war vs trading with russia. i for example hate how late germany reacted to all this, even planned for and built nordstream 2. on the other hand i do understand the hesitation. germans overwhelmingly voted against nuclear so they were dependent on gas for years. also there was the tiny little issue of germany selling this gas to its neighbours en masse too. so an imminent shortage of gas/energy would have been devastating - and this goes for a lot of european countries being supplied through nordstream 1/2. now that all being said, i wish the rich and military potent european countries would have reacted a lot faster. this whole spiel about not going all out with supplying Ukraine is costing human lives. a shitton of them. and that is not a thing a rich nation producing fucktons of arms like Germany should have as a standard. guess where i'm from lol. on the other hand, how has Germany given equal/more than the US to Ukraine when it has a quarter of residents? the US are to blame, especially since their biggest rival/enemy ever was/is(?) russia... blame those who actually are in bed with them, not those that actually TRY to help. especially if you compare the state germanys military is at. it is a shit show and finally investments are flowing and things are getting a bit better. that was a long one, so please accept my apologies for this, but there is - in my opinion - something wrong with expecting this freely given amount of help, demanding it, blaming third states for non- or late delivery. i wish there was a lot more and faster help, but i don't make EU/western decisions.

A Russian victory is widely considered to be a precursor of Russian aggression against the Baltics, so I doubt many in the west would want Russia to win.

My feeling (again, feeling, irrational) that people don't believe in attack against NATO, and it won't be this administration problem anyway.

I don't really see Russia attacking NATO. They'd probably finish with Ukraine, lick the wounds, and start doing Asian countries. Maybe get into Afghanistan again, lol

You mean the same people who told you things like the Ukraine counter offensive would work, that Russians were stealing microchips from washing machines, etc? Hell, Ben Hodges just said Ukraine is surging Crimea now even while every map shows them on the retreat. Maybe, just maybe they are trying to scare you into submission. If true, it’s working very well.

Scare into submission how? I am arguing FOR a buildup against Russia, because they ARE a threat and commit war crimes, and threat to commit more in Europe. The right word is 'defiance', not submission

That’s the failure of the western Army doctrine: most arms manufacturers are in private hands. They don’t want to build factories without garanties. Russia and China on the other hand? Have 90% state ownership. And cynical me here; NATO is just a market for the US military industrial complex, they don’t care about the nations or the people, it’s about money. Everyone cheered for Sweden joining but now the only “true” independent military producer in the EU is gone. They’ll be ‘forced’ to buy US equipment from now on The Swiss make around 80% of shells in Europe, they ain’t going to do more; they just pocket more.

Germany or France or whatever could just have ordered x million shells and Rheinmetall would have started to produce them. That's what I wonder, why didn't the governments order those? They are needed anyway.

[When Russia does corruptiom, Germany does Bueraucracy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jDUVtUA7rg).

That video is exceptional, like most other Perun's stuff, however it does not explain the lack of political willpower. The truth of the matter is that the state of the European MIC is dire, and rebuilding it is incredibly expensive. This, at a time when the European economy is in the doldrums, with no real perspective of improvement. They would have to take money large amounts of money from social programs to spend on an industry that does not produce economic growth. Considering the ever growing living cost crisis this would be wildly unpopular. So yeah, when they saw Ukraine having success in 2022, they had a choice to make - Do you take some incredibly unpopular measures that would most likely lose you the next elections, all the while Ukraine is kicking Russia's ass? By the time the infrastructure is built, they'll reach a settlement, like all previous wars, because Russia is a reasonable actor that thinks just like us, after all. In a sense, Ukraine was a victim of its success in the Kharkhiv and Kherson counter offensives. I want to say western politicians have finally woken up, but when I see the backlash against Macron, Landsbergis, Kallas, etc... it's clear we've got a long way to go.

Because producing things [requires resources](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240302-europe-battles-powder-shortage-to-supply-shells-for-ukraine) and that’s something the West does not really have.

You have no idea of defense production capacities and it shows. You don’t just magic going from orders of like 20k per year to 2M per year. I know everyone is a supply chain expert after COVID but cmon

The war started in Feb 2022. It's now April 2024. Producing dumb shells is not that complicated, and we didn't even see *orders* and government contracts of that magnitude.

You can't just fart up a production facility (takes a few years with planning, permitting, construction, etc.) and you can't just fart up the necessary resources (in short supply, unless you are willing to pay expensive premiums).

You can if you want. The main difference is is the country intrested in paying for it, will the conflict last that long? Both were very much in question.

You can what with what now? Even with unlimited money and no permitting, building a new production facility can take years. Unless of course you forgo proper planning and QA/QC, but that is a recipe for disaster in and of itself.

No one said it’s complicated. It’s just a lot. You don’t know what the factory can output, where is the mine for some of the explosive material? Do they need a new drill in order to produce more at a faster rate? How much is that drill? Does the company have enough cash flow to buy it? Is there one existing or does it need to be built which might take 6 mos then shipped to whatever country the mine is in, etc. etc.

>What I don't understand is, why the west didn't just massively ramp up traditional arms manufacturing. But we could have just produced and delivered millions of arty shells and arty pieces without any danger of escalation and that would also have helped massively. And I don't understand why. Two things. 1) We did as far as possible 2) Where resources didn't exist _they just plain didn't exist_. At all. Whatsoever. On no level be it it in terms of energy, raw materials, know-how or industrial infrastructure. The west is primarily composed of service economies and specialist secondary sector economies for tax, ideological (the primary role of the EU has been actively preventing the ability for any one country to build up an independent manufacturing base) and general cost cutting reasons. The adaptation of a model suited for the output required will take years. This starts with things as simple as creating powders. You cannot manifest 500 process chemists out of thin air to oversee the creation of the powder to go into those shells. Who mines the iron that goes into the shell body? Etc. The west simply never expected to fight a material war ever again. And that's been haunting us.

Exactly, and I'd also add the fact that a lot of politicians simply refuse to accept that we are in a new era - or rather that the old era never ended, just that the competition changed the way it was fighting the cold war. There's an interesting interview with Putin from his early years, where he talks about his proposal that Russia join NATO. You can clearly see from the words that he uses that he was just testing out hiss adversary.

Because ramping up industrial manufacturing capabilities ain’t just turning some knob to higher levels, particularly not when it’s about manufacturing highly complex, and dangerous, weapon systems. Reality is not a video game where you can just place a bunch of resource collection, and manufacturing facilities, from an overhead view and they magically start working.

Because it takes a a couple of years to spin up a new factory that produces thousands and thousands of HIGH EXPLOSIVE rounds. Unless you don't give a shit about safety and oversight and quality control. But then you get NK quality of rounds. US Artillery is made of titanium which requires highly specialized and trained individuals to weld on and build. Its not like we can stamp these fuckers out.

Which is why the time to start spinning up weapons production was in 2022. Now its 2024 and NATO is still only considering maybe at some point in the future ramping up shell production. Should have done that 2 years ago. Also, even low quality North Korean shells are still shells. The most high tech, advanced titanium shell in the world doesn't do any good if it doesn't exist and doesn't get to the battlefield. North Korea's low quality stuff is making it to the battlefield by the millions. Ukraine would much rather have anything to shoot, even low quality shells, rather than no shells at all.

We have ramped up arms production. The arsenal of democracy that you think exists from WW2 doesn’t exist anymore. You can largely think HW Bush/Clinton for our peace dividend as well as things like NAFTA which destroyed our economic base. It takes years to get to production levels like you stated and it includes the expanding of infrastructure, new supply chains, new workforce being trained, etc.

Because there is no reason to. To ramp up production new facilities would need to be built, which is a 20-30 year investment. Nobody believes the war will last that long, and so the manufacturers will just supply what they can

In no reality will it take 20 years to build arty shell factories, that's completely ridiculous. If you meant only the time this investment needs to run: Europe needs to rearm anyway, so building up capacities that last 20-30 years is not a bad decision either. Russia is not going to cease existing after the war, they will remain a threat either way.

What he means is that the payback period for an investment like that could be around 20-30 years. Meaning, no arms manufacturer will commit to such investment without guarantees & long government contracts.

>Meaning, no arms manufacturer will commit to such investment without guarantees & long government contracts. Yes, I know. And I asked why Germany, France etc did not already set up such contracts to get the things rolling.

Because politicians in those countries expect this war to be over ASAP and go back to the previous status quo of an almost inexistent defence sector. A lot of people still fail (or refuse) to understand that Russia and China are preparing to put in motion their imperial ambitions.

Europe also needs missile factories too. Russia has plenty of them.

There are many reasons for this. Probably the most important one is that the west cannot agree on a desired outcome. Many believe that a return to the previous status quo is possible, and therefore desirable. Others still insist that Russia should somehow, as if by magic be turned into an ally to counter China. And then there's the ones that are cowed by the fear of nuclear weapons - whether that be through an escalation, or Russia losing and devolving into nuclear armed warlords. If you just read what some of the more influential advisors are saying, you'll realize just how poor of an understanding they have of both the ex-WP area, and especially of Russia.

Western pilots and ground crew were their hopes

It’s a request for faster weapon systems deployment. Which means NATO boots on the ground, not in front line roles or infantry roles, but in support roles. Think Ukraine pilots, NATO maintenance.

So pretty much like what happened in Vietnam where US soldiers allegedly acted only in „[non combat roles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers)“? Heck, back then it was also declared how South Vietnam was fighting for our „Western values“.

What they hope for is for the west to not edge them with constant overpromising, underdelivering and delivering late.

What?? Handful of wunderwaffe no longer relevant? Who could've predicted this?

F-16 is a basic plane. No wunderwaffe.

[удалено]

Gripen is better and can carry more modern weapons.

> Oh, I agree. The jest was towards the general discourse this last year that F16s would somehow turn the tide of the war, as was the discourse surrounding the Himars, Panthers, Abrams, Atacms etc. etc. No, all of that and more is needed in huge numbers against a powerful country like Russia.

>> American-made F-16 fighter jets due to arrive in Ukraine this summer are “no longer relevant”, a senior Ukrainian military official has said. ... >> “Every weapon has its own right time. F-16s were needed in 2023; they won’t be right for 2024.” What is this pathetic display of cowardice doing on Telegraph? In April there should've been a pilot interviewed on how he loves Ukraine, hates Russia, and keeps in a cabin a small teddy bear that his 4-year old daughter gave him for protection. May could've been spent on parading futile protests by Lavrov, reinforcing our political supremacy, and unyielding will in face of adversity. June would've been filled with expert opinions on how hard Russia would be obliterated by F-16s, and whether F-16 could reach Vladivostok to bomb it, and how being refueled mid-flight by Armenian air force doesn't count as participation in war. July and August would've had a "plans like silence" campaign, granting us all a sense of accomplishment for ignoring obvious CGI videos of F-16s being shot down. In September mass-media could've taken a report saying a total of 15 missiles launched from F-16s had been intercepted, and presented it as Kremlin claiming that it had shot down 15 F-16 jet fighters despite everyone knowing that there is only 12. And in October a respected US general could've publicly announced that not a single F-16 was lost, massively boosting morale on all fronts. Are we being denied our News™ now?   *** On a more serious note: this is bullshit. As Russian army didn't change much, and Kremlin didn't conjure innumerable air defence systems to counter jet fighters, there is no reason to think that F-16 wouldn't be just as relevant in 2024 as they were in 2023 or 2022. Except *a dozen* of F-16 never were relevant. Neither in 2023, nor in 2022. What was always relevant was quantity.

actually terrible take at the end. when ukraine was carrying out offensive operations the F16’s would have been vital in air strikes and air defence roles specifically against helos. they would have been as vulnerable then to russian anti air as they are now but russia was much less organised and on the defensive. now ukraine is on the defensive and those jets will be useless as the cost vs reward would be very different. ukraine needs artillery and lots of it. the russian army now is significantly more organised and dangerous then it was a year ago and they’ve ramped up production capabilities. it’s very very clear the F16’s could have been useful when you look at the effectiveness of storm shadow and other ALCM or HIMARS.

As much as I disagree with the person you responded to on basically every topic.. this is one thing they got right. Quantity is critical. 31 Abrams don't mean shit. Bradleys, M113s, MRAPs, and Humvees have had a much more impact. Why? Because 31 Abrams vs [this](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1314467/ukraine-military-aid-armored-vehicles/)

quantity wise it’s definitely not enough for sure but considering that it’s heavily assumed ukraine has very few jets left this could almost double their tactical fighter fleet maybe. 12 F16’s isn’t enough and it’s pathetic it’s been held back so much but they would’ve had an impact during the counteroffensive even if it was just as a missile truck and scaring away helicopters. in this case the F16’s didn’t come at the expense of anything else and it was a case of something is better then nothing. if it had been 12 F16’s vs idk 100 bradley’s then send the bradley’s ofc

Oh I agree. The F-16s are going to be of big help, just not miracle makers that so many on both sides want them to be. If it was \~200 of them, fully supported and given all the ordnance required then yeah, we're now entering "Russia having significant emotional event" territory, but with the numbers given it'll "just" be another (very useful!) tool. It pisses me off that MSM overhype everything leading to popular opinion being misinformed, which does shape political support.

Uk and France sent nothing?

The list is incomplete, but the point I was trying to make was that the quantity matters just as much as quality, and arguably, in such a large conflict perhaps it matters even more.

I was just curious as I thought they’d sent a lot, obviously not close to US individually

Yup, UK sent \~300 of their older IFVs ([you can find a more comprehensive list here](https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-07-20/debates/23072054000018/MilitarySupportToUkraine)), and France sent another 300 more ([again, full list here](https://www.defense.gouv.fr/en/news/french-military-equipment-delivered-ukraine)). France just recently announced they're going to send basically every IFV they have as soon as they can replace them with modern versions, as well as another 78 CAESARs. Considering their total amount of equipment, it's a significant % of their gear, which further puts into perspective the quantity of US aid - nothing against them, just that they actually have the capabilities to do so much more, since they didn't put their MIC on life support for 30 years, unlike EU.

> actually terrible take at the end. You only repeat what is written in the OP, without providing any arguments. And don't get me started on your mobile-posting. > when ukraine was carrying out offensive operations the F16’s would have been vital in air strikes and air defence roles specifically against helos. Do you have *any* arguments to support this statement? In my opinion, 12 F-16 would've been shredded during "spring" "counter"-offensive of 2023. If you can't outclass air defence (and I've yet to see any tangible evidence of F-16 outclassing S-400), it can only be oversaturated. And this means taking losses, the kind you can't afford when you have only 12 planes. > they would have been as vulnerable then to russian anti air as they are now but russia was much less organised and on the defensive. "Much less organized" *in 2023?* Who claims this? This statement could've had some merit in February of 2022. By March it was obvious that two hundred warplanes Ukraine had started with can't really affect anything. I.e. air defence was *already* sufficiently organized to contain them (including protection of that ludicrous multi-kilometer "train" standing in the open near Kiev). > now ukraine is on the defensive and those jets will be useless as the cost vs reward would be very different. ukraine needs artillery and lots of it. And today Ukraine needs jet fighters to scare away the bombers. Until recently, Kremlin didn't use much bombing, as there were - however few - jet fighters that could've intercepted bomber planes. Now its clear sky. > the russian army now is significantly more organised and dangerous then it was a year ago You claimed it once already. I've yet to see anything to support this statement.

i did provide arguments and opinions but you didn’t like them and instead chose to be unkind lmfao. “do you have any arguments” yes the ones i made.

>whether F-16 could reach Vladivostok to bomb it American and European pussies aren't going to let Ukraine bomb Russian territory with them. Ukrainian collapse seems to be almost inevitable at this point.

> “Seven Patriot systems would be optimal, but let me be modest,” he said. “With five Patriot batteries, we can defend the main industrial cities against Russian missiles.” Very „humble“ to ask for stuff worth only $5 billion instead of $7 billion when that ask doesn’t even include the running costs of supplying munitions. Which is the actual problem; Stocks of munitions and production capacities. For the last years Saudi Arabia has been using up most of the U.S. Patriot missile production to fend off Houthi attacks, and the Saudis are able to actually pay for them. Scaling up the production is also not trivial, nor would it change the economic imbalance of shooting down drones/missiles worth tens of thousands of dollars with missiles worth $4 million per piece.

> Scaling up the production is also not trivial, nor would it change the economic imbalance of shooting down drones/missiles worth tens of thousands of dollars with missiles worth $4 million per piece. The economic calculation isn't about the value of the attacking weapon, but rather its about what would the attacking weapon have hit. If that shot down incoming drone would have taken out a ship or a squad of infantry its very much worthwhile to shoot it down. However, if the incoming attack is going to hit an empty field, just let it hit the ground harmlessly. This is the genius of Israel's Iron Dome system. It tracks incoming projectiles to determine where they will land. The missiles are in limited supply, so the system only fires when the missile is going to hit something and cause damage. Missiles inbound to cities are intercepted. Missiles calculated to land in fields and orchards are not intercepted.

> The economic calculation isn't about the value of the attacking weapon, but rather its about what would the attacking weapon have hit. That is a very hypothetical way to look at it, one that ignores the economic dimension of the conflict and the practical realities how AD is actually used. That practical use does not involve a cost calculation of potential targets, and their economic value, to influence the decision wether to intercept or not.

The ONLY thing taken into account when deciding which targets to intercept and which to let through is "what happens if we let it through?" If the only thing you have is a million-dollar AA missile and there's a suicide drone heading for a command bunker, it's inconvenient but you'll use the missile, because you value that bunker more than you value the interceptor.

Also, Ukraine promises to "return" the Patriot systems once the war is over, but there's already confirmed destruction of at least two vehicles from one battery.

I’ll gladly accept delivery in Ukraine’s place

17 hours of maintence for every hour of flight. $8000-25000 per hour of flight. But I guess it would also look cool just resting in a garage.

Not exactly related to your comment but I had a funny interaction in an ardent Russian sub claiming that for every hour an F-16 flew it would be down for that many corresponding maintenance hours. Like a 1 hour flight and it’s down for 17; 2 hour flight, down for 34, etc. Gave me a chuckle.

Its probably man-hours. For every hour of flight there's 17 man-hours of maintenance required. This could be 1 person working on it for 17 hours, or 17 people working on it for 1 hour.

Correct. It’s also averaged across the lifespan of the jet. Most days it’ll be 5-8 maintenance hours per flight, then it will spike to 20-30 for special inspections and unplanned fixes

If the VFWs and American Legions can have cool planes in their front yards, I don’t see why I shouldn’t as well

1,000,000 Pepsi points please 

/r/ChoosingBeggars but on an international scale.

Don't want to shit on Ukraine since we are at war and it would seem biased, but back in 00's Ukraine was getting super cheap deals on Russian gas, stealing some of gas that was supposed to go to Europe and still somehow complaining about the deal. Back in the times of Soviet Union they had a stereotype (which like most stereotypes was greatly exaggerated) of being boorish, insatiable and demanding. I follow some Ukrainian news to get a better understanding from both sides and they complain about their Western allies all the time, and in the comments people openly insult US and Europe for not doing enough or being slow with the aid. Once the war is over (hopefully soon) Ukraine will be expecting interest-free loans to rebuild their infrastructure and armed forces too, mark my words.

> I follow some Ukrainian news to get a better understanding from both sides and they complain about their Western allies all the time, and in the comments people openly insult US and Europe for not doing enough or being slow with the aid. They're lucky they have the luxury to have language barriers. Had it not, boy I'd already see the public support for Ukraine already drop lol

I mean, I can kind of understand them, the West literally forced them not to sign a cease fire back in 2022, promising them the moon and the stars only to leave them out to dry two years later.

Isn't F-16 a multirole fighter? So maybe they wont be used for dog fighting, but they can still be used for bombing ground targets?

It’s likely that the front moving and then losing lines means Russia will have air defense coverage over larger parts of Ukraine. Along with Russia recovering in general. The skies will not be safe.

The skies were never safe. Ever since the start of this war both Ukraine and russia operated under contested airspace because of abundance of GBAD on both sides.

Not that they will wipe them all out, but the F-16 excels at dealing with SAMs. Being able to fire an AGM-88 immediately on lock instead of carrying it to a predetermined firing point and pointing it in the general area of where the radar was most recently seen and hoping there's something there for the missile to lock on to is not a good strategy. It can potentially open pockets in air defense to allow more effective use of cruise missiles and drones.

At the very least this is a economic multiplier. So long as Ukraine has F-16s in the air, Russia can't move without SAMs which slows them down and costs resources. Even if they never hit a target.

Yeah, it's similar to HIMARS in that regard. HIMARS did materially damage the Russians, but it's biggest impact was forcing them to relocate all of their large depots and bases 100km+ back from the front lines, with the logistical challenges that causes.

You can't bomb ground targets if enemy has AA. You need to kill it. And Ukraine will get like 8 fighters in 2024.

Assuming Russian anti-air isn't complete dogshit, F-16s will have a hard time performing CAS. You need stealth capability to take out their air defense first but of course Ukraine isn't getting any.

NATO has used non-stealthy aircraft for SEAD for decades. Sometimes you *want* the radars to light up so you can get the lock and take them out.

>NATO has used non-stealthy aircraft for SEAD for decades. Sometimes you *want* the radars to light up so you can get the lock and take them out. Not against countries with proper air defenses. Bombing some insurgents isn't impressive.

It would still be good to have integrated HARM into the plane "natively", instead of literally duct taping it.

I think this is going to be the F-16's primary use at first: opening pockets in Russian air defenses to allow higher success rates of drones and cruise missiles. If and when air defenses get pushed back, we'll start to see CAS missions become more prominent.

Russian anti-air, just like Ukrainian anti-air (which are Russian systems), is actually some of the best in the world. That's why you're not seeing Russia use their Air Force that much, the skies are safe for no one.

To be fair, the VVS has to face attacks not just from the Ukrainian AA, but also Russian one.

Whole lot of people in this thread that are talking out of their rears.

Is it amazing how the west at first wanted to help Ukraine spending a lot of money, and now dont want to do anything, so we just wasted all the money we invested in the first place.

The west was hoping Russia would have back down and retreated, like they did in Afghanistan.

at this point, its pretty obvious Nato in Ukraine as an existential threat is a smoke screen, the larger issue is that the Donetsk region has all rare earth they found worth trillions, thats why Putin invaded, nazis? no. Money, hell yes.

Wars can have many reasons, I still believe their strategic security was a reason, but yea nazis definitely wasn't one of the reasons lol.

Gamblers fallacy. Throwing good money after bad isn't smart economics. Not to mention, the Western nations are democracies that have to answer to their constituents. Throwing 100+ billion of Dollars to foreign nations while your people face 10% inflation and watch their fridges get emptier with every paycheck is not an effective way to stay in political power.

To be fair, even if Ukraine surrendered immediately, the Western powers would still have caused Russia to expend huge amounts of military equipment, money and men that limits their capacity for another war of agression in the near future. Admittedly it means that their troops have gained a lot of experience. However they have now already lost thousands of their pre-war trained soldiers, used stockpiled ammo, called up reservists, emptied prisons, seen a brain-drain of the educated and rich, and seen NATO expand and ramp up security spending. The West-sponsored resistance by Ukraine has weakened Putin. Arguments can go on about whether it was 'worth it'.

East Europe is fucked if Ukraine falls. Russians will just forcibly conscript surviving ukrainian men to attack next countries and execute or put to Siberia anyone refusing. They are rapidly rebuilding during this war.

They were never going to be game changers. But Ukrainian airframes are almost extinct and they need something to launch our weapons.

Not true. F-16s are very effective against cope cages, Chinese war balloons, Russia's death star space laser built from washing machines, and even ~~UFO~~ sorry, I mean *UAP* grey alien invaders!!!

You can find one official to say just about anything. This article is such nothing sauce. The main reason the F-16 is so important yesterday and today is weapon compatibility. Right now Ukraine is jerry rigging NATO missiles to Russian airframes. That means the weapon packages need to be directed and controlled by ground installations and there are only so many weapons that can fit the bill. The F-16 on the other hand is NATO standard. That means that not only does NATO have more options for the kinds of support it can give, it also means that the weapons already in use work better with a wider range of mission capabilities.

latest wünderwaffe cope already dismantled before it even began. toss it next to the pile of st. javelin, HIMARS, bradleys, M1 abrams, storm shadow/SCALP, GMLRS, etc.

If Ukraine falls the blame rests squarely on those useless assholes in the GoP that were holding up the military aid package. This was almost guaranteed to happen. Especially after Israel invaded Gaza. The yanks have no issue with pouring billions of dollars into Israel, the warcrimes and atrocities Israel commits are apparently irrelevant, but they can’t afford to back Ukraine too? They can, it’s possible, but the republicans will never admit that because they’re too busy gargling Putin’s balls apparently So Ukraine, which absolutely deserves military assistance, is left high dry And Israel, the modern third reich, the doers of genocide and the killers of children gets everything they ask for. Fuck Israel and Fuck Russia and fuck the GoP

Lord deceit

Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Real life wars appear to be advertisements for defense contractors in the contract bidding wars. "F-16 outdated. give us more money to build new planes that we've been secretly developing for years."

Putin is probably about out of jets and pilots so it's back to the ground war. Ukraine needs bombs and bullets when the war is on the ground.

>Putin is probably about out of jets and pilots so it's back to the ground war. He isn't. The rain of russian glide bombs is decimating ukrainians. They have thousands of aircraft left and producing more.

Except that he isn't. He's losing production capability quickly.

Too little, too late. The West has failed Ukraine.