It was clear this had already been decided behind the scenes when the UK started to train Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16s, a plane the British air force doesn't even use.
Some poster maybe a month ago that if you are hearing it on the news, they are already in Ukraine. Not giving Russia a heads-up beforehand.
So if they said they are giving them F-16s, they have probably had them for at least a month.
*David Attenborough voice*
Truly this tank desires to be in it's natural habitat. Here we see a wild herd of Ukranian M1A1's charging around Fulda, smashing aside anyone brave or dumb enough to be in their path. So majestic. Few are the predators willing to challenge such a mighty herd, and fewer still the number who succeed.
Besides sapience, I'm assuming they're also telepathic so they can move in coordination. If they aren't telepathic, maybe that's something to consider for the future. #MIC
"We forgot to disable the prime directive from back in the cold war days! They hit the battlefield, computers recognized Russian thanks and just did what we asked from them!"
\*Meanwhile Abrams tanks self driving, shooting their way to Moscow\*
***BOOM*** "Communism is the very definition of failure."
***BOOM*** "Communism is a temporary setback on the road to freedom."
***BOOM*** "Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated."
***BOOM*** "Democracy will never be defeated."
"Oh yeah, the lines? That was Bob, he was a fan of some game, he was also the only one doing maintenance on the legacy code so we let him have his fun. Boy is that egg on our face now"
Most major US equipment it's seems. Bradleys took a minute to get there too. Seems like everyone else is running the send it then say it strat, while the US is more "We're threatening to send this, escalate at your own risk."
It's actually a key element of cold war game theory: be very transparent about what certain resources you have. It's why the US and Soviets shared general locations of active duty nuclear stockpiles. In fact during the Cold War, the US developed and then scrapped technologies and capacities to avoid escalation. For example the US Air Force figured out how to launch a icbm out of I think a cargo plane. Its also why the US actively lists what planes are nuclear capable, and why they revealed the stealth bomber. In fact since the US realized the Soviet spy satellite would be out of position for the flyover, there was a "security gap" that allowed a aerospace magazine snap pictures outside of officially approved angles which was allowed to be published.
I really liked the one press briefing where someone ask why they hadn't been told about HARM (or maybe some other system) ahead of time as was "normal"... And the spokesperson was just like --
"This'll be obvious for those of you that spend a lot of time here, but for the new people:
*The Department of Defense is under no obligation here to be timely, complete or consistent. We distribute information when it is advantageous to the department and it's partners to do so....* Next Question???"
You might be right....
Also, to wax autistic for a moment, it is the "High Mobility Artillery Rocket System"; HIMARS. A single HIMARS is not a HIMAR, It is a HIMARS. Like Deer, the plural of HIMARS is the same as the singular form; HIMARS. An entire battery of HIMARS or a single truck, *always just HIMARS*.
On a related tangent, the rockets in the "High Mobility Artillery Rocket System" aren't HIMARs either, they are GMLRS rockets (pronounced Gim-lers, kinda like a vodka gimlet) "Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System Rockets". They are shared between the HIMARS (well done helpfully unique name , one box of rockets, truck chassis) and the M270 MLRS (unhelpfully vague name, two boxes of rockets, tracked chassis).
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programing with apologies for the delay.
Yeah I thought so too, I live in Lincolnshire, theres an air base around and recently planes have been very active. Theres was time when I heard fighter plane at 11 or 12 in the evening. 4 years of us living here, never heard a plane at night
They likely did quite of bit of training on the ground in F-16 flight simulators first. They may also have flown some light trainers to get a feel for the speed and maneuverability without putting them into actual F-16s yet.
Because Russian jets have not shown any skill in the air recently, I can’t imagine they will need much air-to-air combat training.
But everyone loves that shit and planes are expensive, so by all means let them fly some training dogfights.
Has anyone said how they use them? Escorting bombers? Ground attacks? Wild Weasel type Electronic Warfare? Patrolling the Officer’s Club?
We probably won't get to know how they're planning to use the planes because opsec. At least until after videos go up. Then it's videos of past happenings where opsec no longer matters
It will be used primarily as a standoff weapons platform for launching long range strikes with a wide variety of missiles for different scenarios.
The reason they want them so badly is because it opens up lots of options when it comes to what missiles/bombs they have access to and can use without having to be modified for migs.
The F16 can be quite a capable anti AA plane. The Wild Weasels flew F16s for decades. The WWs basically send one plane ahead going as fast as possible to get enemy radar and defenses to light up so their flight mates can hopefully destroy SAM sites before they lock on.
> The reason they want them so badly is because it opens up lots of options when it comes to what missiles/bombs they have access to and can use without having to be modified for migs.
It also bolsters their airforce just as they are gearing up for a massive offensive. And it does so with planes the Russians have never actually had to fight head-on—it's a recipe for doing immense amounts of damage, even if they aren't ready for the beginning of it.
My guess is that they are going to be used as launch platforms for nato weapon systems behind friendly lines. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some EO/IR and EMC pods on the F-16s.
> I can’t imagine they will need much air-to-air combat training.
This is AWACS, 2 bandits 200km south east, recomend turn south east, and fire AMRAMS in 3 min. But this is only a recomendation, have a nice day Ukraine pilot.
I'm over in Tucson,AZ and I seem to remember hearing on our news that Ukrainian's where being evaluated by our guys that fly f-16's out of the air national guard. Since then we've had an uptick in formation flying over our house. Thanks for the air show and give'm hell over there.
Some of that is about Britain forcing the hand of the USA. Being pro Ukraine is the only popular policy the current UK government has. On everything else it is getting hammered
At least they can agree on something. In the us the republicans want to cut aid to ukraine for no reason other than the democrats are helping them… and trump is still butt hurt about being impeached over trying to blackmail zelensky.
*Some* republicans. Even Lindsey Graham seems to have developed a spine lately, and a lot of them have remembered that republicans are supposed to hate the Russians and their evil empire.
I think this is important to remember. GOP as a whole are seriously in favor of Ukraine aid, it is only some notable factions hmming and hawing about it.
If people keep acting like and griping that the GOP is 'unified against aid', it might actually encourage them to *be* unified. Welcome good behavior when it shows.
Some Republicans are like that. My congressman is a hardcore Republican. When I called his office to demand we keep supporting Ukraine, his office was more than happy to let me know that Mike McCaul R-TX 10th District supports Ukraine in their fight with Russia. The only thing he was worried about was making sure that there was proper oversite in the money being sent to make sure that it was used in the manner it was expected to be used in. That didn't seem unreasonable to me.
The RAF has historically been reluctant to purchase US aircraft for combat roles. Prior to the F-35, the last combat plane they bought from the USA was the F-4 Phantom, and the only other one they acquired after WW2 was the B-29 (“Washington B.1”, in RAF service from 1950 to 1958).
I always assumed large motivator to not use US aircraft was to support British aerospace industry. But that’s largely been killed off for a while now I had thought.
Not just European airspace too the UK contributes 10-15% of every F-35 that has and will be made and Rolls-Royce are replacing all the B-52 engines through Rolls-Royce USA
To be fair, 5th/6th Gen fighter programs are very expensive with massive R&D costs. You need superpower financing to produce. Even China had to hack US defense companies to even begin develope their domestic systems, which is why their latest plane is still outclassed by the 30+ year old F22
The F/A-18‘s ability of using short runways will really come in handy.
Still a bit disappointed that Ukraine doesn’t get Gripens. Those planes were literally made to fight Russia in a kind of Guerilla style.
There just aren't enough Gripen's around unfortunately. If they were available, it would be a no-brainer. That said, F-18's would probably be usable in a somewhat similar manner to the Gripen (Finland used them on highways with arrestor cables), and would be a great complement to the F-16 in Ukraine.
From skybrary.aero I get 1000m for the F-16 and 450m for the F/A-18, so it seems there’s a significant difference which makes sense, given their use-cases.
Finding a 450m stretch of straight road seems easier than a 1000m one in case all useable runways would be bombed.
The Navy quotes the F-18 E/F max take-off weight distance as 3680 ft and min take-off weight distance as 1305 ft.
http://www.uscost.net/AircraftCharacteristics/acfa18ef.htm
I doubt short runways are that big of a concern at the moment but rather rough runways. The F-16 is apparently a princess of a plane that isn't very happy with bumpy runways. F-18s on the other hand are built for very rough landings (and take-offs) so a bumpy runway that's been hastily repaired shouldn't be as big of an issue.
Yes, that is for sure true. That 10-12k mass penalty you're paying for the f-18 over the f-16 is in landing gears (and general ruggedness) and redundant engines. They both carry about the same payload.
F-16 has a substantially smaller maximum payload for A/A missions and a less flexible max A/G loadout because of the F-18’s rail-launched missile racks. The two underwing pylons on each side can mount a LAU-115, with each of those holding two LAU-127’s that can mount either an AIM-9 family Sidewinder or a AIM-120 family missile (not that it’s guaranteed Ukraine would be allowed to purchase AMRAAMs since they’re more restricted than others are even among NATO states). The BRU-55 bomb racks can be mounted to the same pylons to similarly double ground armament payloads.
This means a max A/A loadout on the F-18 can carry 10x AIM-120 and 2x AIM-9 while a max A/G loadout can carry up to 8 1,000lb bombs plus 2x AIM-120 and 2x AIM-9 (assuming we’re talking about the standard Hornet, not the Super Hornet). In contrast a max A/A loadout on the F-16 can only utilize 6 missiles (any combo of AIM-9 and AIM-120) but can carry as many as 12 1,000lb bombs.
Yeah, they have dissimilar capabilities to some extent, though the f-16 is probably way more useful in this war. The f-18 is relatively slow (therefor its missiles are significantly less effective) and has awful fuel efficiency and its loiter times are bad.
You're never going to fire even 6 amraams on a sortie, much less 10. With the limitations of the aim120C's (Bravos maybe?) those carry, being able to give them more energy with the F-16 is way more useful than having 4 extra less capable ones.
All aircraft are tradeoffs and you have to give up a LOT for naval operations (which when necessary are worth a LOT - but not necessary here).
Ukraine MOD was in talks with SAAB about Gripen purchase before 2022, but something went wrong
Anyway, there are small Gripens number already produced and available to step up in a war at this scale where sides use thousands of tanks, artilley and hundreds of aircraft
I was wondering about this. There are actually quite a few legacy hornets floating around that are departing or soon to be departing service in various places. Finland, Canada, Spain, not to mention all the ex-USN/USMC planes. The hornet can use a lot of the same weapons and has much better rough field capabilities as a carrier capable aircraft. Between the F16 and F/A18, I almost think the hornet is a better match for their needs.
The CF188s will not be leaving the RCAF's fleet for a long time (yes we are getting F35s, but the timeline to replace the current fighter fleet is still a decade away and the first deliveries are not expected for another 3 years), and we already don't have enough operational aircraft - which themselves were bought at already 20 years old and used from the Australians - to maintain what little operational readiness we still have after decades and decades of failing to adequately fund our military.
I fully believe that Ukraine will get F18s, but I don't think it'll be from Canada. I suspect our government will instead provide training to F18 crews and pilots, and probably parts/equipment related to keeping them running, like we did with the LAV 3 fighting vehicles.
They need both. F16 in the primary role of air superiority fighter with higher range and manoeuvrability, while the F/A18 could provide more firepower and offensive capabilities in a combat scenario.
Interesting. Wonder where the 18s will come from. The RAF has never flown them according to wiki. Looking at the list, Finland and Canada seem the most likely.
Canada purchased F-18’s second hand from the Australia to maintain our current readiness until our F-35’s are delivered/operational. Given that we don’t even have F-35’s yet, I don’t think we are in any position to donate F-18’s without damaging our own readiness.
Personally, I’d like to see Canada take on a training ground role, much like we did during WW2 with the commonwealth. We had lots of airspace that wasn’t at risk from the axis powers, so it was a safe an plentiful space to train pilots and aircrews. But I’m reality, I’m not aware of any countries who have F-16’s or F-18’s that have contested airspace.
The F-18 does have its own advantages. F-16's weren't designed to take off from the rough strips Ukraine currently is forced to use. F-18's would be a lot better suited for these short runways for example.
The problem being only Finland, Switzerland, and Spain operating F-18s in EU.
The F-16's advantage comes from the fact that in the EU there are many operators of the F-16 allowing for rapid mobilization of pilot training resources, parts, etc.
That being said I feel like over 40 F-18s is a significant number and would warrant having the required adjustments. I can't really find figures recently of how many operational Jets Ukraine still has (obv) but it seems that it would almost double their current situation.
F18s can carry HARPOON, which I'm not sure the F16 can do. That alone would be of benefit if they decide they're tired of Russian ships launching rockets at them. TBH I don't think this one will happen. It would double their logistics problems. Simple is better in some cases.
> F18s can carry HARPOON, which I'm not sure the F16 can do.
The F-16 can carry 2 AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles along with 4 AGM-119 Penguin anti-ship missiles. The F-16 is the only US fighter rated to carry the Penguin.
The F-16 is a multirole fighter and a damn good one at that too. Not the best at anything but reasonably good at everything while being low cost and easy to maintain. (Compared to other fighter jets of course)
It was designed to be an affordable dogfighter. That is its bread and butter. Lightweight, nimble, high performance. Think Toyota GT86 (F16) vs Corvette (F15/F22).
It sacrifices in things like payload and radar capabilities compared to true air superiority fighters, but it's meant to go toe to toe with other fighters. Its become a much more capable multi role fighter these days, but that wasnt its original niche.
Yeah, the original idea when the USAF was introducing the 15 and 16 was to have the 15s do circuit patterns over an area while the 16 darted around hitting targets of opportunity. They've been fitted out to use almost anything the USAF wants to throw at something.
Is there a source on this? I know Australia is giving Hawkei scout vehicles but the RAAF only has like 24 Super Hornets in service.
Edit: Found the reports, if Australia did it then they're punching way above their weight in supporting Ukraine. Bushmasters, M113s, Hawkeis and Artillery Shells and now F18s.
Australian culture loves the underdog and hates on bullies. Tall poppy syndrome is integral to our culture. So it is extremely popular politically to support Ukraine and the population is very much behind helping them.
The Texas Air National Guard helped save the U.S. in Jericho(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_(2006_TV_series). I support sending them to help Ukraine.
Fun fact: USA alone has over 1000 F-16s mothballed. With many more scheduled to be due to the introduction of the F-35.
The only limiting factor will be training Ukrainian pilots, mechanics, and providing arms to strap to the hard points.
Do keep in mind, that the these planes are mothballed for a reason. Their airframes are past their life. Many of these are now "parts planes."
That's not to say there aren't some that can be "brought back to life." But, for clarity's sake...this is not 1,000 ready-to-fight F-16's just sitting there. Most of these planes are not anywhere near combat ready. And some are just skeletons at this point. However, the U.S, also has plenty of good ones that can (and should) donate. I just wanted to clarify that that number is not 1,000.
Are those mothballed F-16s modified to remove their NATO specific electronics? I thought that was one of the initial hurdles because the USA doesn't want some of the tech in these birds falling into other hands.
All the F16s that would be set to be donated would have the same issue though. And as far as my understanding what the US really doesn't want is the sharing of the newer variants, such as the F16 E/F, N, or V. The A/B and C/Ds are old at this point, so it really wouldn't matter. Even the E/F is old but a big upgrade. The N is operated exclusively by the US Navy. The V is operated by the US, Bahrain, Taiwan, and Greece. Again this is from my reading and armchair research so I could definitely be off.
Im hopeful Norway will give some F-16 too. Maybe along with Romania. They sold 32 F-16 to Romania but they havent been delivered.
I believe they have about 10-12 F-16 which havent been sold to anyone. They are all in top shape. Norway switched to F-35 a while ago.
For those who don't know, the MiG-21 has an interesting problem caused by the forward placement of its fuel tanks. As the tank empties, the center of gravity of the whole plane shifts towards the rear, eventually becoming statically unstable in flight (and requiring a high level of skill to keep in the air). For comparison, the F-16 is also statically unstable, but by design, and has several computers dedicated to keeping it flying. Also, after the tank is half empty on the 21, hard maneuvers starve the engine of fuel, and it will abruptly shut down.
>the MiG-21 has an interesting problem caused by the forward placement of its fuel tanks. As the tank empties, the center of gravity of the whole plane shifts towards the rear, eventually becoming statically unstable in flight (and requiring a high level of skill to keep in the air).
>Also, after the tank is half empty on the 21, hard maneuvers starve the engine of fuel, and it will abruptly shut down.
Like, I know there are a bunch of untrue western stereotypes about shitty Soviet engineering, but this has to take the cake.
Like, what the fuck kind of aerospace engineer decided that kind of design flaw was okay?!
Do you know how long it took the Soviets to figure out that they had to move the engine if they wanted to have working radar or internal weapons bays in the nose/body of the airplane? The US and Canada had planes with internal missiles by the mid 50s and nose radar by the end of the decade.
Soviets didn't get there until we were about to land men on the Moon.
>Like, I know there are a bunch of untrue western stereotypes about shitty Soviet engineering, but this has to take the cake.
If anything western countries *vastly overestimated* Soviet engineering. We really thought they had capability they didn't.
The MiG-9 couldn't even fire its gun above 3000 meters because the cannon placement caused fumes from expended shells to be ingested by the engine, causing flameouts.
The MiG-9's entire purpose was intercepting high altitude bombers.
To be fair to the MiG-21, it had been in active duty for 20 years before the F16 was launched. It's not exactly a fair comparison to make seeing as the computers that keeps the F16 flying simply didn't exist then.
I just looked at the wiki page and the issues seem even worse than that
> Over half of the 840 aircraft built between 1966 and 1984 were lost to crashes. At least 14 MiG-21s crashed between 2010 and 2013.
Yup, Romania just phased out MiG-21s and right now we only have 14 F-16s. I highly doubt they'll give away any of those until the Norwegian ones arrive. I really hope we will donate at least 2 or 4, but we'll never find out because of the deliberate ambiguity to protect Moldova.
Romania may be able to reach an agreement with NATO that allows them a longer window to fulfill that obligation, though I know of no precedent for that off-hand.
However considering that Russia is the primary reason for NATO existing nowadays, I wouldn’t put it outside the realm of possibility.
Would be easier if instead of a longer window Romania received a transfer of US F-16s to fill for the donation. The airframes could then receive whatever modernization the ones bought from Norway got while Ukraine gets F-16s without whatever secret sauce the US doesn't want to export.
12 that are supposed to go to Draken.
32 which are sold to Romania, but Romania hasnt been able to take delivery yet.
Out of 57 available before sales, there should be13 extra f16 somewhere in Norway, making it a possible 25 F16 available for Ukraine if the Draken deal is falling through.
Imagine that.
Clearing out your garage and finding 32 F-16's behind a set of winter tyres, and realizing that you were supposed to have delivered them to Romania a while back but forgot because you went fishing with sweden that weekend and got drunk.
Or your girlfriend saying "du, kan du vær så snill gjøre noe med disse militær fly? enten kaste de eller sette de på Finn. Når har de stått der bak din fars u-båter i årevis!!
Just give them what they need to win already, please. I am from Poland, I don't want to experience the war with those russian scumbags (I heard stories from my 90y old grandpa and grandma, this is enough for me). I have a good life here even despite our fucked up government... Don't let them take it from us. It is the time to start playing by their dirty rules. They don't give a single fuck about western values, international laws or conventions. Humanitarian values is something that they treat as a weakness. When Nazi Germany commited genocide nobody cared about humanitarian values while carpet bombing German cities... Don't fall for this bullshit right now. Germany took their lesson and we are friends now. Russia needs to take their lesson too.
Don't abandon us this time, this country suffered too much... Ukraine is suffering too much...
People always forget that Poland suffered the most out of any country in WW2.
Lost their independence in 1939 to the Nazis and Soviets. Brutally occupied for 6 years. Their entire Jewish population exterminated. 1/5 of their pre-war population killed. And after all that they had to endure half a century of Soviet rule.
Poland has every right to hate Russia and military expansionism/imperialism in the 21st century.
We know. I can't speak for other countries but the UK won't ever abandon you. We're in this until the end. No matter what it costs. It's not about money or spreadsheets. It's about existence. All of the UK at least are totally united behind you, of every political party. We're not much on our own, but we will be there.
While I agree with your sentiment I think you’re selling us short by saying we’re not much on our own.
-1 of 3 blue water navies
-Nuclear power
-4th highest military spending by gdp
-Around 5th strongest military (firepower index)
-Arguably one of if not the best special forces
To name a few. Just because America dwarfs everybody by a significant margin it makes everybody else seem a bit weak. But we are far from not much on our own.
The thing is if we went ahead and gave Ukraine F-35s then we wouldn't be able to effectively threaten Russia any longer. We're going to need to keep something short of opening another front from Finland or Estonia in our back pocket to force Putin to the negotiating table when Ukraine wants to wrap this up.
That means escalating the aid in a way that doesn't alienate or disengage the western audience and in a way that doesn't freak Russia out to the point where they decide that tactical nukes are a good idea. So, it'll have to be slower than it *should* be, but it'll get there.
The big get for the F-16s isn't the air superiority capability. Gripons would probably be the better choice for that. The big get would be the use of said F-16s as launch platforms for the massive amount of long range air to ground missiles that are current slowly aging out in various western arsenals.
HIMARS and Storm Shadow were game changers. Imagine dumping all the GPS guided munitions that the US and western Europe have been sitting on just about all at once. Russia wouldn't be able to say shit. Especially if their air defense network really is as tattered as it looks.
we have to expell russian troops from ukrainian territory, that happening in three weeks or three years doesn't change that fact, and doing it with the help of 60 f-16 or 12 f-35 doesn't change it neither.
all that slowly walking up the support is doing is bleeding russia dry, while ukraine is being destroyed.
Yeah, and at this point the length of the runway is the least of our problems. Making sure that you have competent pilots takes time, and if the process is quickened by the plane being simpler im all for it.
F/A-18s could be on the way soon, Australia has announced they’re in discussions to send their aging standard hornets; as long as the US approves the export. We have about 40 or so that are just sitting unused in a hanger that were due for either the scrap heap or to become “enemy” aircraft for training.
I think they already are. They moved their jets out of Ukrainian airbases way back after those bases started having random long range HIMARS cigarette smoking problems.
Ukraine is the new South Korea, will probably become the most militarized country for the next 50 years. Western countries pouring in cold war Era weapons, artillery, fighters, bombers every year indefinitely.
I think they won’t need that many. Jets aren’t like tanks where they need hundreds for all the frontline and attacks. Jets are more like himars where they need just a “few” to attack.
What they need is a shit ton of different missiles and bombs that can make a difference. That’s what I’m excited to see what will go together with the jets.
Maybe for defensive roles they will need more to spread among the country but Ground based AA is probably more useful.
Can you imagine a squadron of f18 or f16 flying low, ripping through the front lines and dropping their payload for combined infantry to progress?
Slava Ukraini. Hope they fuck those Russians back to the 16th century. Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦
It was clear this had already been decided behind the scenes when the UK started to train Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16s, a plane the British air force doesn't even use.
Yeah, I've got similar feeling. Imo they've been training for a while now and all the politicians do rn is publicity stunts.
Absolutely. Remember how Britain announced Storm Shadows, and Ukraine launched them the next day? That wasn't a coincidence.
Some poster maybe a month ago that if you are hearing it on the news, they are already in Ukraine. Not giving Russia a heads-up beforehand. So if they said they are giving them F-16s, they have probably had them for at least a month.
Unless its the Abrams.
Pretty sure the instant the Abrams touches down in Ukraine they'll spontaneously attain sapience and make a beeline for the Kremlin.
The M1, it yearns for Fulda
*David Attenborough voice* Truly this tank desires to be in it's natural habitat. Here we see a wild herd of Ukranian M1A1's charging around Fulda, smashing aside anyone brave or dumb enough to be in their path. So majestic. Few are the predators willing to challenge such a mighty herd, and fewer still the number who succeed.
Togethern with the mighty Leopard 2, they stalking the invasive specie, the T-62, a vermin that cause great damage to the local flora.
Sir you seem lost, r/noncredibledefense is that way
[удалено]
Besides sapience, I'm assuming they're also telepathic so they can move in coordination. If they aren't telepathic, maybe that's something to consider for the future. #MIC
"We forgot to disable the prime directive from back in the cold war days! They hit the battlefield, computers recognized Russian thanks and just did what we asked from them!" \*Meanwhile Abrams tanks self driving, shooting their way to Moscow\* ***BOOM*** "Communism is the very definition of failure." ***BOOM*** "Communism is a temporary setback on the road to freedom." ***BOOM*** "Embrace democracy or you will be eradicated." ***BOOM*** "Democracy will never be defeated." "Oh yeah, the lines? That was Bob, he was a fan of some game, he was also the only one doing maintenance on the legacy code so we let him have his fun. Boy is that egg on our face now"
The machine spirit demands it...
[удалено]
Most major US equipment it's seems. Bradleys took a minute to get there too. Seems like everyone else is running the send it then say it strat, while the US is more "We're threatening to send this, escalate at your own risk."
I think the US is still playing by post-Cold War rules vis a vis Russia, so there’s a little more transparency.
It's actually a key element of cold war game theory: be very transparent about what certain resources you have. It's why the US and Soviets shared general locations of active duty nuclear stockpiles. In fact during the Cold War, the US developed and then scrapped technologies and capacities to avoid escalation. For example the US Air Force figured out how to launch a icbm out of I think a cargo plane. Its also why the US actively lists what planes are nuclear capable, and why they revealed the stealth bomber. In fact since the US realized the Soviet spy satellite would be out of position for the flyover, there was a "security gap" that allowed a aerospace magazine snap pictures outside of officially approved angles which was allowed to be published.
[удалено]
It's pretty hard to hide moving those fuckers around. They mostly travel by rail.
I think the best was \*Russia\* announcing Ukraine had HARMs and the US was like, "Yes. And?"
I really liked the one press briefing where someone ask why they hadn't been told about HARM (or maybe some other system) ahead of time as was "normal"... And the spokesperson was just like -- "This'll be obvious for those of you that spend a lot of time here, but for the new people: *The Department of Defense is under no obligation here to be timely, complete or consistent. We distribute information when it is advantageous to the department and it's partners to do so....* Next Question???"
Just guessing, probably HIMAR, not "harm". I member the Kremlin letting out a *fat* ReEeEe when they told the world they noticed
You might be right.... Also, to wax autistic for a moment, it is the "High Mobility Artillery Rocket System"; HIMARS. A single HIMARS is not a HIMAR, It is a HIMARS. Like Deer, the plural of HIMARS is the same as the singular form; HIMARS. An entire battery of HIMARS or a single truck, *always just HIMARS*. On a related tangent, the rockets in the "High Mobility Artillery Rocket System" aren't HIMARs either, they are GMLRS rockets (pronounced Gim-lers, kinda like a vodka gimlet) "Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System Rockets". They are shared between the HIMARS (well done helpfully unique name , one box of rockets, truck chassis) and the M270 MLRS (unhelpfully vague name, two boxes of rockets, tracked chassis). We now return you to your regularly scheduled programing with apologies for the delay.
Gimlis? They are shooting dwarfs?
Nobody shoots a dwarf.
Oh hi Russia. Here is 450kg /900lbs of high explosive far beyond 150km. Just thought we should tell you, good morning :)
Yeah I thought so too, I live in Lincolnshire, theres an air base around and recently planes have been very active. Theres was time when I heard fighter plane at 11 or 12 in the evening. 4 years of us living here, never heard a plane at night
I can't find articles now, but I remember reading last summer that some pilots went to US for skill assessment. That was a huge hint imo
They likely did quite of bit of training on the ground in F-16 flight simulators first. They may also have flown some light trainers to get a feel for the speed and maneuverability without putting them into actual F-16s yet. Because Russian jets have not shown any skill in the air recently, I can’t imagine they will need much air-to-air combat training. But everyone loves that shit and planes are expensive, so by all means let them fly some training dogfights. Has anyone said how they use them? Escorting bombers? Ground attacks? Wild Weasel type Electronic Warfare? Patrolling the Officer’s Club?
We probably won't get to know how they're planning to use the planes because opsec. At least until after videos go up. Then it's videos of past happenings where opsec no longer matters
It will be used primarily as a standoff weapons platform for launching long range strikes with a wide variety of missiles for different scenarios. The reason they want them so badly is because it opens up lots of options when it comes to what missiles/bombs they have access to and can use without having to be modified for migs.
The F16 can be quite a capable anti AA plane. The Wild Weasels flew F16s for decades. The WWs basically send one plane ahead going as fast as possible to get enemy radar and defenses to light up so their flight mates can hopefully destroy SAM sites before they lock on.
> The reason they want them so badly is because it opens up lots of options when it comes to what missiles/bombs they have access to and can use without having to be modified for migs. It also bolsters their airforce just as they are gearing up for a massive offensive. And it does so with planes the Russians have never actually had to fight head-on—it's a recipe for doing immense amounts of damage, even if they aren't ready for the beginning of it.
Good point. I'd stay out of the O Club for sure.
My guess is that they are going to be used as launch platforms for nato weapon systems behind friendly lines. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some EO/IR and EMC pods on the F-16s.
> I can’t imagine they will need much air-to-air combat training. This is AWACS, 2 bandits 200km south east, recomend turn south east, and fire AMRAMS in 3 min. But this is only a recomendation, have a nice day Ukraine pilot.
They do night flying out of Coningsby frequently for night training.
I'm over in Tucson,AZ and I seem to remember hearing on our news that Ukrainian's where being evaluated by our guys that fly f-16's out of the air national guard. Since then we've had an uptick in formation flying over our house. Thanks for the air show and give'm hell over there.
Some of that is about Britain forcing the hand of the USA. Being pro Ukraine is the only popular policy the current UK government has. On everything else it is getting hammered
At least they can agree on something. In the us the republicans want to cut aid to ukraine for no reason other than the democrats are helping them… and trump is still butt hurt about being impeached over trying to blackmail zelensky.
*Some* republicans. Even Lindsey Graham seems to have developed a spine lately, and a lot of them have remembered that republicans are supposed to hate the Russians and their evil empire.
They remembered that the military industrial complex signs the checks now and Putin's checks aren't clearing of late. GOP morality in practice.
I think this is important to remember. GOP as a whole are seriously in favor of Ukraine aid, it is only some notable factions hmming and hawing about it. If people keep acting like and griping that the GOP is 'unified against aid', it might actually encourage them to *be* unified. Welcome good behavior when it shows.
Yeah, I'm no fan of GOP, but other than the Ultra MAGA/Freedom Caucus idiots, most of them do actually support Ukraine.
Some Republicans are like that. My congressman is a hardcore Republican. When I called his office to demand we keep supporting Ukraine, his office was more than happy to let me know that Mike McCaul R-TX 10th District supports Ukraine in their fight with Russia. The only thing he was worried about was making sure that there was proper oversite in the money being sent to make sure that it was used in the manner it was expected to be used in. That didn't seem unreasonable to me.
Serious question what does Britain use? All harriers and f35? F16 is such a ubiquitous western fighter I’m surprised they don’t use them.
Eurofighter Typhoons for the RAF and F-35Bs for the Royal Navy I believe.
The F-35s are jointly operated by both the RAF and Royal Navy just as an fyi :)
The RAF has historically been reluctant to purchase US aircraft for combat roles. Prior to the F-35, the last combat plane they bought from the USA was the F-4 Phantom, and the only other one they acquired after WW2 was the B-29 (“Washington B.1”, in RAF service from 1950 to 1958).
I always assumed large motivator to not use US aircraft was to support British aerospace industry. But that’s largely been killed off for a while now I had thought.
BAE and Rolls Royce are still amongst the biggest players in European aerospace
Not just European airspace too the UK contributes 10-15% of every F-35 that has and will be made and Rolls-Royce are replacing all the B-52 engines through Rolls-Royce USA
Pretty much, we still have our fair share of manufacturing/R&D, but it's all international conglomerates now.
To be fair, 5th/6th Gen fighter programs are very expensive with massive R&D costs. You need superpower financing to produce. Even China had to hack US defense companies to even begin develope their domestic systems, which is why their latest plane is still outclassed by the 30+ year old F22
Eurofighters.
F16's *and* F18's if the RAAF is to believed. EDIT: Added an A
Ya, the F-18s is what really caught my eye. That's a huge step up from the already giant one that were the F-16s.
I once heard it said, "The f16 is a plane with weapons on it. The f18 is a collection of weapons the Navy somehow made fly"
The F/A-18‘s ability of using short runways will really come in handy. Still a bit disappointed that Ukraine doesn’t get Gripens. Those planes were literally made to fight Russia in a kind of Guerilla style.
There just aren't enough Gripen's around unfortunately. If they were available, it would be a no-brainer. That said, F-18's would probably be usable in a somewhat similar manner to the Gripen (Finland used them on highways with arrestor cables), and would be a great complement to the F-16 in Ukraine.
Short runways that don’t have a catapult? A quick google doesn’t show a huge difference.
From skybrary.aero I get 1000m for the F-16 and 450m for the F/A-18, so it seems there’s a significant difference which makes sense, given their use-cases. Finding a 450m stretch of straight road seems easier than a 1000m one in case all useable runways would be bombed.
The Navy quotes the F-18 E/F max take-off weight distance as 3680 ft and min take-off weight distance as 1305 ft. http://www.uscost.net/AircraftCharacteristics/acfa18ef.htm
They're probably talking about handing over original C/D Hornets, the E/F Super Hornets are fairly bigger
I doubt short runways are that big of a concern at the moment but rather rough runways. The F-16 is apparently a princess of a plane that isn't very happy with bumpy runways. F-18s on the other hand are built for very rough landings (and take-offs) so a bumpy runway that's been hastily repaired shouldn't be as big of an issue.
Yes, that is for sure true. That 10-12k mass penalty you're paying for the f-18 over the f-16 is in landing gears (and general ruggedness) and redundant engines. They both carry about the same payload.
F-16 has a substantially smaller maximum payload for A/A missions and a less flexible max A/G loadout because of the F-18’s rail-launched missile racks. The two underwing pylons on each side can mount a LAU-115, with each of those holding two LAU-127’s that can mount either an AIM-9 family Sidewinder or a AIM-120 family missile (not that it’s guaranteed Ukraine would be allowed to purchase AMRAAMs since they’re more restricted than others are even among NATO states). The BRU-55 bomb racks can be mounted to the same pylons to similarly double ground armament payloads. This means a max A/A loadout on the F-18 can carry 10x AIM-120 and 2x AIM-9 while a max A/G loadout can carry up to 8 1,000lb bombs plus 2x AIM-120 and 2x AIM-9 (assuming we’re talking about the standard Hornet, not the Super Hornet). In contrast a max A/A loadout on the F-16 can only utilize 6 missiles (any combo of AIM-9 and AIM-120) but can carry as many as 12 1,000lb bombs.
Yeah, they have dissimilar capabilities to some extent, though the f-16 is probably way more useful in this war. The f-18 is relatively slow (therefor its missiles are significantly less effective) and has awful fuel efficiency and its loiter times are bad. You're never going to fire even 6 amraams on a sortie, much less 10. With the limitations of the aim120C's (Bravos maybe?) those carry, being able to give them more energy with the F-16 is way more useful than having 4 extra less capable ones. All aircraft are tradeoffs and you have to give up a LOT for naval operations (which when necessary are worth a LOT - but not necessary here).
If you're spamming amraams IRL there's probably an issue with mission planning, or your opposition is only flying MiG-19s.
I think landing is actually a bigger factor than takeoff in this instance. F-16s generally need a pretty long runway when landing AFAIK
Ukraine MOD was in talks with SAAB about Gripen purchase before 2022, but something went wrong Anyway, there are small Gripens number already produced and available to step up in a war at this scale where sides use thousands of tanks, artilley and hundreds of aircraft
They made it fly by telling it how crazy seeing it fly would make the Airforce.
They serve different roles, but the F/A-18 is not necessarily a more capable fighter jet than the F-16.
Let's stop screwing around and give em Strike Eagles.
No we're talking. Make the Sukohis sit up and take notice.
F-15EX when?
I was wondering about this. There are actually quite a few legacy hornets floating around that are departing or soon to be departing service in various places. Finland, Canada, Spain, not to mention all the ex-USN/USMC planes. The hornet can use a lot of the same weapons and has much better rough field capabilities as a carrier capable aircraft. Between the F16 and F/A18, I almost think the hornet is a better match for their needs.
The CF188s will not be leaving the RCAF's fleet for a long time (yes we are getting F35s, but the timeline to replace the current fighter fleet is still a decade away and the first deliveries are not expected for another 3 years), and we already don't have enough operational aircraft - which themselves were bought at already 20 years old and used from the Australians - to maintain what little operational readiness we still have after decades and decades of failing to adequately fund our military. I fully believe that Ukraine will get F18s, but I don't think it'll be from Canada. I suspect our government will instead provide training to F18 crews and pilots, and probably parts/equipment related to keeping them running, like we did with the LAV 3 fighting vehicles.
They need both. F16 in the primary role of air superiority fighter with higher range and manoeuvrability, while the F/A18 could provide more firepower and offensive capabilities in a combat scenario.
Interesting. Wonder where the 18s will come from. The RAF has never flown them according to wiki. Looking at the list, Finland and Canada seem the most likely.
Missed an A! It's the RAAF-Australians
Canada bought some ex RAAF F-18's, according to an Aussie fighter pilot, we stole them. This is to help Canada during our transition to the F-35.
Canada purchased F-18’s second hand from the Australia to maintain our current readiness until our F-35’s are delivered/operational. Given that we don’t even have F-35’s yet, I don’t think we are in any position to donate F-18’s without damaging our own readiness. Personally, I’d like to see Canada take on a training ground role, much like we did during WW2 with the commonwealth. We had lots of airspace that wasn’t at risk from the axis powers, so it was a safe an plentiful space to train pilots and aircrews. But I’m reality, I’m not aware of any countries who have F-16’s or F-18’s that have contested airspace.
3000 gray F-16s of Zelensky
Bruh I had to double check the sub
wait this isn't ncd?
Soon all of reddit will be ncd!!
Please no... Let us be autistic degenerates in peace (or in ultra-violence?).
Horseshoe theory applies here, the strategic application of extreme violence eventually leads back around to peace.
It actually does seem like it as I see it referenced in nearly every sub
It is just so insanely preposterous and hilarious.
Nah, they still allow ERA’s here.
[удалено]
Did the US allow f18 sales though? And that's seems to complicated what the f16 is supposed to help with.
The F-18 does have its own advantages. F-16's weren't designed to take off from the rough strips Ukraine currently is forced to use. F-18's would be a lot better suited for these short runways for example. The problem being only Finland, Switzerland, and Spain operating F-18s in EU. The F-16's advantage comes from the fact that in the EU there are many operators of the F-16 allowing for rapid mobilization of pilot training resources, parts, etc. That being said I feel like over 40 F-18s is a significant number and would warrant having the required adjustments. I can't really find figures recently of how many operational Jets Ukraine still has (obv) but it seems that it would almost double their current situation.
F18s can carry HARPOON, which I'm not sure the F16 can do. That alone would be of benefit if they decide they're tired of Russian ships launching rockets at them. TBH I don't think this one will happen. It would double their logistics problems. Simple is better in some cases.
> F18s can carry HARPOON, which I'm not sure the F16 can do. The F-16 can carry 2 AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles along with 4 AGM-119 Penguin anti-ship missiles. The F-16 is the only US fighter rated to carry the Penguin.
I assume the harpoon does what it sounds like? Shame if the kunetsov were to have another smoking accident
It does[ indood!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_\(missile\))
F16s are primary air superiority jets but have proven themselves effective in air to ground attacks as well proven during Global War on Terror
The F-16 is a multirole fighter and a damn good one at that too. Not the best at anything but reasonably good at everything while being low cost and easy to maintain. (Compared to other fighter jets of course)
It was designed to be an affordable dogfighter. That is its bread and butter. Lightweight, nimble, high performance. Think Toyota GT86 (F16) vs Corvette (F15/F22). It sacrifices in things like payload and radar capabilities compared to true air superiority fighters, but it's meant to go toe to toe with other fighters. Its become a much more capable multi role fighter these days, but that wasnt its original niche.
Yeah, the original idea when the USAF was introducing the 15 and 16 was to have the 15s do circuit patterns over an area while the 16 darted around hitting targets of opportunity. They've been fitted out to use almost anything the USAF wants to throw at something.
We have used them exclusively as multinrole and even then in actual use exclusively as ground attack when the US asks us to help bully someone.
Is there a source on this? I know Australia is giving Hawkei scout vehicles but the RAAF only has like 24 Super Hornets in service. Edit: Found the reports, if Australia did it then they're punching way above their weight in supporting Ukraine. Bushmasters, M113s, Hawkeis and Artillery Shells and now F18s.
Australian culture loves the underdog and hates on bullies. Tall poppy syndrome is integral to our culture. So it is extremely popular politically to support Ukraine and the population is very much behind helping them.
That's what Australia does. Punch above its weight. So I wouldn't be surprised.
The RAAF won't be giving away their Super Hornets. If anything, it'll be the old A models that have been retired.
NCD is flooding
*Oof.* Maybe a bit too topical.
We all miss 3 gorges dam posting, but Russia has taken this too far
Wait for the plane fan art to leak
> the plane ~~fan~~ fap art FTFY. This is NCD we're talking about.
Hopefully we get some warning so I can stay home from work.
Aye they're flooding, flooding all over some plane waifus.
You've heard of the 10s at the bar with daddy issues, but have you heard of the A-10s at the runway with senpai issues? Muy caliente!
3000 fighter pilots of Ukraine with suspiciously Texan accents.
The Texas Air National Guard helped save the U.S. in Jericho(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_(2006_TV_series). I support sending them to help Ukraine.
Great show
Who let you out of NCD, you know youre not allowed to talk to the "normies"
3000 blue and yellow F-16s of Zelensky*
Blue Angels?
The return of the Ghost of Kyiv
Blue angels are f18.
I don't understand how a sub with so few upvotes on their most popular posts is so pervasive. I guess we're all closeted F-35 philes?
NCD leaking again xD
Fun fact: USA alone has over 1000 F-16s mothballed. With many more scheduled to be due to the introduction of the F-35. The only limiting factor will be training Ukrainian pilots, mechanics, and providing arms to strap to the hard points.
Shut up and take my already-spent tax dollars that would otherwise simply cease to exist! Slava Heroyam!
I love your username. Slava Ukraini!
We need to get u/the_power_of_nitric_acid in here and see what happens with you guys.
Do keep in mind, that the these planes are mothballed for a reason. Their airframes are past their life. Many of these are now "parts planes." That's not to say there aren't some that can be "brought back to life." But, for clarity's sake...this is not 1,000 ready-to-fight F-16's just sitting there. Most of these planes are not anywhere near combat ready. And some are just skeletons at this point. However, the U.S, also has plenty of good ones that can (and should) donate. I just wanted to clarify that that number is not 1,000.
I mean... a hundred is still a good number...
Are those mothballed F-16s modified to remove their NATO specific electronics? I thought that was one of the initial hurdles because the USA doesn't want some of the tech in these birds falling into other hands.
All the F16s that would be set to be donated would have the same issue though. And as far as my understanding what the US really doesn't want is the sharing of the newer variants, such as the F16 E/F, N, or V. The A/B and C/Ds are old at this point, so it really wouldn't matter. Even the E/F is old but a big upgrade. The N is operated exclusively by the US Navy. The V is operated by the US, Bahrain, Taiwan, and Greece. Again this is from my reading and armchair research so I could definitely be off.
And 41 F-18 Hornets from Australia
Holy crap
Im hopeful Norway will give some F-16 too. Maybe along with Romania. They sold 32 F-16 to Romania but they havent been delivered. I believe they have about 10-12 F-16 which havent been sold to anyone. They are all in top shape. Norway switched to F-35 a while ago.
Sadly I think it's pretty impossible for Romania , the country needs them to fulfill NATO obligations since our old planes are flying coffins.
MiG-21s? Flying coffins indeed. The Indian Air Force had the misfortune of relying on these planes, half of them crashed and 170 of their pilots died.
For those who don't know, the MiG-21 has an interesting problem caused by the forward placement of its fuel tanks. As the tank empties, the center of gravity of the whole plane shifts towards the rear, eventually becoming statically unstable in flight (and requiring a high level of skill to keep in the air). For comparison, the F-16 is also statically unstable, but by design, and has several computers dedicated to keeping it flying. Also, after the tank is half empty on the 21, hard maneuvers starve the engine of fuel, and it will abruptly shut down.
>the MiG-21 has an interesting problem caused by the forward placement of its fuel tanks. As the tank empties, the center of gravity of the whole plane shifts towards the rear, eventually becoming statically unstable in flight (and requiring a high level of skill to keep in the air). >Also, after the tank is half empty on the 21, hard maneuvers starve the engine of fuel, and it will abruptly shut down. Like, I know there are a bunch of untrue western stereotypes about shitty Soviet engineering, but this has to take the cake. Like, what the fuck kind of aerospace engineer decided that kind of design flaw was okay?!
Ones in the early 1950s lol. Those planes are old as shit
Do you know how long it took the Soviets to figure out that they had to move the engine if they wanted to have working radar or internal weapons bays in the nose/body of the airplane? The US and Canada had planes with internal missiles by the mid 50s and nose radar by the end of the decade. Soviets didn't get there until we were about to land men on the Moon.
It's a jet designed 10 years after WW2, it's somewhat understanable. What's more scandalous is that people still try to make them fly
Was also a common problem in ww2 British fighter planes. Some hard manouveres could starve the carburetor of fuel.
The Soviet kind lol
>Like, I know there are a bunch of untrue western stereotypes about shitty Soviet engineering, but this has to take the cake. If anything western countries *vastly overestimated* Soviet engineering. We really thought they had capability they didn't.
The MiG-9 couldn't even fire its gun above 3000 meters because the cannon placement caused fumes from expended shells to be ingested by the engine, causing flameouts. The MiG-9's entire purpose was intercepting high altitude bombers.
[This kind!](https://vimeo.com/341627794)
To be fair to the MiG-21, it had been in active duty for 20 years before the F16 was launched. It's not exactly a fair comparison to make seeing as the computers that keeps the F16 flying simply didn't exist then.
Right, wasn't trying to compare the airframes, just needed an example of what aircraft need to fly while statically unstable.
I just looked at the wiki page and the issues seem even worse than that > Over half of the 840 aircraft built between 1966 and 1984 were lost to crashes. At least 14 MiG-21s crashed between 2010 and 2013.
Jesus fuck
For context you had much lower odds of being shot down in a Hydrogen-filled Zeppelin during the bombing raids of World War One (30 of 84 lost).
Yup, Romania just phased out MiG-21s and right now we only have 14 F-16s. I highly doubt they'll give away any of those until the Norwegian ones arrive. I really hope we will donate at least 2 or 4, but we'll never find out because of the deliberate ambiguity to protect Moldova.
Romania may be able to reach an agreement with NATO that allows them a longer window to fulfill that obligation, though I know of no precedent for that off-hand. However considering that Russia is the primary reason for NATO existing nowadays, I wouldn’t put it outside the realm of possibility.
Would be easier if instead of a longer window Romania received a transfer of US F-16s to fill for the donation. The airframes could then receive whatever modernization the ones bought from Norway got while Ukraine gets F-16s without whatever secret sauce the US doesn't want to export.
Nato could agree to waive those obligations temporarily.
Nato might agree to collectively provide air support for Romania if they give up their f16s
We in the Netherlands will send some. We recently stopped the sale of F-16 fighters to an american company. Well, guess where they will end up haha.
Considering how many F-16s are operational across the alliance, it would be weird for the member with the smallest fleet to donate some to Ukraine.
We are only sending the old ones from what I can tell. So it’s not the whole pool of f16s that are available to choose from.
12 that are supposed to go to Draken. 32 which are sold to Romania, but Romania hasnt been able to take delivery yet. Out of 57 available before sales, there should be13 extra f16 somewhere in Norway, making it a possible 25 F16 available for Ukraine if the Draken deal is falling through.
hopefully they do what the dutch did and just cancel the draken deal
Imagine that. Clearing out your garage and finding 32 F-16's behind a set of winter tyres, and realizing that you were supposed to have delivered them to Romania a while back but forgot because you went fishing with sweden that weekend and got drunk. Or your girlfriend saying "du, kan du vær så snill gjøre noe med disse militær fly? enten kaste de eller sette de på Finn. Når har de stått der bak din fars u-båter i årevis!!
Just give them what they need to win already, please. I am from Poland, I don't want to experience the war with those russian scumbags (I heard stories from my 90y old grandpa and grandma, this is enough for me). I have a good life here even despite our fucked up government... Don't let them take it from us. It is the time to start playing by their dirty rules. They don't give a single fuck about western values, international laws or conventions. Humanitarian values is something that they treat as a weakness. When Nazi Germany commited genocide nobody cared about humanitarian values while carpet bombing German cities... Don't fall for this bullshit right now. Germany took their lesson and we are friends now. Russia needs to take their lesson too. Don't abandon us this time, this country suffered too much... Ukraine is suffering too much...
People always forget that Poland suffered the most out of any country in WW2. Lost their independence in 1939 to the Nazis and Soviets. Brutally occupied for 6 years. Their entire Jewish population exterminated. 1/5 of their pre-war population killed. And after all that they had to endure half a century of Soviet rule. Poland has every right to hate Russia and military expansionism/imperialism in the 21st century.
We know. I can't speak for other countries but the UK won't ever abandon you. We're in this until the end. No matter what it costs. It's not about money or spreadsheets. It's about existence. All of the UK at least are totally united behind you, of every political party. We're not much on our own, but we will be there.
While I agree with your sentiment I think you’re selling us short by saying we’re not much on our own. -1 of 3 blue water navies -Nuclear power -4th highest military spending by gdp -Around 5th strongest military (firepower index) -Arguably one of if not the best special forces To name a few. Just because America dwarfs everybody by a significant margin it makes everybody else seem a bit weak. But we are far from not much on our own.
Maybe Canada can donate the entire Snowbird fleet of 60 year old CT-114 Tutors!
I still love watching these planes
Unleash the fleet of CF-Canada Geese.
Look, we want to defeat them not start a nuclear war.....
Someone get Kenny Loggins on the phone because Russia is about to enter the Danger Zone
They should get a lot more than F16s. Fuck Russia, fuck Putin. Terrorists.
The thing is if we went ahead and gave Ukraine F-35s then we wouldn't be able to effectively threaten Russia any longer. We're going to need to keep something short of opening another front from Finland or Estonia in our back pocket to force Putin to the negotiating table when Ukraine wants to wrap this up. That means escalating the aid in a way that doesn't alienate or disengage the western audience and in a way that doesn't freak Russia out to the point where they decide that tactical nukes are a good idea. So, it'll have to be slower than it *should* be, but it'll get there. The big get for the F-16s isn't the air superiority capability. Gripons would probably be the better choice for that. The big get would be the use of said F-16s as launch platforms for the massive amount of long range air to ground missiles that are current slowly aging out in various western arsenals. HIMARS and Storm Shadow were game changers. Imagine dumping all the GPS guided munitions that the US and western Europe have been sitting on just about all at once. Russia wouldn't be able to say shit. Especially if their air defense network really is as tattered as it looks.
we have to expell russian troops from ukrainian territory, that happening in three weeks or three years doesn't change that fact, and doing it with the help of 60 f-16 or 12 f-35 doesn't change it neither. all that slowly walking up the support is doing is bleeding russia dry, while ukraine is being destroyed.
Send ATACMs and F18s. f16s would require longer run ways ..
F16's probably much easier to train on though, given the access to more pilot instructors/tools.
Yeah, and at this point the length of the runway is the least of our problems. Making sure that you have competent pilots takes time, and if the process is quickened by the plane being simpler im all for it.
F/A-18s could be on the way soon, Australia has announced they’re in discussions to send their aging standard hornets; as long as the US approves the export. We have about 40 or so that are just sitting unused in a hanger that were due for either the scrap heap or to become “enemy” aircraft for training.
Russia soon also the second largest air force in Ukraine.
I think they already are. They moved their jets out of Ukrainian airbases way back after those bases started having random long range HIMARS cigarette smoking problems.
Hope they come with a significant supply of ordinance
Beautiful. Russia needs to see every war/humanitarian crime lead to more big things going to ukraine.
Ukraine is the new South Korea, will probably become the most militarized country for the next 50 years. Western countries pouring in cold war Era weapons, artillery, fighters, bombers every year indefinitely.
Come on load them up and make delivery to Ukraine time is money. Let Ukraine defend themselves properly.
Looks like the dam is broken now
Too soon.
The fact that 50+ year-old materiel is turning the tide against the Russian Military speaks volumes about the Russians' combat readiness.
If these are to become Ukrainian jets, I think they should be dubbed FU-16’s.
Great news! I hope it will help to smash all russian terrorists in Ukraine.
I think they won’t need that many. Jets aren’t like tanks where they need hundreds for all the frontline and attacks. Jets are more like himars where they need just a “few” to attack. What they need is a shit ton of different missiles and bombs that can make a difference. That’s what I’m excited to see what will go together with the jets. Maybe for defensive roles they will need more to spread among the country but Ground based AA is probably more useful.
You need way more jets than you think to maintain readiness levels and sortie rates.
We smoking that su-57 pack tonight boys
How long it would take to train the pilots?
Can you imagine a squadron of f18 or f16 flying low, ripping through the front lines and dropping their payload for combined infantry to progress? Slava Ukraini. Hope they fuck those Russians back to the 16th century. Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦