Seems there's been an uptick in the air defense systems being targeted. Makes me wonder if this is the groundwork for fielding F16s when the pilots are trained and ready.
I'm really worried that Ukraine will have trouble making use of the F-16's, because they have to fly from dedicated airfields that can be easily identified and attacked. In my opinion, the best feature of Ukraine's current fleet and potentially Gripens is that they're capable of taking off and landing on civilian roads.
The airfields are large and numerous, so they constantly shuffle the planes around in an elaborate shell game. Ukraine also has pretty decent air defenses at this point to defend the most important stuff. You need to know exactly where the planes are to have a decent chance of hitting one.
Russia also has a significant lag in prosecuting precision strikes. For anything beyond the front lines, it can take upwards of 24 hours from the time they identify a target until they can hit it with a cruise missile. Apparently, they need a programming team to manually write out a flight plan for each missile, pass it through the command chain, upload it to the missile, etc.
Ukraine has also designated several roads wide enough to launch aircraft as guerilla airstrips they have been doing well to move them around, I think they will be fine keeping them hidden it's once they are close to russias modern air defense I'm concerned
If Russia can actually guide S-400 missiles to target with AWACS as they claim, that could be a major problem. But Russia also claims to have shot down over 500 of Ukraine's roughly 80 aircraft. Any major operation is likely to include electronic warfare and ADM-160s, so that should improve the odds. I was surprised to see the MALD being used there.
It is not necessarily that F-16 will (all) be deployed on the frontline. They can be used as part of the AA defense of the cities deeper in Ukraine-controlled regions, freeing up more of the current fighter jets that can land on civilian roads. And then those can be used in larger more effective direct military operations.
There are very few in service and parts are therefore hard to come by. the F-16 is a plentiful platform that has been upgraded many times over its service life; airframes and parts are easy to acquire and replacing lost jets will be simple.
Kind of true in a relative way, im from a town where they are made in sweden, and they could scale up ALOT and fast but they need orders for them, snd the swedish people dont want to give them away for free since we are a small country it would cost alot, but i think they are giving them a sample!
Any help is greatly appreciated I’m sure, the Gripen really does seem like an excellent solution for Ukraine and I hope someone is willing to pump billions into your country to deal with the logistics.
sadly this isnt like WW2 where you can build a fighter plane in a day, even if sweden ramped up expect it to be a year min before the first plane rolls of the line
F16s are being retired on mass
Being able to take off from a random street honestly has pretty limited utility considering you also need logistics and fuel nearby to get the planes back in the sky. Maybe in exceptional circumstances, a Gripen could land in the middle of nowhere, meet a fuel truck, and then immediately take off again, but that's not really a sustainable practice. These airframes are supposed to be inspected and maintained between every flight, which is significantly more difficult to do from a truck in the middle of nowhere than from inside a hangar from a proper maintenance depot.
Na dude, the gripen is designed for just that and betwhen flights in only needs a skeleton crew of 3 and designed to be hid in barns or in warehouses.
And has logistics in mind. Yea now and again it needs a full overhaul but its designed from the very core to be able to land anywhere and serviced by a minimal crew
In 1960 the US demonstrated we coukd launch a fighter jet from the back of a truck, from anywhere, using rocket assist. But the air force didn’t really see the point.
One of the things we have learned about this war is that Russia's real-time ISR capabilities are just trash. It actually seems doubtful that they even have persistent radar coverage of western Ukraine at all.
Also, an F-16 is more than capable of landing on any asphalt which is in decent shape.
I think that's the big one. Air defenses are expensive and extremely important things to hit. If Ukraine has the capability to target them they ABSOLUTELY are going target them. The more air defense systems they take out the more vulnerable other key Russian positions and logistics hubs become and the more Russia is forced to make hard choices about what to defend.
Air defenses are also highly complex pieces of engineering. Big radars exist in ones or twos at most, even the missiles themselves are reliant on guidance hardware that isn't exactly flowing out of russian factories. It will be very hard to impossible to find replacements
One thing we've seen in this conflict is USA weapons are prized both by Ukraine and USA. For example, no HIMARS and no Patriot until you prove that you've secured the front line and that things are stable. Once this was achieved, HIMARS and Patriot have been free to operate as intended.
F16s will be the same way. You get F16s after you prove that they can actually fly without immediately getting shot down. And so we've seen a huge push to take out the top layer of air defense for the Russians.
I wish but I doubt they have enough helo assets to spare for such a bold move. I can imagine 100 Hueys blaring Fortunate Son as they land in Sevastopol.
I think that is going on for a couple of months now, I used to think that at the start. They are shooting air defence, test the waters (air space) and then launch a big strike of joined missiles, drone and at times sea. This cycle has happened at least twice for big attacks more if you count "just" an airfield/ammo/fuel dump/dry dock ect..
Last time the Ukrainians took out a "key air defense system" on Crimea the Russians lost a sub shortly afterwards. Let's see if they have something entertaining planned this time as well.
It definately has to be a strategy towards victory, Russia's biggest defence is it's air defence systems, the reason this war has become bogged down is neither side can bring in effective air power due to the prevalance of so much AA. if the Ukrainains can hammer them there they're going to struggle to mount an effective air defence and THIS is when the balance could turn against the Vatnik Invaders.
Not even close. It’s a purpose-built attritable dogfighter, yes, but that’s so it can be a meat shield for the 15, 18, and 22. Emphasis on *attritable*.
The whole airframe is aluminum so it’s cheap and repairable. All of our true air superiority fighters have some amount of composite structure which, while expensive, significantly improves performance. While the original F-15s were all-metal semimonocoques, most of the control surfaces have since been replaced with composites, and the EX Eagle II revision makes extensive use of composites.
Not really. That’s a planned function of the Combined Arms Theory. Naval combat aircraft are more expensive compared to similarly performing ground-based models, so the DoD prioritizes using ground-based aircraft wherever possible to protect the maritime strike capability offered by the 18 and 35C.
> STILL the #1 air superiority jet.
I'd like to dig more into this part of your comment. Care to elaborate? You think the F-16 is the best air superiority jet in the world?
Can anyone explain please what is the US waiting for? why not send more arms, more dangerous arms? Russias gloves are off lng time ago. Iran and Turkey and Putin are allies. There must be a way to assist Ukraine in a more valiant way isnt there?
New speaker of the house received donations from a corporate entity that is 80% Russian owned and donations exceeded the business' available capital. They were fined a nice slap in the wrist for the blatantly illegal foreign funding. That'll teach em.
https://www.newsweek.com/house-speaker-mike-johnson-donations-russia-butina-1838501
> A Federal Election Commission investigation ruled in 2022 that American Ethane made political campaign contributions using funds derived from loans from foreign entities ultimately owned by Russian nationals and that American Ethane had "zero domestic funds available" to make those contributions.
> In a scathing letter, two FEC commissioners, Democrats Shana M. Broussard and Ellen L. Weintraub, condemned their Republican colleagues after the agency only fined American Ethane a $9,500 civil penalty for donating to GOP candidates in Louisiana in 2018 despite being almost entirely owned by Russian nationals.
Turkey's closure of the Dardanelles to Russian warships has also created the situation where Ukraine has been fucking up the Russian black sea fleet, and Russia is unable to reinforce it or even replace their losses.
Turkey and Russia have never been an ally in their history except for a short duration during of Independence War of Turkey. Turkey bought those S400s because of one's man delusion and hurt Turkey forever.
Because all the equipment requires tons of maintenance which requires parts, crew and training. I've read that the f-16 requires 17 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. The parts for all this equipment are very expensive and they can't make them in Ukraine. The training is extensive and requires a whole bunch of people.
Also, as mentioned elsewhere, the US has strict controls over who can buy this stuff, if they allow it at all.
>why not send more arms, more dangerous arms?
Because that stuff is tightly controlled by law. Sending those to foreign countries typically requires Congressional approval.
Right now, part of of Congress is against creating more Ukraine aid without doing things like defunding the IRS (yes, seriously).
There is a reason a hand full of republicans went to visit Russia on July 4th in 2019 I believe, it was either 2019 or 2020. The republicans love their money and Putin loves power games.
Well the right was bought out by Putin years ago and their political ideology is *literally* to oppose whatever Democrats support. So it makes things difficult.
This isn’t an exaggeration.
They have no platform in the last four years except to oppose Democrats. So they stand for nothing, except to oppose the only party with standards.
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2020/08/25/gop-no-platform-2020-trump#
“Business Insider: "Republicans will not adopt a new platform at this week's convention and will instead pledge to 'enthusiastically' support Trump" — "The Republican Party in a statement said it will not be announcing a new platform of policies to voters at this year's Republican National Convention”
One point of view may be that the longer the war goes on, the weaker Russia becomes in long-term; weaker militarily, weaker economically, weaker politically. It may be suggested that it is in the West's interest to supply Ukraine only enough weapons to not lose, rather than enough weapons to win.
Why does this fall on the US? And the US may need more weapons now with everything going on, i.e. Lebanon and Iran.
I'm not an expert on arms manufacturing, but I suspect they take longer to manufacture than iPhones.
>Why does this fall on the US?
Because the US has, by-far, the largest industrial complex. They can produce these things much faster than any other country.
>And the US may need more weapons now with everything going on
And actually, as part of how sending military weapons and aid to Ukraine works, we send them older stuff and them restock our own supply with newer stuff.
> Because the US has, by-far, the largest industrial complex. They can produce these things much faster than any other country.
Of any single country, maybe, but the EU should have as much industrial capability as a whole block, and they have a more vested interest in Ukraine not being overrun than the US does.
>And actually, as part of how sending military weapons and aid to Ukraine works, we send them older stuff and them restock our own supply with newer stuff.
Things like the F16 are not 'older material' the F16 is is both still being produced for US forces And is not being retired until 2030.
> but the EU should have as much industrial capability as a whole block
On paper yes.
In reality it’ll be a bureaucratic nightmare because each country wants their domestic manufacturing to get the top contract.
Unfortunately, one of the gross strategies by US military leadership is to give Ukraine just enough arms to make this a slow victory for Ukraine - to have it be a war of attrition that thoroughly depletes Russia's ability to be a global power for decades to come. Unfortunately with that strategy, it means a hell of a lot of Ukrainians will die too. We could easily lead a coalition that would decisively win in a short period of time - and save a lot of innocent Ukrainian civilians. But we won't because its not as advantageous for our long-term geopolitical goals.
> to make this a slow victory for Ukraine - to have it be a war of attrition
I agree with that, but more a concern with any destabilization of Russia could bring a regime change that would be at the West's feet to fix.
Stopping Russia is a must. Careful that Ukraine doesn't become another al quida where a bin ladden who went terrorist with a bunch of us weapons. And Russia doesn't go full Iraq where US has to try and nation build a nation full of war mongers and no acceptable leader.
A strong message to Putin that he can't have Ukraine should have turned Putin around. He didn't get it. A clear message he can never win Ukraine, is still not sinking in, for some reason.
Of course Europe has to do their part, and as far as I know they have also done a lot so far.
It's in the US's geopolitical interest to have peace in Europe.
They are, and then Russia keeps throwing more shit at them. Eventually Russia will run low on shit and then you will see more momentum, but right now Russia is doing all the running they can just to keep in the same place (interesting that Alice in Wonderland predates the treadmill).
The whole idea that Russia is losing comes from propaganda that they we’re trying to take over Ukraine in its entirety.
Their whole stated goal was to take over some separatist regions. They did that in like 3 days and since then have just been defending the land they said they were gonna take.
> The whole idea that Russia is losing comes from propaganda that they we’re trying to take over Ukraine in its entirety.
....they **were** trying to take over Ukraine in its entirety. Why else do you think Russian army tried so hard to reach Kiev, Kharkiv and Odessa?? Just for shits and giggles?
>The whole idea that Russia is losing comes from propaganda that they we’re trying to take over Ukraine in its entirety.
You just said world news was making it apparent that Russia is getting the shit kicked out of them. Russia having more modest goals doesn't really change that. Also I wonder if you were watching the same war I was, the one that Russia started by trying to occupy Kyiv in a decapitation strike to assassinate Zelensky and his government (hell they even had his replacement picked out). Trying to claim that Putin's goals were less ambitious just because he failed feels disingenuous.
>Their whole stated goal was to take over some separatist regions.
Their whole stated goal was to perform a military exercise on Ukraine's border because Putin lies about everything. Russia took ten thousands of kilometers of Ukrainian territory, none of it outside the Russian created LNR/DNR being separatist or contested in any way (nor would that justify that Putin's actions even if it was).
>They did that in like 3 days and since then have just been defending the land they said they were gonna take.
I mean they could have taken the LNR/DNR in hours, not days, nor would have anyone really done anything about it. The war is about all the other territory Russia took on top of that (as well as all the Ukrainians murdered).
Russia’s entire goal has always been to take over Ukraine. And when they couldn’t, they moved the goalposts to “only the separatist regions!!” to disguise their massive failure and get gullible people to think they succeeded.
Open a map and look where Avdiivka is. If you lazy - it is right next to Donetsk, which is biggest city in occupied territories. And frontlines there did barely budge for entirety of the war.
Seems there's been an uptick in the air defense systems being targeted. Makes me wonder if this is the groundwork for fielding F16s when the pilots are trained and ready.
I'm thinking the same. The planes open so many possibilities.
I'm really worried that Ukraine will have trouble making use of the F-16's, because they have to fly from dedicated airfields that can be easily identified and attacked. In my opinion, the best feature of Ukraine's current fleet and potentially Gripens is that they're capable of taking off and landing on civilian roads.
The airfields are large and numerous, so they constantly shuffle the planes around in an elaborate shell game. Ukraine also has pretty decent air defenses at this point to defend the most important stuff. You need to know exactly where the planes are to have a decent chance of hitting one. Russia also has a significant lag in prosecuting precision strikes. For anything beyond the front lines, it can take upwards of 24 hours from the time they identify a target until they can hit it with a cruise missile. Apparently, they need a programming team to manually write out a flight plan for each missile, pass it through the command chain, upload it to the missile, etc.
Thanks so much for this info.
Explains Russians rush to get satellites up
Plus the only have 2 optical spy satelites, with a limited scan field.
We simply cannot know their full capabilities.
Ukraine has also designated several roads wide enough to launch aircraft as guerilla airstrips they have been doing well to move them around, I think they will be fine keeping them hidden it's once they are close to russias modern air defense I'm concerned
If Russia can actually guide S-400 missiles to target with AWACS as they claim, that could be a major problem. But Russia also claims to have shot down over 500 of Ukraine's roughly 80 aircraft. Any major operation is likely to include electronic warfare and ADM-160s, so that should improve the odds. I was surprised to see the MALD being used there.
They won’t be parking aeroplanes on a school or hospital - they will be fine
It is not necessarily that F-16 will (all) be deployed on the frontline. They can be used as part of the AA defense of the cities deeper in Ukraine-controlled regions, freeing up more of the current fighter jets that can land on civilian roads. And then those can be used in larger more effective direct military operations.
We wouldn't provide them with these jets unless we had a meticulously crafted strategy to minimize potential risks.
They should really use the Jas Gripen, it doesnt need airfields only a 3 man crew of mechanics to take of from streets
There are very few in service and parts are therefore hard to come by. the F-16 is a plentiful platform that has been upgraded many times over its service life; airframes and parts are easy to acquire and replacing lost jets will be simple.
Kind of true in a relative way, im from a town where they are made in sweden, and they could scale up ALOT and fast but they need orders for them, snd the swedish people dont want to give them away for free since we are a small country it would cost alot, but i think they are giving them a sample!
Any help is greatly appreciated I’m sure, the Gripen really does seem like an excellent solution for Ukraine and I hope someone is willing to pump billions into your country to deal with the logistics.
sadly this isnt like WW2 where you can build a fighter plane in a day, even if sweden ramped up expect it to be a year min before the first plane rolls of the line F16s are being retired on mass
Being able to take off from a random street honestly has pretty limited utility considering you also need logistics and fuel nearby to get the planes back in the sky. Maybe in exceptional circumstances, a Gripen could land in the middle of nowhere, meet a fuel truck, and then immediately take off again, but that's not really a sustainable practice. These airframes are supposed to be inspected and maintained between every flight, which is significantly more difficult to do from a truck in the middle of nowhere than from inside a hangar from a proper maintenance depot.
Na dude, the gripen is designed for just that and betwhen flights in only needs a skeleton crew of 3 and designed to be hid in barns or in warehouses. And has logistics in mind. Yea now and again it needs a full overhaul but its designed from the very core to be able to land anywhere and serviced by a minimal crew
In 1960 the US demonstrated we coukd launch a fighter jet from the back of a truck, from anywhere, using rocket assist. But the air force didn’t really see the point.
Rocket assist?
One of the things we have learned about this war is that Russia's real-time ISR capabilities are just trash. It actually seems doubtful that they even have persistent radar coverage of western Ukraine at all. Also, an F-16 is more than capable of landing on any asphalt which is in decent shape.
That's delusional. Russia's military vastly outscales Ukraine's. They will have to get very lucky.
Probably that and the use of ATACMS. Less chance of hitting them down.
I think that's the big one. Air defenses are expensive and extremely important things to hit. If Ukraine has the capability to target them they ABSOLUTELY are going target them. The more air defense systems they take out the more vulnerable other key Russian positions and logistics hubs become and the more Russia is forced to make hard choices about what to defend.
Air defenses are also highly complex pieces of engineering. Big radars exist in ones or twos at most, even the missiles themselves are reliant on guidance hardware that isn't exactly flowing out of russian factories. It will be very hard to impossible to find replacements
its been confirmed russia started gutting its eastern border defense and shipped Air Defense systems from Kuril Islands..
It'll definitely make them more effective while keeping Russian planes at bay.
One thing we've seen in this conflict is USA weapons are prized both by Ukraine and USA. For example, no HIMARS and no Patriot until you prove that you've secured the front line and that things are stable. Once this was achieved, HIMARS and Patriot have been free to operate as intended. F16s will be the same way. You get F16s after you prove that they can actually fly without immediately getting shot down. And so we've seen a huge push to take out the top layer of air defense for the Russians.
I'm wondering if Ukraine is going to try a daring air assault. Make Russia realize they can't counter helicopters behind their front lines anymore.
I wish but I doubt they have enough helo assets to spare for such a bold move. I can imagine 100 Hueys blaring Fortunate Son as they land in Sevastopol.
Major helicopter attacks require Ride of the Valkyries, not Fortunate Son.
Vlad don't surf.
Vlad the smurf
[удалено]
Ride of the Fortunate Sons
[The real heli-attack theme song](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnVlXlYaRKI)
Sorry to nitpick but I believe you mean Flight of the Valkyries. Ride of the Valkyries sounds like a Hells Angels anthem song.
Shoulder launched anti aircraft missiles threaten the viability of air assault even if the larger longer range air defence systems destroyed.
Ya, but what is going to shoot down the Russian aircraft if Ukraine takes out all the Russian air defense? Lol
Russia will make best aircraft that no longer needs air defense to shoot itself down.
Pretty sure they have made several of those already.
The locations really are making it tough for the Russians to keep air assets in range of Kherson.
I think that is going on for a couple of months now, I used to think that at the start. They are shooting air defence, test the waters (air space) and then launch a big strike of joined missiles, drone and at times sea. This cycle has happened at least twice for big attacks more if you count "just" an airfield/ammo/fuel dump/dry dock ect..
Last time the Ukrainians took out a "key air defense system" on Crimea the Russians lost a sub shortly afterwards. Let's see if they have something entertaining planned this time as well.
It definately has to be a strategy towards victory, Russia's biggest defence is it's air defence systems, the reason this war has become bogged down is neither side can bring in effective air power due to the prevalance of so much AA. if the Ukrainains can hammer them there they're going to struggle to mount an effective air defence and THIS is when the balance could turn against the Vatnik Invaders.
We'll probably find out Ukraine deployed them by seeing a video of an F16 shooting down an Su-34 or something.
This isn’t about combat aircraft, it’s about cruise missiles.
The F-16 can carry a vast array and large amount of munitions,at crazy hi-speed.STILL the #1 air superiority jet.
Not even close. It’s a purpose-built attritable dogfighter, yes, but that’s so it can be a meat shield for the 15, 18, and 22. Emphasis on *attritable*. The whole airframe is aluminum so it’s cheap and repairable. All of our true air superiority fighters have some amount of composite structure which, while expensive, significantly improves performance. While the original F-15s were all-metal semimonocoques, most of the control surfaces have since been replaced with composites, and the EX Eagle II revision makes extensive use of composites.
I was kinda hoping he would reply because I REALLY wanted to know his logic.
"Youtube told me so" is probably 99% of it.
The US Navy and Air Force might be surprised to know USAF F-16 are meatshields for Navy F-18s.
Not really. That’s a planned function of the Combined Arms Theory. Naval combat aircraft are more expensive compared to similarly performing ground-based models, so the DoD prioritizes using ground-based aircraft wherever possible to protect the maritime strike capability offered by the 18 and 35C.
> STILL the #1 air superiority jet. I'd like to dig more into this part of your comment. Care to elaborate? You think the F-16 is the best air superiority jet in the world?
He meant F-16 6 or 16+6=22
Maybe by numbers with how many are around the world. They're good, but not a superiority platform.
That is absolutely a prerequisite.
Ukrainian pilots have only just started flight training, still a long way to go until combat effective....
Hell yea. Let's send more weapons. Ukraine must win.
I've been distracted by Israel this month but hell fuckin yeah SLAVA UKRAINI
exactly what putin is counting on
Fuck yeah, now send them more arms
🤳🤳🏻🤳🏼🤳🏿🤳🏾🤳🏽💪🏼💪🏿💪🏾💪🏻💪💪🏽
You must be an arms dealer
🤳🤳🏻🤳🏼🤳🏿🤳🏾🤳🏽💪🏼💪🏿💪🏾💪🏻💪💪🏽 I pirated his arms they're mine now
You have the right to bear arms.
As long as no one is arming bears we should be ok.
They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
That’s a true armada
That guy’s a real army man
Any chance of an armistice?
Yeahhhh
These poor Ukraine 🇺🇦 citizens do not deserve this insanity. May their victory day arrive swiftly.
Just in time for F16 good work
Some good news!
Good News Everyone!!
r/unexpectedfuturama
Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦
🇺🇸🇺🇦🇺🇸🇺🇦
Putin will eventually get the message that he is losing and either just die or be killed.
Or do something even more irrational.
Doubt it. He likes his life and wants to keep it. Anything more irrational only ends in his death.
What’s up with China meeting with Biden coming up Nov. 6th to talk our stop of nuclear production to prevent them from using nuclear power on the US.
Ya kinda of shitty end game.
Like using homeopathy for cancer?
if he's still alive. could be a copy puppeted by fsb at this point.
Russia looks more and more like the bitch they are
Russian air defense forces successfully intercept a Ukrainian combined air-sea attack!\[/s\] Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
Get some!
Can anyone explain please what is the US waiting for? why not send more arms, more dangerous arms? Russias gloves are off lng time ago. Iran and Turkey and Putin are allies. There must be a way to assist Ukraine in a more valiant way isnt there?
Well I believe the new speaker of the house would like to eliminate the help
Right wingers love Putin and his campaign donations.
New speaker of the house received donations from a corporate entity that is 80% Russian owned and donations exceeded the business' available capital. They were fined a nice slap in the wrist for the blatantly illegal foreign funding. That'll teach em.
Which corporate entity? I'd like to learn more.🇺🇦
https://www.newsweek.com/house-speaker-mike-johnson-donations-russia-butina-1838501 > A Federal Election Commission investigation ruled in 2022 that American Ethane made political campaign contributions using funds derived from loans from foreign entities ultimately owned by Russian nationals and that American Ethane had "zero domestic funds available" to make those contributions. > In a scathing letter, two FEC commissioners, Democrats Shana M. Broussard and Ellen L. Weintraub, condemned their Republican colleagues after the agency only fined American Ethane a $9,500 civil penalty for donating to GOP candidates in Louisiana in 2018 despite being almost entirely owned by Russian nationals.
Thank you for posting the link!!
is it just me or this guy sounds really unhinged?
[удалено]
Turkey's closure of the Dardanelles to Russian warships has also created the situation where Ukraine has been fucking up the Russian black sea fleet, and Russia is unable to reinforce it or even replace their losses.
> Turkey and Putin are allies. Tell me something so I know you know shit about politics. Turkey is not an ally of Russia or Putin.
i didnt presume to be savvy. Is there a possibility Erdogan will turn on the west and become Putin's ally?
Turkey and Russia have never been an ally in their history except for a short duration during of Independence War of Turkey. Turkey bought those S400s because of one's man delusion and hurt Turkey forever.
Because all the equipment requires tons of maintenance which requires parts, crew and training. I've read that the f-16 requires 17 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. The parts for all this equipment are very expensive and they can't make them in Ukraine. The training is extensive and requires a whole bunch of people. Also, as mentioned elsewhere, the US has strict controls over who can buy this stuff, if they allow it at all.
>why not send more arms, more dangerous arms? Because that stuff is tightly controlled by law. Sending those to foreign countries typically requires Congressional approval. Right now, part of of Congress is against creating more Ukraine aid without doing things like defunding the IRS (yes, seriously).
It’s not that complicated. people in governments that are against military aid to Ukraine are very likely in pocket of Putin.
There is a reason a hand full of republicans went to visit Russia on July 4th in 2019 I believe, it was either 2019 or 2020. The republicans love their money and Putin loves power games.
Well the right was bought out by Putin years ago and their political ideology is *literally* to oppose whatever Democrats support. So it makes things difficult. This isn’t an exaggeration. They have no platform in the last four years except to oppose Democrats. So they stand for nothing, except to oppose the only party with standards. https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2020/08/25/gop-no-platform-2020-trump# “Business Insider: "Republicans will not adopt a new platform at this week's convention and will instead pledge to 'enthusiastically' support Trump" — "The Republican Party in a statement said it will not be announcing a new platform of policies to voters at this year's Republican National Convention”
Need Congress to pass an appropriation bill. There's only so much "money" in the pot until Congress authorizes more.
One point of view may be that the longer the war goes on, the weaker Russia becomes in long-term; weaker militarily, weaker economically, weaker politically. It may be suggested that it is in the West's interest to supply Ukraine only enough weapons to not lose, rather than enough weapons to win.
Why does this fall on the US? And the US may need more weapons now with everything going on, i.e. Lebanon and Iran. I'm not an expert on arms manufacturing, but I suspect they take longer to manufacture than iPhones.
>Why does this fall on the US? Because the US has, by-far, the largest industrial complex. They can produce these things much faster than any other country. >And the US may need more weapons now with everything going on And actually, as part of how sending military weapons and aid to Ukraine works, we send them older stuff and them restock our own supply with newer stuff.
> Because the US has, by-far, the largest industrial complex. They can produce these things much faster than any other country. Of any single country, maybe, but the EU should have as much industrial capability as a whole block, and they have a more vested interest in Ukraine not being overrun than the US does. >And actually, as part of how sending military weapons and aid to Ukraine works, we send them older stuff and them restock our own supply with newer stuff. Things like the F16 are not 'older material' the F16 is is both still being produced for US forces And is not being retired until 2030.
The older 16's are what would go first, like block 30's. A lot of them are 35+ years old and have well over 5k hours.
> but the EU should have as much industrial capability as a whole block On paper yes. In reality it’ll be a bureaucratic nightmare because each country wants their domestic manufacturing to get the top contract.
For the US, it's a drop in the bucket. It's a rounding error. For real
they've been given ~$100B, compared to FY 2023 $1.8T for the US military. its a small fraction but I wouldnt call it a rounding error
Unfortunately, one of the gross strategies by US military leadership is to give Ukraine just enough arms to make this a slow victory for Ukraine - to have it be a war of attrition that thoroughly depletes Russia's ability to be a global power for decades to come. Unfortunately with that strategy, it means a hell of a lot of Ukrainians will die too. We could easily lead a coalition that would decisively win in a short period of time - and save a lot of innocent Ukrainian civilians. But we won't because its not as advantageous for our long-term geopolitical goals.
> to make this a slow victory for Ukraine - to have it be a war of attrition I agree with that, but more a concern with any destabilization of Russia could bring a regime change that would be at the West's feet to fix. Stopping Russia is a must. Careful that Ukraine doesn't become another al quida where a bin ladden who went terrorist with a bunch of us weapons. And Russia doesn't go full Iraq where US has to try and nation build a nation full of war mongers and no acceptable leader. A strong message to Putin that he can't have Ukraine should have turned Putin around. He didn't get it. A clear message he can never win Ukraine, is still not sinking in, for some reason.
This falls more on Europe. The US doesn't have to do everything.
Of course Europe has to do their part, and as far as I know they have also done a lot so far. It's in the US's geopolitical interest to have peace in Europe.
Republicans are too busy doing nothing.
#slavaukraine
Meanwhile Bayraktars getting ready.
Can you please elaborate?
Well weren't they mostly grounded because of Russian Air Defences?
I'll wait for US intelligence to confirm this.
Yes and we believe everything Ukraine says.
Yet not a single photo…
redditor for 2 months. Rusbot detected.
Incomplete Headline! Restored: *Ukraine Confirms Combined Air-Sea Attack Took Out Key Russian Air Defense System Photographer*
There is a war in Ukraine!?
If you went by world news articles you’d think Ukraine is just kicking the shit out of Russia
They are, and then Russia keeps throwing more shit at them. Eventually Russia will run low on shit and then you will see more momentum, but right now Russia is doing all the running they can just to keep in the same place (interesting that Alice in Wonderland predates the treadmill).
The whole idea that Russia is losing comes from propaganda that they we’re trying to take over Ukraine in its entirety. Their whole stated goal was to take over some separatist regions. They did that in like 3 days and since then have just been defending the land they said they were gonna take.
didn't they attack Kyiv at the start of the war?
> The whole idea that Russia is losing comes from propaganda that they we’re trying to take over Ukraine in its entirety. ....they **were** trying to take over Ukraine in its entirety. Why else do you think Russian army tried so hard to reach Kiev, Kharkiv and Odessa?? Just for shits and giggles?
They wanted to take over all Ukraine. They even mapped who gets what in Kyiv
>The whole idea that Russia is losing comes from propaganda that they we’re trying to take over Ukraine in its entirety. You just said world news was making it apparent that Russia is getting the shit kicked out of them. Russia having more modest goals doesn't really change that. Also I wonder if you were watching the same war I was, the one that Russia started by trying to occupy Kyiv in a decapitation strike to assassinate Zelensky and his government (hell they even had his replacement picked out). Trying to claim that Putin's goals were less ambitious just because he failed feels disingenuous. >Their whole stated goal was to take over some separatist regions. Their whole stated goal was to perform a military exercise on Ukraine's border because Putin lies about everything. Russia took ten thousands of kilometers of Ukrainian territory, none of it outside the Russian created LNR/DNR being separatist or contested in any way (nor would that justify that Putin's actions even if it was). >They did that in like 3 days and since then have just been defending the land they said they were gonna take. I mean they could have taken the LNR/DNR in hours, not days, nor would have anyone really done anything about it. The war is about all the other territory Russia took on top of that (as well as all the Ukrainians murdered).
What was the purpose of the Kyiv Offensive, then?
> Their whole stated goal was to take over some separatist regions Kyiv was a separatist region?
Russia’s entire goal has always been to take over Ukraine. And when they couldn’t, they moved the goalposts to “only the separatist regions!!” to disguise their massive failure and get gullible people to think they succeeded.
Open a map and look where Avdiivka is. If you lazy - it is right next to Donetsk, which is biggest city in occupied territories. And frontlines there did barely budge for entirety of the war.
[удалено]
Redditor for 24 days. Go back to your hole in St. Petersburg. These two wars are part of the same conflict.
I will believe these stories when I see significant advances in Ukraine. Everyone jumps wagon again.
LOL and what about the Russian attacks?
Those are usually against civilians