The Ukraine War thread

[McTallshort]

Very interesting. Makes you wonder why they don't give Ukraine more air defence systems than old jets.

 

[Which Tyler]

TBF - do we know how many AA units have been sent over?

But mostly - because F-16s are pretty much surplus to requirements in NATO, and are in the process of being replaced (I read somewhere that there are 60 F-16 in Europe that have been replaced with more modern planes in the last 1 year, so well maintained, but unwanted by their owners, sitting around and waiting for something to do).
Whilst AA units need to be a tad more up to date, like Patriot, so there isn't really a surplus of them kicking their heels.

Of course, what I have no particular way of telling, is how true the above is.

 

[BrokenWing]

I would guess F-16s are now pretty much obsolete.

 

[McTallshort]

I would guess F-16s are now pretty much obsolete.

So are the Spartans, M113s, Geapods and most of the tanks are of a "storage" variety. Only thing the Ukraine has been given that's cutting edge is HIMARs, Brimstone and other ordnance.

 

[BrokenWing]

Is technological parity in armour as important as it is in aircraft? I don't know myself.

Also, unless they are already familiar with the platforms, isn't the training in each pretty much rendering it all useless for a good few months?

 

[Which Tyler]

Is technological parity in armour as important as it is in aircraft? I don't know myself.

Also, unless they are already familiar with the platforms, isn't the training in each pretty much rendering it all useless for a good few months?

Radar )especially) and the munitions able to be carried is absolutely necessary (to my understanding - largely from that twitter thread I posted)
Training an existing fighter pilot is supposed to be about 4 months - rather than the 18 months they'd been talking about previously - so nowhere near a deal breaker.

On top of that, it's another case of getting the Ukrainian military up to NATO standards and getting them used to NATO equipment and procedures.

 

[Which Tyler]

 

[McTallshort]

Is technological parity in armour as important as it is in aircraft? I don't know myself.

Also, unless they are already familiar with the platforms, isn't the training in each pretty much rendering it all useless for a good few months?

Probably not. The point I was making was that nearly all the kit that's been supplied to Ukraine from NATO countries is either obsolete or surplus to requirements. The fact that Ukraine is being offered 40 year old jets with crap radar kind of fits into that narrative. I think that weapons procurement in the west has become so bloody expensive that supplying a ally with up to date military hardware is just too damn expensive nowadays.

 

[Which Tyler]

Probably not. The point I was making was that nearly all the kit that's been supplied to Ukraine from NATO countries is either obsolete or surplus to requirements. The fact that Ukraine is being offered 40 year old jets with crap radar kind of fits into that narrative. I think that weapons procurement in the west has become so bloody expensive that supplying a ally with up to date military hardware is just too damn expensive nowadays.

I'd also argue that the 40-year old kit is so far doing a really good job against the current opponents; so there's not much need to give anything more up to date. On top of which, giving them stuff that's being rolled out of service is the most obvious and numerous (well maintained) kit. It's been the case throughout (with the odd exception like HIMARS and Patriot - both of which caused a lot of concern)

F16s are obsolete with crap radar; and 60 of them would significantly tilt the balance away from the current (aerial) stalemate (or slight advantage to Russia).
Bear in mind - they apparently started this war with 125 fixed-wing aircraft - mostly 40 years old themselves.

 

[McTallshort]

I'd also argue that the 40-year old kit is so far doing a really good job against the current opponents; so there's not much need to give anything more up to date. On top of which, giving them stuff that's being rolled out of service is the most obvious and numerous (well maintained) kit. It's been the case throughout (with the odd exception like HIMARS and Patriot - both of which caused a lot of concern)

F16s are obsolete with crap radar; and 60 of them would significantly tilt the balance away from the current (aerial) stalemate (or slight advantage to Russia).
Bear in mind - they apparently started this war with 125 fixed-wing aircraft - mostly 40 years old themselves.

Ok a bit to unpick there.

Doing a really good job where? If memory serves me the only time in the last 30 years that an F-16 was used in aerial combat was by Israel against Syrian MIGs in the 80s and 1 was recently shot down by Syria by an S-200. Pakistan did use them against Afgan government aircraft during the Soviet war. At no point has the F-16 truly faced a pier adversary. Against the MIG 31 it would seriously struggle.

You said the stuff being rolled out of service was well maintained. Not sure where you are getting that from. If they are moth balled (and reports suggest they are) they will not be well maintained.

Yes they started with 125 aircraft and have kept the stalemate due to their air defence. How long will it take them to get trained crews and pilots into them? If there is going to be a tipping of the scales it's going to take a long time. @BrokenWing how long does crew and pilot training take on a platform like M-16.

It's great Ukraine are getting weapons to fight Russia but are fixed wing jets what they need? I would think artillery shells, logistical transport and more air defence munitions and systems are probably more important

 

[Which Tyler]

Ok a bit to unpick there.

Doing a really good job where? If memory serves me the only time in the last 30 years that an F-16 was used in aerial combat was by Israel against Syrian MIGs in the 80s and 1 was recently shot down by Syria by an S-200. Pakistan did use them against Afgan government aircraft during the Soviet war. At no point has the F-16 truly faced a pier adversary. Against the MIG 31 it would seriously struggle.

You said the stuff being rolled out of service was well maintained. Not sure where you are getting that from. If they are moth balled (and reports suggest they are) they will not be well maintained.

Yes they started with 125 aircraft and have kept the stalemate due to their air defence. How long will it take them to get trained crews and pilots into them? If there is going to be a tipping of the scales it's going to take a long time. @BrokenWing how long does crew and pilot training take on a platform like M-16.

It's great Ukraine are getting weapons to fight Russia but are fixed wing jets what they need? I would think artillery shells, logistical transport and more air defence munitions and systems are probably more important

As far as I'm aware, we've been giving them plenty of 40-year old kit, on top of their existing 40-year old kit; that's what I was referring to. As you say, they haven't been given any F-16s yet; so we don't know how they stack up against the current opponents.

By my definitions, if something is being rolled out of service, then it was in service very recently / currently; not mothballed for decades. For example - what I'd read (and have no idea on the accuracy of) is that those 60 F-16s were in active service as of the beginning of the current conflict. That doesn't sound like mothballed to me.

They've kept a stalemate due to... everything. Planes, helicopters, drones, air defence, blokes on quad bikes with Javelins, tactical innovation, Russian incompetence... everything. If the "everything else" remains unchanged, but the fixed-wing fighter numbers double (or whatever it would be for that) then that's got to be significant - it literally can't not be. How much it tilts the scales... no-one can tell yet, but you can bet that some of Ukraine's best minds are working on it, as are some pretty damned good NATO minds (if not our best)

Training - 4 months is the figure being bandied about (for exiting personnel who are being retrained, rather than Joe Bloggs being trained up from scratch).
I would be very surprised if that 4 months didn't start... probably approximately 4 months ago (if in small numbers).

I've no idea; but it's not F-16s OR artillery, transport etc - they're already getting lots of that. There's now the option of adding F-16s on top of the current donations.
This isn't some whim, surprising everyone, but is part of a gradual and planned escalation of support.

 

[Reiser99]

In general to me it seems that regardless of how old the kit/weapons etc is, it's all benefited. Old kit is better than no kit.

I also have suspicions that NATO and America in particular are quite happy to slowly drip feed equipment to the Ukrainians. A long, protracted war benefits NATO hugely. It portrays Russia as a threat to neighbouring countries allowing NATO to expand its influence. At the same time it's making Russia and its military look incompetent. Russia are also unlikely to get lots of new equipment from its allies as China is quite happy to attack economically rather than militarily and it's doubtful they want to get that close to Russia. The likes of Syria, N.Korea and Iran can only provide so much and far less than NATO. The rest of the world is quite happy to remain neutral.
However, the one worry is that Russian nukes are up to scratch and that Putin might actually be willing to lose them if it looks like Russia will be defeated totally. However, a long protracted war undermines him at home. He's lost his invincible aura and if the situation continues for another few years. Mounting Russian casualties will turn public opinion against him. This could then leave him exposed to a coup, which is the only likely way to get rid of him and NATO and America are gambling that his replacement, if not less hostile, is at least less secure in his power base and more likely to negotiate and concede to demands.

 

[McTallshort]

As far as I'm aware, we've been giving them plenty of 40-year old kit, on top of their existing 40-year old kit; that's what I was referring to. As you say, they haven't been given any F-16s yet; so we don't know how they stack up against the current opponent's.

Saab JAS 39 Gripen - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This system would have been better for Ukrainian needs: it's a new system that's been designed to work with a citizen/conscript army and relitivly cheap at 30m a pop.

 

[Which Tyler]

Saab JAS 39 Gripen - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This system would have been better for Ukrainian needs: it's a new system that's been designed to work with a citizen/conscript army and relitivly cheap at 30m a pop.

Quite possibly, I know nothing about it, but...
Is it available in any great numbers?
Would giving them to Ukraine deplete other NATO country's stocks?

I'm not saying that F-16s are the best thing to be giving the Ukrainians
I'm not saying that F-16s will allow Ukraine to make huge territorial gains this year
I've no idea, I'm not a military buff.


I'm saying that giving them F-16s is better than not giving them any jets; and that Ukrainian military with F-16s is better than a Ukrainian military without them.
I'm saying that Ukraine has asked for these planes; and now they're getting them.
I'm saying that Ukraine has been fighting this war with more-or-less obsolete equipment for the last 15 months; so giving them more-or-less obsolete equipment isn't a problem in and of itself.
I'm saying that there is surely a plan for a drip-feed escalation in the quality/military influence of the gear they're being given - with each stage activating by military and political expedience at the time. I'd be amazed if each announcement isn't preceded by agreement-in-principal in advance; with training likely starting at the point of agreement-in-principal.

 

[Yulia]

Good video. Shows "the atmosphere" how it really is, in Moscow at least

 

[Bada-Bing!]

We are closer than ever to arresting Putin, but the US must play its part | Gordon Brown

This summer will be a crisis point for the Russian president, as demands for action intensify, says former UK prime minister Gordon Brown

www.theguardian.com

Really?

 

[Reiser99]

We are closer than ever to arresting Putin, but the US must play its part | Gordon Brown

This summer will be a crisis point for the Russian president, as demands for action intensify, says former UK prime minister Gordon Brown

www.theguardian.com

Really?

FBI and Interpol just going to waltz into the Kremlin and handcuff him?

 

[Bada-Bing!]

FBI and Interpol just going to waltz into the Kremlin and handcuff him?

Yeh not gonna happen. US not a signatory to ICC and just a big no from a diplomatic POV.

Interpol - haven't heard/read anything from them on this.

 

[Reiser99]

Yeh not gonna happen. US not a signatory to ICC and just a big no from a diplomatic POV.

Interpol - haven't heard/read anything from them on this.

Of course it's not going to happen. I am 100% certain we will never see Putin on trial for war crimes. Maybe convicted in absentia, but that does very little.

 

[BrokenWing]

Maybe he'll "fall out of a window"