Ukrainian Air Force
Discussion
5 In a Row said:
I don't see the problem with giving them recent kit - hell, when the aliens invaded in 1996 there were plenty of drunk Americans flying F15s effectively to attack them.
Note: this may be subject to Hollywood licence (Independence Day)
There was also an RAF unit with an F16, which I suspect what really doomed the aliens.Note: this may be subject to Hollywood licence (Independence Day)
A report (not sure whether to believe it or not) that one of the Russian A-50 Gainstays has been destroyed. I was a bit confused by the Trent Telenko analysis. I got his bit about your need four aicraft to keep one on station round the clock (one has to go up before the other can come down; a third is needed to allow for downtime for rmaintenance and presumably a fourth "hot spare"), but he then seemed to say that the loss of that one hull would mean all the best electronics from all the serviceable aircraft.
Assuming he's correct that Russia can no longer provide AWACS coverage over Ukraine, does that neuter the Mig-31s that are said to have been loitering on the Russian border lobbing long range AAM at anything airborne?
Assuming he's correct that Russia can no longer provide AWACS coverage over Ukraine, does that neuter the Mig-31s that are said to have been loitering on the Russian border lobbing long range AAM at anything airborne?
Flooble said:
A report (not sure whether to believe it or not) that one of the Russian A-50 Gainstays has been destroyed. I was a bit confused by the Trent Telenko analysis. I got his bit about your need four aicraft to keep one on station round the clock (one has to go up before the other can come down; a third is needed to allow for downtime for rmaintenance and presumably a fourth "hot spare"), but he then seemed to say that the loss of that one hull would mean all the best electronics from all the serviceable aircraft.
Assuming he's correct that Russia can no longer provide AWACS coverage over Ukraine, does that neuter the Mig-31s that are said to have been loitering on the Russian border lobbing long range AAM at anything airborne?
If they've still got 3 planes then they should be able to provide substantial time-on-station still. So it's unlikely to make much difference.Assuming he's correct that Russia can no longer provide AWACS coverage over Ukraine, does that neuter the Mig-31s that are said to have been loitering on the Russian border lobbing long range AAM at anything airborne?
What's possibly more relevant is whether the Russians want to risk the other 3, depending on how this one was destroyed and the risk of a repeat.
havoc said:
Flooble said:
A report (not sure whether to believe it or not) that one of the Russian A-50 Gainstays has been destroyed. I was a bit confused by the Trent Telenko analysis. I got his bit about your need four aicraft to keep one on station round the clock (one has to go up before the other can come down; a third is needed to allow for downtime for rmaintenance and presumably a fourth "hot spare"), but he then seemed to say that the loss of that one hull would mean all the best electronics from all the serviceable aircraft.
Assuming he's correct that Russia can no longer provide AWACS coverage over Ukraine, does that neuter the Mig-31s that are said to have been loitering on the Russian border lobbing long range AAM at anything airborne?
If they've still got 3 planes then they should be able to provide substantial time-on-station still. So it's unlikely to make much difference.Assuming he's correct that Russia can no longer provide AWACS coverage over Ukraine, does that neuter the Mig-31s that are said to have been loitering on the Russian border lobbing long range AAM at anything airborne?
What's possibly more relevant is whether the Russians want to risk the other 3, depending on how this one was destroyed and the risk of a repeat.
They may have up to 7 of the latest variant...
Why are western jets such a red line? Tanks where only a few weeks ago, now every man and his dog is sending Lep 2s after the token gesture of us giving a few chally2s
If a country at war is sold a few surplus f16s that NATO is getting rid of and they employ contractors to maintain them, so what? If they again get trained by a contract firm to fly and fight these aircraft then it’s just another arms deal.
Western NATO jets will only have a big effect if they are in combined arms operations after a successful suppression of enemy air defence, which isn’t likely let’s be honest.
The odd F16 launching a HARM missile or LGB might be good for propaganda but won’t actually achieve much.
If a country at war is sold a few surplus f16s that NATO is getting rid of and they employ contractors to maintain them, so what? If they again get trained by a contract firm to fly and fight these aircraft then it’s just another arms deal.
Western NATO jets will only have a big effect if they are in combined arms operations after a successful suppression of enemy air defence, which isn’t likely let’s be honest.
The odd F16 launching a HARM missile or LGB might be good for propaganda but won’t actually achieve much.
e30ftw said:
Why are western jets such a red line? Tanks where only a few weeks ago, now every man and his dog is sending Lep 2s after the token gesture of us giving a few chally2s
If a country at war is sold a few surplus f16s that NATO is getting rid of and they employ contractors to maintain them, so what? If they again get trained by a contract firm to fly and fight these aircraft then it’s just another arms deal.
Western NATO jets will only have a big effect if they are in combined arms operations after a successful suppression of enemy air defence, which isn’t likely let’s be honest.
The odd F16 launching a HARM missile or LGB might be good for propaganda but won’t actually achieve much.
I don't know how the people at the epicentre of this think but there's something extremely optical about fighter jets and how they represent a countries power projection; without any comment on rights and wrongs, Putin's justification for the whole thing is the fear of NATO in his backyard, and right now it feels a bit like "we haven't moved in, but the toothbrush is in the bathroom cabinet, and I'm just leaving some things..."If a country at war is sold a few surplus f16s that NATO is getting rid of and they employ contractors to maintain them, so what? If they again get trained by a contract firm to fly and fight these aircraft then it’s just another arms deal.
Western NATO jets will only have a big effect if they are in combined arms operations after a successful suppression of enemy air defence, which isn’t likely let’s be honest.
The odd F16 launching a HARM missile or LGB might be good for propaganda but won’t actually achieve much.
Teddy Lop said:
e30ftw said:
Why are western jets such a red line? Tanks where only a few weeks ago, now every man and his dog is sending Lep 2s after the token gesture of us giving a few chally2s
If a country at war is sold a few surplus f16s that NATO is getting rid of and they employ contractors to maintain them, so what? If they again get trained by a contract firm to fly and fight these aircraft then it’s just another arms deal.
Western NATO jets will only have a big effect if they are in combined arms operations after a successful suppression of enemy air defence, which isn’t likely let’s be honest.
The odd F16 launching a HARM missile or LGB might be good for propaganda but won’t actually achieve much.
I don't know how the people at the epicentre of this think but there's something extremely optical about fighter jets and how they represent a countries power projection; without any comment on rights and wrongs, Putin's justification for the whole thing is the fear of NATO in his backyard, and right now it feels a bit like "we haven't moved in, but the toothbrush is in the bathroom cabinet, and I'm just leaving some things..."If a country at war is sold a few surplus f16s that NATO is getting rid of and they employ contractors to maintain them, so what? If they again get trained by a contract firm to fly and fight these aircraft then it’s just another arms deal.
Western NATO jets will only have a big effect if they are in combined arms operations after a successful suppression of enemy air defence, which isn’t likely let’s be honest.
The odd F16 launching a HARM missile or LGB might be good for propaganda but won’t actually achieve much.
e30ftw said:
We know and the Russians know NATO has all sorts of surveillance aircraft patrolling the boarders soaking up intel and passing it on to Ukraine so I don’t see how f16s will be much worse unless it’s just public optics .
I expect because gathering covert intel is exactly that - covert, done by all, all the time, & requires no additional effort or planning. Moving fighter jets into play is a whole different ball game. It requires infrastructure, supply chain, maintenance, training & sucks up defensive resources needed elsewhere. It's also very obvious to all. It's not something to do lightly, & something to avoid if there are better alternatives. I understand Zelenskyy asking for them, I would too in his position - but there's a lot more to it than that.S600BSB said:
Is the F16 really such a game changer in comparison to the Soviet era fast jets Ukraine already has? Apologies if daft question!
Yes, because they haven't many of those left now.That's the issue with no giving them all the MIg29's held by NATO last year.
That could and should have been done, but for the intransigence and stupidity of western politicians.
That's now probably too late to do now, they already need the next level up.....but, its just not going to happen now.
I suppose the west could be playing for time to sort our own crap out for the inevitable that will happen a few more years down the road..........which is clearly what Poland is now looking at with their massive defense budget spending program kicking off.
Simpo Two said:
In other words, like Dowding refusing to send all his fighters to defend France in 1940.
Completely unrelated to the thread but a few years ago I was delighted to be able read the actual letter Dowding sent to Churchill, not one more fighter etc, I remain, Sir, your most obedient servant etc. Almost gave me the goose-bumps, thinking about its importance.
Flooble said:
A report (not sure whether to believe it or not) that one of the Russian A-50 Gainstays has been destroyed.
Video's just posted of the drone attack on the A-50, looks like it was a tiny device, which only damaged it the large antenna disc.Video footage also just posted from outside the airfield, showing it taking off today to return to a Russian maintenance deport for repair to the radar dome/disc.
Poland is releasing some of their MiG-29s to Ukraine after all. Very limited publicity though, all things considered.
https://news.sky.com/story/poland-to-send-at-least...
Edit: 17.03.23. Now Slovakia also contributing all 13 of theirs.
https://news.sky.com/story/poland-to-send-at-least...
Edit: 17.03.23. Now Slovakia also contributing all 13 of theirs.
Edited by LotusOmega375D on Friday 17th March 17:42
e30ftw said:
Why are western jets such a red line? Tanks where only a few weeks ago, now every man and his dog is sending Lep 2s after the token gesture of us giving a few chally2s
If a country at war is sold a few surplus f16s that NATO is getting rid of and they employ contractors to maintain them, so what? If they again get trained by a contract firm to fly and fight these aircraft then it’s just another arms deal.
Western NATO jets will only have a big effect if they are in combined arms operations after a successful suppression of enemy air defence, which isn’t likely let’s be honest.
The odd F16 launching a HARM missile or LGB might be good for propaganda but won’t actually achieve much.
The issue is what the Ukrainians plan to do with them.If a country at war is sold a few surplus f16s that NATO is getting rid of and they employ contractors to maintain them, so what? If they again get trained by a contract firm to fly and fight these aircraft then it’s just another arms deal.
Western NATO jets will only have a big effect if they are in combined arms operations after a successful suppression of enemy air defence, which isn’t likely let’s be honest.
The odd F16 launching a HARM missile or LGB might be good for propaganda but won’t actually achieve much.
If they decide to fly one of their SU-27s to Moscow and drop a bomb on Red Square, that's up to them.
If they decide to fly an F16/Typhoon/Gripen/2000 that they just got given by the US/UK/Sweden/France for the same mission, surely you can see how much more provocative that is, and how much more likely that makes the war spilling outside of the current theatre.
All weapons being supplied to Ukraine are for the defence of Ukraine. The west is rightfully very careful about sending any weapons that could be used for the offensive on Russian soil.
Jake899 said:
If they decide to fly an F16/Typhoon/Gripen/2000 that they just got given by the US/UK/Sweden/France for the same mission, surely you can see how much more provocative that is, and how much more likely that makes the war spilling outside of the current theatre.
All weapons being supplied to Ukraine are for the defence of Ukraine. The west is rightfully very careful about sending any weapons that could be used for the offensive on Russian soil.
Agree entirely. But you can't win a war just by being defensive. The Russians are not going to give up; Russian lives are cheap and Putin doesn't care what the world thinks. And so the more we send, the more it will simply drag on until the West gets tired of propping up Ukraine and the Russians take it. I can't see an alternative.All weapons being supplied to Ukraine are for the defence of Ukraine. The west is rightfully very careful about sending any weapons that could be used for the offensive on Russian soil.
Jake899 said:
The issue is what the Ukrainians plan to do with them.
If they decide to fly one of their SU-27s to Moscow and drop a bomb on Red Square, that's up to them.
If they decide to fly an F16/Typhoon/Gripen/2000 that they just got given by the US/UK/Sweden/France for the same mission, surely you can see how much more provocative that is, and how much more likely that makes the war spilling outside of the current theatre.
All weapons being supplied to Ukraine are for the defence of Ukraine. The west is rightfully very careful about sending any weapons that could be used for the offensive on Russian soil.
I suspect that's what the Russians want you think, I'm not sure it's the reality.If they decide to fly one of their SU-27s to Moscow and drop a bomb on Red Square, that's up to them.
If they decide to fly an F16/Typhoon/Gripen/2000 that they just got given by the US/UK/Sweden/France for the same mission, surely you can see how much more provocative that is, and how much more likely that makes the war spilling outside of the current theatre.
All weapons being supplied to Ukraine are for the defence of Ukraine. The west is rightfully very careful about sending any weapons that could be used for the offensive on Russian soil.
All weapons can be used for offence, they don't stop working over the Russian border. It might even be easier to get a javelin to Moscow than an F16. If we give the Ukrainians a Typhoon and they head straight for Moscow on some desperate mission with it, risking their highly coveted new asset, I suspect that works more in Russia's favour. The Russians don't want this spilling out of Ukraine, they're not coping well with that as it is. An excuse to tell the West that they were right? Putin's desperate for that.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff