Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

https://nltimes.nl/2023/01/20/netherlands-consider-helping-ukraine-f-16-fighters-leopard-2-tanks

Netherlands would consider helping Ukraine with F-16 fighters, Leopard 2 tanks

The Dutch Cabinet will look into supplying F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine if the Kyiv government asks for it. During a parliamentary debate on Thursday, Minister Wopke Hoekstra of Foreign Affairs said the Cabinet would look at such a request with an “open mind.” In Davos, Minister Kajsa Ollongren of Defense also said that the Netherlands is willing to help pay for modern Leopard 2 tanks that other countries send to Ukraine. “That is certainly something we are willing to do,” she told Bloomberg.
 
Raoul said:
If fighting the US or China, they would establish air superiority and air supremacy on day one and would easily pick off any military vehicles on the ground. The only way to fight them would be to scatter and form an insurgency as a means to counter the inevitable ground war (such as in Iraq/Afghanistan etc). Armor would be reduced to becoming magnets of death.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, that is what the introduction of the AH-64 Apache was thought to have done back during the Gulf War. Nevertheless, it seems that no other country outside of the US/UK/NATO has developped proper tactics with those tank-killing helicopters. If the Russians had more Mi-28 "Havoc" units in the area with a proper tactical approach, I don't think that tanks would stand a chance. But the fact that Ukrainian tanks stand their ground tells me that Russia just don't know what to do with some of that top tier hardware.
 
frostbite said:
https://nltimes.nl/2023/01/20/netherlands-consider-helping-ukraine-f-16-fighters-leopard-2-tanks

Netherlands would consider helping Ukraine with F-16 fighters, Leopard 2 tanks

The Dutch Cabinet will look into supplying F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine if the Kyiv government asks for it. During a parliamentary debate on Thursday, Minister Wopke Hoekstra of Foreign Affairs said the Cabinet would look at such a request with an “open mind.” In Davos, Minister Kajsa Ollongren of Defense also said that the Netherlands is willing to help pay for modern Leopard 2 tanks that other countries send to Ukraine. “That is certainly something we are willing to do,” she told Bloomberg.
Click to expand...

Just a question.
What is or would be the US position regarding foreign customers of its F16 fighter jets being supplied to Ukraine.
And of course, Ukraine has not capabilities of operating that aircraft. Not something you can just jump into and fly it.
 
calodo2003 said:
Click to expand...


For those who remember the final scene from The Charge of the Light Brigade (1968), there was a look of disbelief from the defending Russians seeing the cavalry running in the open and into cannon fire range. This time though, the Russian soldiers are the ones in the same position as the light brigade.
 
Buster15 said:
Just a question.
What is or would be the US position regarding foreign customers of its F16 fighter jets being supplied to Ukraine.
And of course, Ukraine has not capabilities of operating that aircraft. Not something you can just jump into and fly it.
Click to expand...
And even if they where able to operate them they wouldn't have the same capabilities in the hands of the Ukrainians as they have for a NATO country with no AWACS or jamming platforms available to back them up. They would probably be limited to low altitude attack missions only.
 
Buster15 said:
Just a question.
What is or would be the US position regarding foreign customers of its F16 fighter jets being supplied to Ukraine.
And of course, Ukraine has not capabilities of operating that aircraft. Not something you can just jump into and fly it.
Click to expand...

I think the pilots and the mechanics and everybody else involved in these decisions, know much more than any of us about all that, since it is their job, and none of them expects to "just jump into and fly it".

The patriot missiles are also complicated, each costing a billion, but apparently, the US army can train Ukrainians to operate them.

Since there are dozens of countries operating F-16s, I guess the US Air Force can train the Ukrainians, if there is a decision to provide them with F-16s.
 
the hea said:
And even if they where able to operate them they wouldn't have the same capabilities in the hands of the Ukrainians as they have for a NATO country with no AWACS or jamming platforms available to back them up. They would probably be limited to low altitude attack missions only.
Click to expand...

1. I don't think the F-16s require AWACS to operate. At any altitude.

2. NATO AWACS, flying outside Ukraine, have been helping Ukraine since day 1 of this war. NATO is sharing information from satellites, too.

The main problem with F-16s is their maintenance. But already the M777 go to Poland for their maintenance if they have serious problems, I guess the same will happen with the F-16s.
 
The main problem with helping Ukraine is the political decisions of the NATO countries.

If the political decision is taken, the engineers and the specialists can find solutions to the other, technical problems.
 
the hea said:
And even if they where able to operate them they wouldn't have the same capabilities in the hands of the Ukrainians as they have for a NATO country with no AWACS or jamming platforms available to back them up. They would probably be limited to low altitude attack missions only.
Click to expand...

Good points.
 
Perhaps the Patriot missiles was a prerequisite for the F-16s. The F-16s will be most vulnerable while on the ground, they need adequate air defenses.
 
frostbite said:
1. I don't think the F-16s require AWACS to operate. At any altitude.

2. NATO AWACS, flying outside Ukraine, have been helping Ukraine since day 1 of this war. NATO is sharing information from satellites, too.

The main problem with F-16s is their maintenance. But already the M777 go to Poland for their maintenance if they have serious problems, I guess the same will happen with the F-16s.
Click to expand...
1. No aircraft requires AWACS to operate but the radar on an AWACS plane can detect threats at very long ranges which give the fighter pilot time to react.

2. Having NATO AWACS flying outside of Ukraine and looking east is far from the same as having them integrated in a network with the fighters and conducting battle management.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
Interestingly, that is what the introduction of the AH-64 Apache was thought to have done back during the Gulf War. Nevertheless, it seems that no other country outside of the US/UK/NATO has developped proper tactics with those tank-killing helicopters. If the Russians had more Mi-28 "Havoc" units in the area with a proper tactical approach, I don't think that tanks would stand a chance. But the fact that Ukrainian tanks stand their ground tells me that Russia just don't know what to do with some of that top tier hardware.
Click to expand...
It's not that simple. Helicopters are quite vulnerable themselves and Ukraine has a lot of MANPADS to be used against them as well as systems like the Gepard, which is designed specifically to be part of armoured units and defend them against helicopters. It's not about tactics, it's about having unquestioned air superiority which is a prerequisite for helicopters to render tanks obsolete. Without that it's a pretty even fight (as proven by the amount of helicopter losses Russia had so far).
 
frostbite said:
I think the pilots and the mechanics and everybody else involved in these decisions, know much more than any of us about all that, since it is their job, and none of them expects to "just jump into and fly it".

The patriot missiles are also complicated, each costing a billion, but apparently, the US army can train Ukrainians to operate them.

Since there are dozens of countries operating F-16s, I guess the US Air Force can train the Ukrainians, if there is a decision to provide them with F-16s.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
I wasn't trying to be flippant although it may have come across that way....

I am all for the NATO nations supporting Ukraine to be able to defeat Russia.
We need to remember that not that long ago, the US was against Poland loaning their Mig29's, which Ukraine already operates, to Ukraine.

The key issue is precisely what would Ukraine use such F16 for. Air to air or air to ground. Or potentially both because it is a hugely capable jet. As long as can be armed with the necessary weapons.
 
the hea said:
1. No aircraft requires AWACS to operate but the radar on an AWACS plane can detect threats at very long ranges which give the fighter pilot time to react.

2. Having NATO AWACS flying outside of Ukraine and looking east is far from the same as having them integrated in a network with the fighters and conducting battle management.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so, but there is no point in comparing it with the ideal situation. The comparisons are meaningful with their current situation. Currently, Ukrainians have soviet era aircraft, and they are still somewhat successful with them, the F-16s will be a huge improvement to what they have now.
 
the hea said:
1. No aircraft requires AWACS to operate but the radar on an AWACS plane can detect threats at very long ranges which give the fighter pilot time to react.

2. Having NATO AWACS flying outside of Ukraine and looking east is far from the same as having them integrated in a network with the fighters and conducting battle management.
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
Buster15 said:
Fair enough.
I wasn't trying to be flippant although it may have come across that way....

I am all for the NATO nations supporting Ukraine to be able to defeat Russia.
We need to remember that not that long ago, the US was against Poland loaning their Mig29's, which Ukraine already operates, to Ukraine.

The key issue is precisely what would Ukraine use such F16 for. Air to air or air to ground. Or potentially both because it is a hugely capable jet. As long as can be armed with the necessary weapons.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the F-16s can counter the Russian bombers, too.
 
frostbite said:
Perhaps so, but there is no point in comparing it with the ideal situation. The comparisons are meaningful with their current situation. Currently, Ukrainians have soviet era aircraft, and they are still somewhat successful with them, the F-16s will be a huge improvement to what they have now.
Click to expand...
The problem is if Ukraine are given a lot of F-16s and they start getting shot down, what effect will that have on the European populations support for further donations. It will also be prime propaganda for Russia "look at us destroying the evil American airforce" How will that affect the Russian populations support for the war?
 
the hea said:
The problem is if Ukraine are given a lot of F-16s and they start getting shot down, what effect will that have on the European populations support for further donations. It will also be prime propaganda for Russia "look at us destroying the evil American airforce" How will that affect the Russian populations support for the war?
Click to expand...


I don't think it will be a problem. But the next step would be to give Ukranians a few F-35s! :smirk:
 
frostbite said:
Perhaps the F-16s can counter the Russian bombers, too.
Click to expand...
Calm down now, It's a 50 year old aircraft with no stealth capabilities, it has a radar cross section of 5 square meters which makes it easily detectable for radars at very long ranges. If they even tried to fly close to the frontlines at any altitude they would get shot down immediately.
 
frostbite said:
Perhaps the F-16s can counter the Russian bombers, too.
Click to expand...
They can't. The simple issue is that the Russian strategic bombers launch cruise missiles while being far away from the border. There is no air-to-air or air-to-ground missile that could prevent this. The only way would be to fly an F-16 deep into Russian territory, and that would be a suicide mission.

The F-16 isn't that much better than the MiG-29 Ukraine currently uses and they didn't try to waste them on such missions, so they wouldn't try with an F-16.
 
There is no way to compose some sort of armistice any soon, which only makes this war slip toward a slowrolled escalation, for the weeks to come, which is a scary prospect per se, even without additional fronts or nuke threats.
 
the hea said:
Calm down now, It's a 50 year old aircraft with no stealth capabilities, it has a radar cross section of 5 square meters which makes it easily detectable for radars at very long ranges. If they even tried to fly close to the frontlines at any altitude they would get shot down immediately.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the chopper pilots that flew into Belogrod.
 
stefan92 said:
They can't. The simple issue is that the Russian strategic bombers launch cruise missiles while being far away from the border. There is no air-to-air or air-to-ground missile that could prevent this. The only way would be to fly an F-16 deep into Russian territory, and that would be a suicide mission.

The F-16 isn't that much better than the MiG-29 Ukraine currently uses and they didn't try to waste them on such missions, so they wouldn't try with an F-16.
Click to expand...

I don't think the F-16s will be used for dogfights. Dogfights are fun in the movies, but in a real war, modern aircraft use missiles. The F-16 is just a platform for missiles and radar. And the US has developed many different missiles for the F-16, some with a very long range. For example, some variants of the following have a range of over 1,000 km.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM

You can find the position of the parked bomber using satellites or ground observers, then you send the F-16 to fire the missile, and the bomber (or the ship, or the artillery) is no more.

No comparison with the MiGs. Yes, the F-16 as a platform was developed 50 years ago, but the weapons it carries are very modern.
 
frostbite said:
I don't think the F-16s will be used for dogfights. Dogfights are fun in the movies, but in a real war, modern aircraft use missiles. The F-16 is just a platform for missiles and radar. And the US has developed many different missiles for the F-16, some with a very long range. For example, some variants of the following have a range of over 1,000 km.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM

You can find the position of the parked bomber using satellites or ground observers, then you send the F-16 to fire the missile, and the bomber (or the ship, or the artillery) is no more.

No comparison with the MiGs. Yes, the F-16 as a platform was developed 50 years ago, but the weapons it carries are very modern.
Click to expand...

If they won't give them 150km MLRS ammo what makes you think they'd give 1000km missiles for an F16?
 
frostbite said:
I don't think the F-16s will be used for dogfights. Dogfights are fun in the movies, but in a real war, modern aircraft use missiles. The F-16 is just a platform for missiles and radar. And the US has developed many different missiles for the F-16, some with a very long range. For example, some variants of the following have a range of over 1,000 km.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM

You can find the position of the parked bomber using satellites or ground observers, then you send the F-16 to fire the missile, and the bomber (or the ship, or the artillery) is no more.

No comparison with the MiGs. Yes, the F-16 as a platform was developed 50 years ago, but the weapons it carries are very modern.
Click to expand...
True, but the Dutch don't have that and currently they are the only ones talking about transferring F-16. If a broader coalition forms and agrees to deliver this kind of long range weapons, then the picture changes.
 
frostbite said:
I don't think the F-16s will be used for dogfights. Dogfights are fun in the movies, but in a real war, modern aircraft use missiles. The F-16 is just a platform for missiles and radar. And the US has developed many different missiles for the F-16, some with a very long range. For example, some variants of the following have a range of over 1,000 km.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM

You can find the position of the parked bomber using satellites or ground observers, then you send the F-16 to fire the missile, and the bomber (or the ship, or the artillery) is no more.

No comparison with the MiGs. Yes, the F-16 as a platform was developed 50 years ago, but the weapons it carries are very modern.
Click to expand...
Not to mention state of repair and general reliability You can be pretty sure that a NATO F-16 despite a long working life has it's service manual and maintenance record in proper working order. Don't know if one can say the same about Soviet designed planes.
 
The US wants Ukraine to hold off on launching a major offensive.

Senior US officials are urging Ukraine not to launch a major offensive against Russian forces just yet.

They believe an offensive will be more successful once US weaponry has been supplied and training provided.

A senior Biden administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said talks with Ukraine on a counter-offensive have been in the context of ensuring the Ukrainians devote enough time first to training on the latest weaponry provided by the US.
Click to expand...
 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...


Hard to believe someone can feck up such a sensitive statistic and not notice for a whole day. As someone pointed out on Twitter, the last poll doesn't even add to 100% as well.

regarding the political spectrum it's pretty much what expect:



However the finer distribution in a recent survey were a bit surpring to me (left coloumn: "should deliver", right coloumn: "should not deliver"):

irU3rZ2.png


A stark contrast between East and West, probably not surprising, considerung how strong far left/right parties usually are there, compared to the West.
What was far more surprising to me is the breakdown according to age. From my personal experience younger people are strongly in favour of supporting Ukraine and in general it usually seems to be the boomers dragging everyone down on critical issues. But here we can see the opposite. I have no idea why.

Also the breakdown by party:
SmrU5hW.png


I was mildly surprised to see the FPD split so evenly, though I guess that's logical with their libertarian "feck other people" contingent. Yet their official position seems much less conflicted than the SPD's, who are given a relatively clear direction by this poll.
 
do.ob said:
What was far more surprising to me is the breakdown according to age. From my personal experience younger people are strongly in favour of supporting Ukraine and in general it usually seems to be the boomers dragging everyone down on critical issues. But here we can see the opposite. I have no idea why.
Click to expand...
I share your surprise and your experiences... no idea whst kind of young people they asked, from my personal experience I have to assume that the delusional leftist/last generation complex is completely against it, because I don't really know such people and that's the only way I can think of how to turn the opinion this far against deliveries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.