It's coming home
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
It's coming home
Germany needs liberation.
I don't think have enough therapists in the world to heal them all
Germany needs liberation.
I like this. We have left the stage of "kill them all" and reached the stage of "the government is the problem".
Or in other words they are backtracking and taking away the nuclear option. This is a good sign I think, it showd that Russia slowly realizes it can't threaten the West to stop supporting Ukraine.
Surprise!!!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64446937
German chancellor says he won't send fighter jets to Ukraine
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64446937
German chancellor says he won't send fighter jets to Ukraine
The Tory party and half the UK might have switched sides if they had carried out the threat!
Actually we do know the number, it's going to be 42 units, that position is in the government's support list for quite some time already. But know we know what kind of "mine clearing tank" it will be.
The Wisent generally is an armoured recovery vehicle based on and designed to support the Leopard 1 MBT. So it's the same basic structure as the Gepard uses which should make maintenance and logistics a bit easier.
The mine clearing equipment is what makes this the MC variant, it has afaik never been used by the Bundeswehr but is a new construction.
Last edited:
@Revan, Milanović is currently spouting some more pro Russian shit all the while saying he isnt Putin's player. 
He says he wouldnt send any weapons to Ukraine cause it would prolong the war. Just love that kind of stance.
He says he wouldnt send any weapons to Ukraine cause it would prolong the war. Just love that kind of stance.
Last edited:
If it looks like a Putin player, walks like a Putin player and quacks like a Putin player, it probably is a Putin player.@Revan, Milanović is currently spoutins some more pro Russian shit all the while saying he isnt Putin's player.
He says he wouldnt send any weapons to Ukraine cause it would prolong the war. Just love that kind of stance.
Its so great Lavrov's words definitely got to him, he's now mentioning it every time he speaks and he sure speaks a lot. It doesnt help he's probably on cocaine most of the time, its such a cascade of unconnected words and sentences, jumping from one theme to another. Crazy stuff.
Nobody wanted them. Brilliant at what it does, but its far too niche for anybody that's not as big as the USAF. Everybody else needs some degree of multi role ability. Foreign sales are off the table now anyway because they're out of production and the USAF wants to keep them all.
F16s would be the best fit for Ukraine but nobody trusts that they wont start firing missiles into Russia from them.
That is what they said about sending tanks until they were embarrassed into acting.
I see Ukraine has asked for Tornado amongst the coalition of jets.
Could be the last time it could be called into action. To do exactly what it was designed to do...hit shit out of Russian forces.
Tornados won't happen. They will be phased out of active duty in 2028 if everything works as planned (replacements arriving as ordered and scheduled) and even if that works out they are already very thin on operating hours that you can squeeze out of those old things. But they are needed because at the moment Germany has no other plane that can fulfill their role. Giving them to Ukraine would create an unacceptable capability gap for the German Air Force itself.
It's different to the tank situation. That was mostly political and can be solved by using new production and units put in stock by the industry.
There are no surplus planes in Germany, but there are surplus tanks (although not in a full, operational state, but that can be fixed in an acceptable time frame).
Or in other words, Tornado deliveries would only be possible if F-35s for Germany were fast-tracked.
This is an excellent article to be honest.
Doubtless no one comes remotely close to having the breath and depth of tools the US has for achieving air-supremacy. Equally the F-16 is no panacea, it needs to be part of a combined wings (my term) aerial warfare to achieve optimum results. That said, I don't believe you need U.S. level of tools to achieve that against Russian SAMs and air-force in Ukraine.
Would Ukraine benefit from B-2 stealth bombers, 5th gen stealth fighters, dozens of AWACS and Air Refuelling jets etc. etc. Yes, of course. But does it need all of that to achieve its aims. I don't believe so. The U.S. doctrine is to have an air force so numerically and technologically superior, with such a breadth of tools at its disposal, that not only can it achieve complete aerial superiority against any enemy but it can do so with such an overwhelming force that it's not even contest. Which crucially means that it happens quickly and that the U.S. doesn't suffer any significant losses in the process. But that obviously isn't and can't be the aim of Ukraine.
Back to the F-16, he is totally right. Alone, it would be limited to low-altitude sorties and be vulnerable to MANPADS. But what the F-16 alone would achieve, is to move the UAF away from its dwindling stock of old MiG and Sukhoi fighters and onto a newer and more widely available platform where they can keep receiving deliveries into the future.Ensuring there is no Russian air superiority in the medium or long term, while would increasing the UAF's capabilities for providing ground support to its troops during offensives. That alone is very important.
Now if you want to give Ukraine more tools so they can start aiming for air superiority, they'll need to receive a mix of platforms and weapons:
- F/A 18 Growlers with HARM missiles for the EW & SEAD role
- Eurofighters with Meteors and IRIS-T for escorting & air-superiority role at high altitudes
- F-16 Block 52s for ground support & bombing
Again, messaging is important. Need to get it through Putin's skull that there won't be no easing. That the longer he stays in Ukraine, it's only going to get harder and bloodier for Russia. Currently Russian leadership still thinks they can bleed Ukraine dry before more meaningful support arrives for Ukraine. As Rob Lee says, they are still playing to win.
The messaging to Russia needs to change from "we're going to make this very costly for you" to "you will lose, we'll absolutely make sure you do, and the only question remaining is how badly do you want to get beaten before you come to realise this".
Sound off
Exactly.
Evidently, the Russians are preparing for some major offensives, which some people here said they could not do a few weeks ago. They even started some in some areas. Ill-equipped and poorly trained troops can still gain some ground and waste the UA's combat capability. This is a fact. We can't just only look at how many losses the Russians are suffering.
Now comes the question of what UA is doing. They are good at keeping their plan secret, and hopefully this is the case regarding having some.
In that WSJ article above,
“Our calculations were based on the fact that Russia still is an enormous country and with much bigger resources when it comes to soldiers and ability to produce weaponry which does not require Western components,” said Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, one of the earliest proponents of stepping up Western deliveries. “The longer we give them, the more people…they can throw at the Ukrainians.”
Yes, but not if it's Russian infrastructure. Those are sacred and hitting them is a serious escalation by NATO
These propaganda pieces seem like little more than ways to prepare the public to justify more barbarity.
Good thread on the prospects of retaking Crimea
I don't know why people repeat this. US has a shitload of air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles for the F-16, and some of them have very long range. It also has a very capable radar and electronics. The F-16, operating inside Ukraine, can hit air and ground targets without getting too close to the Russians. For example, variants of these missiles have 1,000 km range and they can be used against the Russian artillery and ships:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM
The F-16 will not be used for dogfights. Dogfights are only for the movies today, real war today means radars and missiles.
The main problem with the F-16 is that Ukraine has to develop all the maintenance infrastructure while at war. It is not easy, but it can be done.
The German air force is not needed for anything, and will not take part in anything anyway. So, this is not really a problem, it is just an excuse, like the other meaningless excuses in the past 12 months about the reasons Germany cannot provide modern equipment to Ukraine.
I think someone here doesn't like Germans!
The Greek air force is not needed for anything, and will not take part in anything anyway. So it should give all its planes to Ukraine.
And while at it, the Greek navy is not needed for anything as well it should give its U-214 submarines to Ukraine as well.
If you don't support this you as a Greek are personally responsible for every dead Ukrainian.
All kidding aside that post is one of the most stupid takes you did in this thread and I think that says something...
Edit: To add some substance, for example the German Air Force is needed for air policing missions like this:
Last edited:
We keep saying it, because we vaguely know what we’re talking about. Did you read the thread? Also, literally no one said it would be used for dogfights.
The air-to-air missile are more effective when fired from high altitude and don’t have to work too much against gravity. Your aircraft also need to be at high altitude to fire cruise missiles to impart kinetic energy into them. Finally higher altitude allows your radar to see further. Currently it’s difficult to fly at high altitudes in Ukraine because of Russian SAMs. HARM missiles on their own are not a solution (Ukrainian MiGs already have HARM missiles)
F-16s are neither particularly fast jets nor do they carry EW suites. That means they can’t fly high and quick enough to get out of SAM range, nor do they carry EW suites like the Growlers to degrade Russian radars.
PS. European air-to-air missiles are also better. Hence Eurofighters with MDBA missiles are the best option for air dominance, short of getting your hands on F-22s.
And the PS is never happening!
Which part, the F-22s or the Eurofighters?
The F-22s of course isn’t. Too much classified American tech. But I think a squadron of Eurofighters is doable. If among the 4 major European partners (Germany, Italy, Spain & Britain) they donate 6 each, then Ukraine will have a squadron capable of protecting other aircraft.
Can't see it happening, I can't help thinking Harriers could have been a good option but they're probably too complicated to train quickly
SAAB Gripen would be a good option. They can launch both Meteor and IRIS-T missiles and are built to operate from roadside bases with low maintanence requirements, the low production numbers is a problem though.
Last edited:
It's quite something how pervasive Russian disinfo is. The other day I read in a comment section from my local media that Zelenskys wife spent 40k on a shopping spree in Paris. Not proven at all.
The Gripen would be a great option, especially since its designed to operate in relatively low infrastructure environments.
Edit: they also have a very low cost / operation hour compared to any of NATO's fighters.
A funny coincidence regarding the Gripens happened after the last Ramstein meeting, Oleksii Reznikov the Ukrainian defence minister posted this tweet.
For those that don't speak Swedish, the English word for gripen is griffin.
Understood and perfectly correct.
The reason I mentioned that was because and despite its age, the German Tornado is the only fighter jet that could perform both ground attack (IDS) and electronic combat reconnaissance (ECR) roles, which would be ideal for Ukraine.