__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
I find myself posting less due to the endless bickering going on in these threads. You have to wade through all the crap that seems to take over these off topic threads to find any news. If that's what posters here want, have at it.
__________________
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Dion For This Useful Post:
Kind of off topic a little, but I was watching some videos about why f-16s weren't given to Ukraine sooner, and it opened my eyes up to the fact that I don't have a great grasp of modern warfare. I know air support keeps the skies safer, and lends needed support to ground forces, that part is obvious. I am understanding now, that there is much more.
I always thought that fighter jets all basically do the same things. Take a Ukrainian from a MiG, teach him to fly an f-16, and teach the maintenance crews how to maintain them, and it should be that simple.
From what I hearing, it is not nearly that simple. F-16s apparently have different weapons systems and capabilities in flight. For them to be used effectively, Ukraine has to change a lot of their strategies on the ground, and how they work in cooperation with f-16s. Everything from where air bases and shops are located, to the strategies being deployed in the field. They really made it sound like going from MiGs to f-16s would be a huge paradigm shift for the Ukrainian military. Simply training pilots to fly plains won't be enough to get the best use of the jets.
I can see why the West was reluctant at first to hand over f-16s, because it could cause problems in the short term while Ukraine has to take a step back and re-strategize, and even bigger problems if they didn't. In order to do the transfer and training properly, you have to take some people out of the war to train them in places like America, and then send them back in to train the others. The process is long and the temptation if you just sent f-16s, they would not be efficiently used using f-16s while using MiG concepts while flying them. They would be inferior in that kind of situation in fact because of the way Ukraine's military is currently set up. Almost like trying to put a square hole in a round peg. You would need to re-write a lot of plans on the ground.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 08-29-2023 at 01:28 AM.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
Kind of off topic a little, but I was watching some videos about why f-16s weren't given to Ukraine sooner, and it opened my eyes up to the fact that I don't have a great grasp of modern warfare. I know air support keeps the skies safer, and lends needed support to ground forces, that part is obvious. I am understanding now, that there is much more.
I always thought that fighter jets all basically do the same things. Take a Ukrainian from a MiG, teach him to fly an f-16, and teach the maintenance crews how to maintain them, and it should be that simple.
From what I hearing, it is not nearly that simple. F-16s apparently have different weapons systems and capabilities in flight. For them to be used effectively, Ukraine has to change a lot of their strategies on the ground, and how they work in cooperation with f-16s. Everything from where air bases and shops are located, to the strategies being deployed in the field. They really made it sound like going from MiGs to f-16s would be a huge paradigm shift for the Ukrainian military. Simply training pilots to fly plains won't be enough to get the best use of the jets.
I can see why the West was reluctant at first to hand over f-16s, because it could cause problems in the short term while Ukraine has to take a step back and re-strategize, and even bigger problems if they didn't. In order to do the transfer and training properly, you have to take some people out of the war to train them in places like America, and then send them back in to train the others. The process is long and the temptation if you just sent f-16s, they would not be efficiently used using f-16s while using MiG concepts while flying them. They would be inferior in that kind of situation in fact because of the way Ukraine's military is currently set up. Almost like trying to put a square hole in a round peg. You would need to re-write a lot of plans on the ground.
I've read similar things, and while I'm sure this is a worthy consideration, I do wonder how much of that is "first world problems" kind of thinking. Yes it's good to get the best out of your gear, but just like the best tank is the one that actually shows up when you need it, maybe some of that talk is coming from people who haven't seen the realities of a full scale war in their lifetime.
Who knows, I'm no expert here.
Last edited by Itse; 08-29-2023 at 01:52 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Kind of off topic a little, but I was watching some videos about why f-16s weren't given to Ukraine sooner, and it opened my eyes up to the fact that I don't have a great grasp of modern warfare. I know air support keeps the skies safer, and lends needed support to ground forces, that part is obvious. I am understanding now, that there is much more.
I always thought that fighter jets all basically do the same things. Take a Ukrainian from a MiG, teach him to fly an f-16, and teach the maintenance crews how to maintain them, and it should be that simple.
From what I hearing, it is not nearly that simple. F-16s apparently have different weapons systems and capabilities in flight. For them to be used effectively, Ukraine has to change a lot of their strategies on the ground, and how they work in cooperation with f-16s. Everything from where air bases and shops are located, to the strategies being deployed in the field. They really made it sound like going from MiGs to f-16s would be a huge paradigm shift for the Ukrainian military. Simply training pilots to fly plains won't be enough to get the best use of the jets.
I can see why the West was reluctant at first to hand over f-16s, because it could cause problems in the short term while Ukraine has to take a step back and re-strategize, and even bigger problems if they didn't. In order to do the transfer and training properly, you have to take some people out of the war to train them in places like America, and then send them back in to train the others. The process is long and the temptation if you just sent f-16s, they would not be efficiently used using f-16s while using MiG concepts while flying them. They would be inferior in that kind of situation in fact because of the way Ukraine's military is currently set up. Almost like trying to put a square hole in a round peg. You would need to re-write a lot of plans on the ground.
One of the biggest issues is the lengths of runways required for various types of jets to take off and land from. F-16s require longer and better runways than the short, rough ones that Ukraine has at its airbases. And Russia is likely to detect and disrupt efforts to extend and improve runways. Sweden has advanced jets capable of operating on short runways, but there are none available off the shelf and commissioning new ones takes years.
Then there’s the ground crews who support the aircraft (an F-16 requires 16 hours of maintenance for each hour of flight). You need far more of them than you do pilots, and training those support roles at even the basic level takes 133 days.
‘Just sends them the planes/tanks’ betrays an ignorance of how incredibly complex and interconnected modern weapons platforms are.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
I think the main issue with F-16s has always been the ground logistics and maintenance. I'm frustrated as anyone it's taken this long, but you need to train not only the pilots but everything in between. That takes time, effort, money, coordination all while having the proper AA in place to make sure it's not all wasted by an incoming missile which undoubtedly the russians will shoot at. Supposedly they will have to move everything on an almost daily basis. There are still plenty of traitors in the UA ranks who might have knowledge of this. What a task that will be. Do I wish/think it could have gone faster? For sure. But we are here now so we have to focus on what's ahead.
What I DO NOT agree with is certain people who say it will have no effect on the battlefield. I don't think anybody is suggesting it's the ultimate key to winning the war. But Ukrainians are already forced to fight with one hand behind their backs and this is simply another tool in the arsenal. To use a hockey analogy, if the Flames get a true #1D, it's not a guarantee of anything. But it sure as #### helps out.
Looking forward to the day this all becomes a reality. I have no doubt NATO allies will have an entire plan mapped out for this to work as smoothly as possible.
Here's a video for people who want to keep track of various sidetracks around this conflict. The video tackles more than Niger and gives a nice compilation of helpful basic information.
The situation developing in Central Africa is in one part an example of how the lack of grain transports from Ukraine and the energy sanctions placed on Russia are causing unrest and instability in the poorest countries in the world.
It's also very possibly or even likely a future hotspot for proxy wars between the West and Russia. It's good to get some of your basic information now, because if/when a proxy war really starts, the media will be filled with a lot more misinformation and propaganda.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
The situation in the Sahel is going from bad to worse. Jihadists have sewn violent unrest for more than a decade, and now strongmen are taking advantage of the chaos to carry out military coups. France has been pressured into pulling out, and neighbouring countries are considering intervening in Niger, which would spark a wider regional conflict. Even without the malign influence of Wagner/Russia, it’s looking like things are going to get very ugly.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 08-29-2023 at 09:36 AM.
One of the biggest issues is the lengths of runways required for various types of jets to take off and land from. F-16s require longer and better runways than the short, rough ones that Ukraine has at its airbases. And Russia is likely to detect and disrupt efforts to extend and improve runways. Sweden has advanced jets capable of operating on short runways, but there are none available off the shelf and commissioning new ones takes years.
Then there’s the ground crews who support the aircraft (an F-16 requires 16 hours of maintenance for each hour of flight). You need far more of them than you do pilots, and training those support roles at even the basic level takes 133 days.
‘Just sends them the planes/tanks’ betrays an ignorance of how incredibly complex and interconnected modern weapons platforms are.
Exact ratio of maintenance:riding my old Kawasaki KX250 dirt bike required.
The biggest thing the F-16 gives you is an actual SEAD platform, if they have the right support they'll actually be able to knock out Russian SAM sites and potentially force an air war, which I don't see the Russians winning.
Great platform that gives them some major advantages over the Soviet era stuff they were using before,(iirc correctly the F-16's they're receiving will be ones roughly 2005-ish 'vintage' upgrades-wise, not super modern ones, but still great aircraft) but as always tactics win wars, not equipment.
What really interests me is the level of support they receive tactics-wise. Do they just show them how to use them and wish them luck, or does the west actually divulge how they would use them, because if they do they're also just giving the Russians and Chinese that info as well. So are the Ukrainians going to get these modern jets and just use them using their old command centric methods or will they employ them using a western mindset? Either way it wouldn't matter since right now it's such a contested air space anyway unless they deal with that IADS threat, and I don't really see that happening from the air
Edit: But that's all assuming they intend to use F-16's offensively. Defensively, they'll be a huge asset since F-16's would be able to shoot down things like cruise missiles a lot more cheaply and effectively than with air defence missiles
Last edited by btimbit; 08-29-2023 at 10:22 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to btimbit For This Useful Post:
The biggest thing the F-16 gives you is an actual SEAD platform, if they have the right support they'll actually be able to knock out Russian SAM sites and potentially force an air war, which I don't see the Russians winning.
Great platform that gives them some major advantages over the Soviet era stuff they were using before,(iirc correctly the F-16's they're receiving will be ones roughly 2005-ish 'vintage' upgrades-wise, not super modern ones, but still great aircraft) but as always tactics win wars, not equipment.
What really interests me is the level of support they receive tactics-wise. Do they just show them how to use them and wish them luck, or does the west actually divulge how they would use them, because if they do they're also just giving the Russians and Chinese that info as well. So are the Ukrainians going to get these modern jets and just use them using their old command centric methods or will they employ them using a western mindset? Either way it wouldn't matter since right now it's such a contested air space anyway unless they deal with that IADS threat, and I don't really see that happening from the air
Edit: But that's all assuming they intend to use F-16's offensively. Defensively, they'll be a huge asset since F-16's would be able to shoot down things like cruise missiles a lot more cheaply and effectively than with air defence missiles
The West has opened up on ground force tactics so why not Air Force tactics
At this point You are either with Ukraine or against Ukraine
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
The West has opened up on ground force tactics so why not Air Force tactics
At this point You are either with Ukraine or against Ukraine
Yeah but ground tactics aren't classified the way air tactics are, I can see support for certain specific things existing but not like the West will just hand over their playbook
