Revelation wrote:

scbriml wrote:

I've said this before - after over a year of shockingly bad warfare by Russia, if they had any competent commanders, they would have surfaced before now. What we're seeing is the best Russia has to offer.

Even worse for them, to use another old saying, they are "eating the seed corn" of their future military too.

Interesting and relevant twitter thread: https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status ... 8343034880

Basically RU has been sending pretty much everything you need to create the next generation of their military to the front right from the early days of their invasion of Ukraine. This means sending trainers to the front as ordinary infantry, making officers in their scientific and technical organizations become tankers with one day's training, etc.

Every pilot they lose represents many years of training. Every colonel they lose represents decades of training. Now they are also losing the trainers and the people developing future weapons. It spells doom for their future military.

There incompetence is truly more then any general in the west can wish for in the long run. For Ukrainians I hope it ends soon, but from a strategic geopolitical perspective; this is even better then the best case scenario…

Aesma wrote:

We often hear about "reasonable people" saying Crimea will remain Russian in any settlement, and then talk about security guaranties,

Seems to me the people to talk about settlement are political pundits who fell for the propraganda that the West is waiting to see if Ukraine can succeed in this up coming offensive before providing additional aid.

Those with comparable military back ground seem to be more optimistic that Ukraine will succeed militarily with recapturing the rest of their territory.

The recent amouncement of F-16 to Ukraine should put to rest any doubt that the West is in for the long haul.

As Perun has eluded. The donation of M-1 and now F-16, say that the planners in Washington and Brussels are already looking at the next offensive, whether this spring/summer offensive will be successful or not.

After all, I don't suppose Old Man Winter will prevent the Ukrainian from doing in Crimea this next season would he?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Aesma wrote:

We often hear about "reasonable people" saying Crimea will remain Russian in any settlement, and then talk about security guaranties,

Seems to me the people to talk about settlement are political pundits who fell for the propraganda that the West is waiting to see if Ukraine can succeed in this up coming offensive before providing additional aid.

Those with comparable military back ground seem to be more optimistic that Ukraine will succeed militarily with recapturing the rest of their territory.

The recent amouncement of F-16 to Ukraine should put to rest any doubt that the West is not in for the long haul.

As Perun has eluded. The donation of M-1 and now F-16, say that the planners in Washington and Brussels are already looking at the next offensive, whether this spring/summer offensive will be successful or not.

After all, I don't suppose Old Man Winter will prevent the Ukrainian from doing in Crimea this next season would he?

All good points. IMO those "reasonable people" are creating a false equivalence between the attacker and the victim of the attack. By doing this they are building their house on sand, IMO.

Revelation wrote:

IMO those "reasonable people" are creating a false equivalence between the attacker and the victim of the attack.

There is one other widely bantered historical statistic that attacking force should be 3 to 1 and would suffer comparable ratio of casualty.

In as far as we see, the Russian is following that trend to the letter. But with all the Ukrainian offensives, from Karkiv, to the recent Bakhmut localized attack, I am not seeing the 3 to one casualty ratio on the Ukrainian.

Maybe they are hiding their numbers, and the released videos are hand picked. But I am optimistic that Russia will also have higher casualty rate in the on coming Ukrainian counter offensive.

bt

Aesma wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Very good interview with prof. Michael Clarke. 38 minutes of very clear and plausible discussion and explanation of military and political context, background and details of the situation now during the run-up to the ukrainian counter-offensive:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EUkpR9BoJnA

I'd disagree with some of his final remarks on a future settlement but even there it's primarily a matter of tactical assumptions at the respective point in time which I hope will be surpassed until then.

His "crazy idea" is interesting.

We often hear about "reasonable people" saying Crimea will remain Russian in any settlement, and then talk about security guaranties, but how can you guarantee anything to Ukraine while it's surrounded like that by Russia ? Taking the rest of Ukraine into NATO would be a way, I guess.

I think a lot will depend on Russian politics in the end, if Ukraine can have significant successes on the ground. If Putin is removed and replaced by someone crazier, what then, WW3 ? China steps in to stop Russia ?

If Putin is removed and replaced by someone reasonable, then a better outcome for all.

If Putin stays somehow, by becoming ever crazier, then scenario 1 again ?

"Reasonable people" were trying to talk of future settlement with Austria-Hungary, in 1918, for example. Other "reasonable people" dispatched GHW Bush on a speaking tour in 1991, culminating in his "Chicken Kiev" speech, about convenient arrangements for continuation of USSR.
But every empire has a due date, and Russia is clearly past that due date, much. Contemplating a settlement, that foresees no more Russia, as we know it, is much more proper thinking, than all of this nonsense "how do we generously reward an aggressor, and let him keep his face, and at least some of his winnings". Ripping out aggressor's life support system is the way forward.
Also, working on properly arranging the logistics of Northern Eurasia in post-Russia settlement would be a way higher priority, for all rational people involved, than a logistical dead-end peninsula on the Black Sea (itself a maritime dead-end corner). How do you arrange efficient overland transport (rail), if Muslim territories (like Tatarstan and Bashkortostan) aren't happy, for example?
So the priorities have to be set on BOTH winning decisively, and preventing the mess of this clay-foot giant's collapse triggering an unpleasant broader fallout...

Aesma wrote:

His "crazy idea" is interesting.

We often hear about "reasonable people" saying Crimea will remain Russian in any settlement, and then talk about security guaranties, but how can you guarantee anything to Ukraine while it's surrounded like that by Russia ? Taking the rest of Ukraine into NATO would be a way, I guess.

I would see that as basically a certainty at this point – a when, not an if!

Also, of course, Crimea needs to be liberated, so Ukraine has their coastline back as it should be!!

I think a lot will depend on Russian politics in the end, if Ukraine can have significant successes on the ground. If Putin is removed and replaced by someone crazier, what then, WW3 ? China steps in to stop Russia ?

Even a replacement dictator would need time and resources to establish and consolidate his new power base and he would need to gather domestic allies. With an already massively weakened invasion force in the process of getting slaughtered ever more each day it would be extremely dicey to escalate external conflicts against NATO.

All the internal security functionaries wouldn't be able to hold the country together while the remaining substance of Russia is visibly getting pulled into the shredder!

It is important to maintain a credible devastating strike scenario against Russia in case they escalate their Ukraine invasion to the nuclear level, even if such a strike would not itself be nuclear – the point is to make such a scenario strongly net-negative for Russia so it would be pointless for them to engage this way, regardless how mad the dictator at the top may be.

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

I don't know this source, but would not be surprised if this is how UA gets its first batch of F-16s.

DK and NL are both F-35 customers so don't really need the F-16s going forward.

Once some approach like this breaks the ice, I think we'll see many others including the US providing F-16s to UA.

#BREAKING: I was informed that, 45 ex-Danish & Dutch F-16AM/BM Fighting Falcon fighter jets will be delivered #Ukrainian Air Force as an attrition replacement for its lost MiG-29s during the war with #Russia. #SABCA in #Belgium will overhaul & upgrade the aircraft before delivery.

Ref: https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee1/stat ... 6124618754

marcelh wrote:

GDB wrote:

tomcat wrote:

There are reports the Ukrainians used their Patriots to shot down at least one Russian fighter jet. They don't mention which jet was targeted though.

https://twitter.com/Flash_news_ua/status/1659460642212917253

Likely the SU-35, doing a high altitude CAP, something Ukraine has no answer to and even with the F-16 announcement today, is at best many months away.
These track and fire long range AAM's at Ukrainian aircraft, perhaps being at altitude, where it was to maximise missile range, with that impunity, got into the Patriot's Missile Engagement Zone. I doubt the battery moved to try for it, too risky and not what it was meant to do, rather they got the MEZ chance and took the long range shot?
Then, further speculation I know, did this cause panic and fratricide by Russian AD?

There are also rumors that (some of) the MiG-29 provided by Poland may have been modified to carry the AIM-120 AMRAAM and shot down the 4 Russian planes.

Despite that unexpected integration with HARM, it's a different matter to try and fit AIM-120 on to what are, early model Mig-29's.
The HARMs were pre programmed.
Described as the most agile fighter they could make without FBW, these early models had limited radar and fire control.
Here is a decent primer on the type and what Ukraine and got, has been getting and how they've been used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YqivaMKLqg

While the issue with F-16's needing good runways and plenty of infrastructure has not gone away, it might be that as well as political pressure, events with the 'unstoppable' Russian Kinhzal's not to be the case, has also changed things.
They are also depleting their limited stock so when and it does look like a when now, the F-16's are deployed, along with improving Ukrainian AD and diminishing stocks of weapons to attack any runways, like Kalibur and other more conventional missiles, it now also looks more viable.
Though more Patriot/SAMP-T class and other systems will still be needed for layered defence of them.
A look at the type and the operational and political significance;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-X-WySbFGw

Aftermath of an almost certain Storm Shadow strike, just the kind of target it and in particular the warhead was designed for;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-xJkmnnORs

The view from the ground prior to the images above being released;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC6ZgJv3npU

Revelation wrote:

#BREAKING: I was informed that, 45 ex-Danish & Dutch F-16AM/BM Fighting Falcon fighter jets will be delivered #Ukrainian Air Force as an attrition replacement for its lost MiG-29s during the war with #Russia. #SABCA in #Belgium will overhaul & upgrade the aircraft before delivery.

what upgrade would be needed, beyond painting over the Dutch or Danish roundel?

I don’t know the condition of the Danish F-16s, but a lot of the Dutch ones were retired only recently… with a dozen or two still in use. Though there are also plenty of F-16s retired years ago that the MoD were never able to find a buyer for.

Actually, living somewhat near a major Dutch airbase, I get the impression their use has been increasing the past two or three months. Hmmmmmm…..

Revelation wrote:

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

I don't know this source, but would not be surprised if this is how UA gets its first batch of F-16s.

DK and NL are both F-35 customers so don't really need the F-16s going forward.

Once some approach like this breaks the ice, I think we'll see many others including the US providing F-16s to UA.

#BREAKING: I was informed that, 45 ex-Danish & Dutch F-16AM/BM Fighting Falcon fighter jets will be delivered #Ukrainian Air Force as an attrition replacement for its lost MiG-29s during the war with #Russia. #SABCA in #Belgium will overhaul & upgrade the aircraft before delivery.

Ref: https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee1/stat ... 6124618754

Wasn’t provision of fighter planes an unacceptable escalation and if so why are so many here now suddenly okay with it when at the start they argued against it and anyone who suggested it.

Often with calls of “you don’t live near the conflict” etc.

I hope this is the turning point that will kick Russia out once and for all.

cpd wrote:

Wasn’t provision of fighter planes an unacceptable escalation and if so why are so many here now suddenly okay with it when at the start they argued against it and anyone who suggested it.

Often with calls of “you don’t live near the conflict” etc.

Russia is so far ahead in escalating this conflict that by now the F-16 easily fit into the escalation backlog Putin himself had already created!

I hope this is the turning point that will kick Russia out once and for all.

At least psychologically this should be the signal for the russians to abandon all hope that the allies could just forsake Ukraine and that Russia's top priority will now need to be to cut their losses on retreat!

cpd wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

I don't know this source, but would not be surprised if this is how UA gets its first batch of F-16s.

DK and NL are both F-35 customers so don't really need the F-16s going forward.

Once some approach like this breaks the ice, I think we'll see many others including the US providing F-16s to UA.

#BREAKING: I was informed that, 45 ex-Danish & Dutch F-16AM/BM Fighting Falcon fighter jets will be delivered #Ukrainian Air Force as an attrition replacement for its lost MiG-29s during the war with #Russia. #SABCA in #Belgium will overhaul & upgrade the aircraft before delivery.

Ref: https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee1/stat ... 6124618754

Wasn’t provision of fighter planes an unacceptable escalation and if so why are so many here now suddenly okay with it when at the start they argued against it and anyone who suggested it.

Often with calls of “you don’t live near the conflict” etc.

I hope this is the turning point that will kick Russia out once and for all.

It was the US holding out, while certainly the Netherlands has been lobbying to send their ones for some time. And of course closest of all and the most uncompromising, for obvious historical reasons, Poland.
As mentioned above I suspect the changing operational picture was also a factor, as it has been with major new donations along the way.
The man portable stuff that could be quickly sent and what was needed at that time, then it became an artillery heavy war, the US did lead on that. And prior to Storm Shadow, with HIMARS sent the longest range asset, Europe also sent some of the original M720 platforms for that system though being seen like much else as legacy Cold War, they are not large in number, still the UK, Norway, France, Germany and the Netherlands sent some, none are HIMARS users.

Though Putin’s regular threatening missives now only invite ridicule, early on they had to be treated with some caution, hindsight is a wonderful thing etc.
The US administration saw this as potentially becoming as serious as the Cuban Missile Crisis, though it and NATO responded via channels and it seems some ‘leaks’, likely NATO responses to Russian escalation which included a huge and devastating conventional response.

Speaking of the Cuba crisis, who lives where was was in private at least, reversed. Like most European leaders UK PM Macmillan was acutely aware that the weapons so exercising the US on Cuba were the same class as pointed at them for some years, he also had US weapons of similar range on his soil plus the RAF’s V Force was at its peak. On his daily call during it the crisis to JFK, he did mention once that ‘after a while you get used to having the things pointed at you’, which did not go down so well at the other end and was not for public consumption, a united front and all that.

What brass balls are made from, mine clearing techniques

https://youtu.be/Ese4V-3Rd3Q

Now that it appears that F-16's are on their way, I hope that A-10's would be sent soon and used this summer. The SU-25's of the UAF must be wearing out. The A-10's ability to carry standoff ATM would add a needed capability.
It would be a stretch to consider their deployment an escalation.

bikerthai wrote:

.The recent amouncement of F-16 to Ukraine should put to rest any doubt that the West is not in for the long haul.

That message could have been passed on a year ago. Nevertheless, it is good to hear that Biden is finally doing what Zelensky (and me as it happens) have been calling for during the last many months. I am a little baffled, though, by this volte-face. I read time and again on this thread that my persistent exhortation that fighters should be provided to Ukraine was misguided. Is the provision of fighters still a misguided idea or were those who dismissed such actually the misguided ones?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Now that it appears that F-16's are on their way, I hope that A-10's would be sent soon and used this summer. The SU-25's of the UAF must be wearing out. The A-10's ability to carry standoff ATM would add a needed capability.
It would be a stretch to consider their deployment an escalation.

There would be no escalation, A-10's would just be doing something they have never have to do before, face some actual quantity of SAM/AAA and not under total air superiority.
Don't recall Ukraine asking for them either.

As for 'having to wait for a year', the situation has changed.
It is Russia that has allowed it to happen too, by concentrating so many of their limited stock of missiles capable of quickly ending any F-16 operations from long runways, with their campaign against the civil infrastructure and terror bombing, in turn making the case for supply of systems like Patriot (which took some time for the new users to be trained on), which in turn exposed the idea of an 'unstoppable' weapon in the Kinhzhal.

None of those conditions were in place last year.

art wrote:

That message could have been passed on a year ago.

I thought the fighters would have been given by end of 2022. But after seeing the complex machinery at work, I can understand the thinking process.

I'm attributing the US finally releasing the falcon earlier than 2024 due to the "unexpected" wind fall caused by correcting the accounting error on how they calculated the cost of donated hardware.

Now they can afford to set up that mountain of parts.

https://twitter.com/BrynnTannehill/stat ... hFaKg&s=19

GDB wrote:

A-10's would just be doing something they have never have to do before, face some actual quantity of SAM/AAA and not under total air superiority.

That quality of SAM will now be greatly diminished once the F-16 comes in to theater with a steady supply of HARMs.

The A-10 will also come with a lot smaller mountain of spare parts required. Does the US have a mountain of Maveric Missiles that are about to retire

bt

So now that the US has green lighted the F-16 what happens to the Grippens which all experts said was the ideal platform of which the US had little to no means to prevent their delivery, I hope they will still stand up a squadron of Grippens so that all eggs are not in one basket.
As they have stated, a couple hits on a runway will prevent an F-16 from going on a mission, especially when the west does practice combined arms, quick repairs could see a Grippen still arrive on time, unless the experts have changed their opinions on the capabilities and are just interested in providing fast jets?

petertenthije wrote:

what upgrade would be needed, beyond painting over the Dutch or Danish roundel?

https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1660216854105710593 is a Twitter thread with most of the details.

These F-16s have been modernized over the years. They were build as Block 10 or Block 15, but the author is saying the ones to be delivered are Block 20 with Mid-Life Upgrade which was done starting in 1998. The thread details all their capabilities. The author says the AIM120, which is a long-range anti-aircraft and/or anti-missile weapon is probably the most important capability being added beyond the current MiG-29s that UA operates, but of course just having this supply stream feeding them relatively modern aircraft is a huge win for UA.

His summation:

Summary: F-16AM/BM Block 20 MLU are highly capable fighter jets and a quantum leap over current Ukrainian fighters. The four European countries can and will donate 30-60 in the next weeks, with a further 130 becoming available as F-35A replace the MLU F-16. Missiles, bombs and spares for the F-16 are plentiful, as are European and American mechanics willing to come and help Ukrainians maintain them.

In time Ukraine will also be allowed to buy new F-16V Block 70/72, which are the most modern F-16 and far, far superior to anything russia has today and will have in the next 10 years.

IMO this will become a giant problem for RU going forward. UA now has access to a large fleet of advanced fighters not just for the short term future, but now will also have them for many years to come. At the same time the only source for RU equipment will be RU itself, and now that it's expended so much of its fleet it's impossible to say if/when RU can ever become a serious air power again, given how corrupt and inept its defense industry is. RU will now have to factor this in even after this conflict ends. The balance of power is seriously shifting.

petertenthije wrote:

I don’t know the condition of the Danish F-16s, but a lot of the Dutch ones were retired only recently… with a dozen or two still in use. Though there are also plenty of F-16s retired years ago that the MoD were never able to find a buyer for.

One article I read ( https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-netherlan ... te-company) said NL actually cancelled a sales agreement it had in place. If we add two and two together it seems likely that NL decided sending these aircraft to UA was a better idea.

petertenthije wrote:

Actually, living somewhat near a major Dutch airbase, I get the impression their use has been increasing the past two or three months. Hmmmmmm…..

Hmmmmmm, indeed!

cpd wrote:

Wasn’t provision of fighter planes an unacceptable escalation and if so why are so many here now suddenly okay with it when at the start they argued against it and anyone who suggested it.

Often with calls of “you don’t live near the conflict” etc.

IMO it still is an escalation. What has been established over time is that UA is honoring agreements in a way that shows they can be trusted to not cross certain lines that would make the escalation unacceptable. What also changes with time is their MiG-29 fleet is suffering attrition, and while they have gotten some fairly recent MiG-29 donations from Poland and Slovenia it's becoming more clear these too will only last for a certain period.

So, I would say what changes is trust has been increased with time, and the need is such that a solution had to be found.

I hope this is the turning point that will kick Russia out once and for all

I think it's a huge factor not just in the short term but also the long term. A country in EU that operates F-16s, M1 Abrams tanks and Patriot batteries, not to mention a ton of EU hardware is a de-facto NATO country, so the next step of becoming an actual NATO country is a pretty small one.

Klaus wrote:

At least psychologically this should be the signal for the russians to abandon all hope that the allies could just forsake Ukraine and that Russia's top priority will now need to be to cut their losses on retreat!

I agree, it's a sign the West is behind UA for the long term. Given F-16s won't be operational till late fall best case, this is a sign that their partners are fully prepared for this war to go through the fall, winter, next year, whatever it takes.

Revelation wrote:

cpd wrote:

Wasn’t provision of fighter planes an unacceptable escalation and if so why are so many here now suddenly okay with it when at the start they argued against it and anyone who suggested it.

Often with calls of “you don’t live near the conflict” etc.

IMO it still is an escalation. What has been established over time is that UA is honoring agreements in a way that shows they can be trusted to not cross certain lines that would make the escalation unacceptable. What also changes with time is their MiG-29 fleet is suffering attrition, and while they have gotten some fairly recent MiG-29 donations from Poland and Slovenia it's becoming more clear these too will only last for a certain period.

So, I would say what changes is trust has been increased with time, and the need is such that a solution had to be found.

I hope this is the turning point that will kick Russia out once and for all

I think it's a huge factor not just in the short term but also the long term. A country in EU that operates F-16s, M1 Abrams tanks and Patriot batteries, not to mention a ton of EU hardware is a de-facto NATO country, so the next step of becoming an actual NATO country is a pretty small one.

Klaus wrote:

At least psychologically this should be the signal for the russians to abandon all hope that the allies could just forsake Ukraine and that Russia's top priority will now need to be to cut their losses on retreat!

I agree, it's a sign the West is behind UA for the long term. Given F-16s won't be operational till late fall best case, this is a sign that their partners are fully prepared for this war to go through the fall, winter, next year, whatever it takes.

It’s too bad, and unfortunately clear that common sense isn’t a strong suite of Russians.

art wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

.The recent amouncement of F-16 to Ukraine should put to rest any doubt that the West is not in for the long haul.

That message could have been passed on a year ago. Nevertheless, it is good to hear that Biden is finally doing what Zelensky (and me as it happens) have been calling for during the last many months. I am a little baffled, though, by this volte-face. I read time and again on this thread that my persistent exhortation that fighters should be provided to Ukraine was misguided. Is the provision of fighters still a misguided idea or were those who dismissed such actually the misguided ones?

I don't think anyone was saying providing fighters to UA was misguided, I think they were saying it was premature. At least I know that's what I was saying.

There's always been concerns about the prioritization. I think we can see, for instance, getting Patriots to UA was more important than F-16s.

There have been concerns about the cost, but it seems the fighter coalition countries are willing to provide the F-16s and weaponry from their soon to be retired stocks, and provide training too.

There have been concerns about the logistical trail needed to support the aircraft, but it seems actual war experience is showing RU is not really capable of attacking the West's logistics other than depots really close to the fighting.

There have been concerns about the escalation/retaliation aspects, but that's another area where having UK, NL, DK, NO, BE and PT as coalition members helps, RU can clearly see the opposition to their invasion is deep and broad and isn't going to go away with a few threats.

par13del wrote:

So now that the US has green lighted the F-16 what happens to the Grippens which all experts said was the ideal platform of which the US had little to no means to prevent their delivery, I hope they will still stand up a squadron of Grippens so that all eggs are not in one basket.
As they have stated, a couple hits on a runway will prevent an F-16 from going on a mission, especially when the west does practice combined arms, quick repairs could see a Grippen still arrive on time, unless the experts have changed their opinions on the capabilities and are just interested in providing fast jets?

The experts I listened to said it was an ideal platform in an ideal world, but admitted that in the real world there just weren't enough available to have an impact on the war.

F16 might not be the ideal platform in an ideal world, but the sheer number produced, along with the huge quantity and quality of the armaments that come along with the aircraft, and the deep/wide training and support network, really tip the balance in its favor in the real world.

PS: F-16s have operated from UA airfields before (as a part of NATO training exercises) and have operated from highways before too ( ref: https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1660216975598002176 ).

par13del wrote:

As they have stated, a couple hits on a runway will prevent an F-16 from going on a mission, especially when the west does practice combined arms, quick repairs could see a Grippen still arrive on time, unless the experts have changed their opinions on the capabilities and are just interested in providing fast jets?

Dutch F-16s have flown from German highway strips in exercises in the past, so they can operate from alternatives. Maybe not the best solution, but it can be (and has been) done.

https://youtu.be/Qx7Meo7w-pY

Flash Ukraine is reporting that Oleksandr Syrskyi, Colonel-General Ground Forces of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, claims they are advancing on the flanks of Bahkmut in an attempted encirclement:
https://twitter.com/Flash_news_ua/statu ... 7054567430

Denys Davydov was also reporting on this in his update last night:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Vlt4Q ... nysDavydov
Go to 3:58

par13del wrote:

As they have stated, a couple hits on a runway will prevent an F-16 from going on a mission,

At this point, I'm not sure if the Russian could accurately hit a runway.

And if the Runway is near Lviv, I'm not sure if a Russian missile can make it that far without being shot down.

And even if they did launch a bunch of missiles at the runway, it's better than having the missiles launched at civilian targets.

I wonder if the log jam on the F-16 broke because the Ukrainian have shown that with the Patriots, they can defend against anything the Russian can throw at them. So they are confident that they can defend an airfield.

I would expect an announcement of another Patriot battery or two before the F-16 arrive. Add half a dozen paving trucks and you can repair any damage quicker than the Russian can launch missiles.

bt

Revelation wrote:

PS: F-16s have operated from UA airfields before (as a part of NATO training exercises)

Which airport did they flew out of?

There is an argument to have them based near Kiev to fall under the Patriot umbrella.

But are there airfields closer to the front but a little farther away from the Russian border?

bt

Braybuddy wrote:

Flash Ukraine is reporting that Oleksandr Syrskyi, Colonel-General Ground Forces of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, claims they are advancing on the flanks of Bahkmut in an attempted encirclement:
https://twitter.com/Flash_news_ua/statu ... 7054567430

Denys Davydov was also reporting on this in his update last night:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Vlt4Q ... nysDavydov
Go to 3:58

Also in that thread, Flash reports:

"Thanks to this, we will be able to control all high-rise buildings occupied by the enemy and gradually destroy them", – Sirskyi writes.

RU has gained control of most of the city, but it is in a valley surrounded by high ground, which is held by UA. Given RU has bombed the city into rubble there really isn't much value in holding that city since it can't serve as a base, but it seems they need to do so as a political imperative. User Tendar on Twitter has put all this into context:

In all honesty, I have covered many wars in several decades and I can say that I haven't seen in a long time a more hysteric way to declare "victory" as we see now around Bakhmut. And I'm not even into the semantics whether Russians hold 95%, 98% or 100%. The very fact that they phrase it that way is hilarious in its own.

As I have mentioned already few days ago, Russians do not intend to move any further, or more precisely, they are not capable to move any further, which simply begs the question what was this all about. What strategic value offers Bakhmut in itself? The answer is simple. None. This fact was even stated by Prigozhin, Strelkov and others. It is a military travesty, aiming only for political games of the involved Russian warlords.

The Ukrainian strategy on the other side has been coherent and quite clear. First, to deny Russians entry to Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, secondly, bind Russian forces and prepare for their counteroffensive and, third, in the process decimating their ranks, which - when reflecting 100,000 Russian casualties - they have achieved with flying colors. The only threat was a potential encirclement of Bakhmut with the subsequent destruction of the Ukrainian armies in it, but that was averted and Russians were forced to run against the heaviest fortification, a stupidity in itself and exactly how Ukrainian strategist can ask for.

Ukrainians have even achieved additional tactical advantages by binding additional Russian forces in Bakhmut. Russians were so obsessed with Bakhmut that they were depleting lines and more importantly ammunition in Kreminna, Svatove, Avdiivka and Vuhledar. Literally every single one of those named areas ended in total disasters. Especially, Vuhledar can be called an epic fail.

However, when you look at the numbers than you can see that Bakhmut was actually the worst sector for Russians, because for the sake of just "staying in this area" it makes literally no difference whether you stay inside Bakhmut or 7km more to the East, because this is their pathetic "progress" in almost 10 months. It is however a complete difference when you have those 100,000 men and millions of artillery shells at your disposal. Even some Russians are starting to realize this.

You do not have to take my word, the developments in battlefield will say this in the clearest language. History is full of examples where political lunatics forced their military leaders into steps which any sane military commander would never have done. The terms "pyrrhic victory, second Stalingrad etc." have been used more than once. Maybe we will even add "Bakhmut victory" to the books. It certainly deserves a place in military idiocy.

Ref: https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1660270207963635712

What exactly is the advantage of having the F-16, for Ukraine? Not talking about the psychological aspect. Ukraine has no widespread ECM capability, the S-300/400 will see the F-16 300kms ahead (can the HARM fly that far)?

Even if the F-16 is used only as an anti-missile platform, because the ground based platforms are limited, it would be every time a risky business for the pilot and hardware.

If we'd talk about F-35s, then I could see some use.

bikerthai wrote:

Revelation wrote:

PS: F-16s have operated from UA airfields before (as a part of NATO training exercises)

Which airport did they flew out of?

Sorry, but I couldn't find a reference on that.

Alfons wrote:

What exactly is the advantage of having the F-16, for Ukraine? Not talking about the psychological aspect. Ukraine has no widespread ECM capability, the S-300/400 will see the F-16 300kms ahead (can the HARM fly that far)?

Even if the F-16 is used only as an anti-missile platform, because the ground based platforms are limited, it would be every time a risky business for the pilot and hardware.

If we'd talk about F-35s, then I could see some use.

Same roles they use MiG-29s in now. Main one is shooting down incoming aircraft/missiles/drones, yet with AIM-120 being far better than existing options available with MiG-29. Bottom line is F-16 will replace MiG-29 as attrition occurs, and will be an upgrade to that platform.

Revelation wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Revelation wrote:

PS: F-16s have operated from UA airfields before (as a part of NATO training exercises)

Which airport did they flew out of?

Sorry, but I couldn't find a reference on that.

Alfons wrote:

What exactly is the advantage of having the F-16, for Ukraine? Not talking about the psychological aspect. Ukraine has no widespread ECM capability, the S-300/400 will see the F-16 300kms ahead (can the HARM fly that far)?

Even if the F-16 is used only as an anti-missile platform, because the ground based platforms are limited, it would be every time a risky business for the pilot and hardware.

If we'd talk about F-35s, then I could see some use.

Same roles they use MiG-29s in now. Main one is shooting down incoming aircraft/missiles/drones, yet with AIM-120 being far better than existing options available with MiG-29. Bottom line is F-16 will replace MiG-29 as attrition occurs, and will be an upgrade to that platform.

Also the F16 can be used for tossing JDAMs, giving the Russians even more headaches…

Well I have nothing to add to the excellent points raised abnove on the F-16's, only to add it's a fairly standard fit to have an ECM pod on the center fuselage pylon, to answer Alfons.
We might indeed see another 'International Legion' of F-16 maintainers etc, there must by so many of them in Europe and the US.

From the air to very much underground, an often reported arms dump, which when Wagner captured it had it seems a lot of damaged late Soviet small arms, plus some other older ones;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApFT-pLcAXQ&t=316s

I just could not resist;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-kpzZ8-ERk

Braybuddy wrote:

Flash Ukraine is reporting that Oleksandr Syrskyi, Colonel-General Ground Forces of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, claims they are advancing on the flanks of Bahkmut in an attempted encirclement:
https://twitter.com/Flash_news_ua/statu ... 7054567430

I found a more complete quote:

Quote: "Despite the fact that we now control a small part of Bakhmut, the importance of its defence does not lose its relevance. This provides us with opportunities to enter the city in case of a change of circumstances. And this will certainly happen.

We continue to advance along the flanks in the suburbs of Bakhmut and are actually close to tactically encircling the city. Thanks to this, we will be able to control all multi-storey buildings occupied by the enemy and gradually destroy them. This deprives the enemy of control over the approaches to the city and gives us certain tactical advantages. "

Details: Syrsky said that he and the commanders thoroughly analysed actions of Ukrainian forces as well as the order of killing hostile troops, and that "the situation is difficult, but under control."

Ref: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/21/7403178/

It sounds to me like UA is still achieving its goals of keeping the RU forces pinned down and suffering high losses in Bakhmut. It also seems if we take Prigozhin's word then Wagner will be leaving the Bakhmut area in four days, this is what will 'certainly happen'. Wagner is now largely a spent force, having thrown themselves at Bakhmut for many months now, and no longer able to recruit from prisoners so they no longer have meat to feed into the grinder.

Some more links on the current situation are at the end of that article:

• Russian strikes have completely destroyed the city of Bakhmut, Donetsk Oblast, but Ukraine’s defence forces continue to hold positions in the southwestern part of the city, said Serhii Cherevatyi, the spokesman for the Eastern Group of Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
• Hanna Maliar, Ukraine’s Deputy Defence Minister, has said that Ukrainian defenders have semi-encircled the city of Bakhmut, enabling them to effectively destroy the Russian army in that area.
• President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has clarified that as of 21 May, Russian forces haven’t entirely captured the city.

A CNN Anchor gets a badge of honour, more seriously, also the tragic and senseless result of one of those Iranian drones;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yppOGpXT998

They got a bunch of SU-35's for them in exchange, Russia might regret sending later versions of their aircraft given the F-16 development?

RU propagandist says Bakhmut is no Stalingrad, instead it is a Verdun:



Ref: https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1660290266836656129

Our long-winded friend Brynn sends a 31-part (!) tweet about the F-16 situation, ending with:

Thus, I'm not opposed to moving F-16s to Ukraine. I think its a good thing overall. But, I think people need to be clear eyed in their assessment of the capabilities and limitations of the system. This is not a wunderwaffe. 28/n

It's a 35-40 year old lightweight multi-role fighter with a mid-90s upgrade to some mission systems. It is capable of linking to other NATO standard systems, and can carry some more modern weapons. It is not going to grant air superiority. 29/n

Ukraine isn't going to be loitering over the battlefield dropping JDAMs the way the US did in Afghanistan and Iraq. It may potentially help with the SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) mission, but it won't draw down most of Russia's air defenses. 30/n

But, in combination with JASSM, LRASM and AIM-120, it could significantly improve Ukraine's position overall in areas that are critical (defense against cruise missiles, long range strike, and sea control). - fin 31/n

Ref: https://twitter.com/BrynnTannehill/stat ... 7026762753

It can be called pessimistic or realistic, depending on your point of view. As I wrote before, to me the good news is it shows the partners are gearing up to support UA in the long term. Hopefully this leads to sending the most modern F-16s to UA. These of course don't fix the issues with stealth, but do have a radar that is superior to anything the enemy side has.

Revelation wrote:

Our long-winded friend Brynn sends a 31-part (!) tweet about the F-16 situation, ending with:

Thus, I'm not opposed to moving F-16s to Ukraine. I think its a good thing overall. But, I think people need to be clear eyed in their assessment of the capabilities and limitations of the system. This is not a wunderwaffe. 28/n

It's a 35-40 year old lightweight multi-role fighter with a mid-90s upgrade to some mission systems. It is capable of linking to other NATO standard systems, and can carry some more modern weapons. It is not going to grant air superiority. 29/n

Ukraine isn't going to be loitering over the battlefield dropping JDAMs the way the US did in Afghanistan and Iraq. It may potentially help with the SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) mission, but it won't draw down most of Russia's air defenses. 30/n

But, in combination with JASSM, LRASM and AIM-120, it could significantly improve Ukraine's position overall in areas that are critical (defense against cruise missiles, long range strike, and sea control). - fin 31/n

Ref:

It can be called pessimistic or realistic, depending on your point of view. As I wrote before, to me the good news is it shows the partners are gearing up to support UA in the long term. Hopefully this leads to sending the most modern F-16s to UA. These of course don't fix the issues with stealth, but do have a radar that is superior to anything the enemy side has.

After reading the thread I don’t think more modern F16s would make a huge difference. Biggest A2A threat are those long-range R37 which outperform the AIM120.

Revelation wrote:

Our long-winded friend Brynn sends a 31-part (!) tweet about the F-16 situation, ending with:

Thus, I'm not opposed to moving F-16s to Ukraine. I think its a good thing overall. But, I think people need to be clear eyed in their assessment of the capabilities and limitations of the system. This is not a wunderwaffe. 28/n

It's a 35-40 year old lightweight multi-role fighter with a mid-90s upgrade to some mission systems. It is capable of linking to other NATO standard systems, and can carry some more modern weapons. It is not going to grant air superiority. 29/n

Ukraine isn't going to be loitering over the battlefield dropping JDAMs the way the US did in Afghanistan and Iraq. It may potentially help with the SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) mission, but it won't draw down most of Russia's air defenses. 30/n

But, in combination with JASSM, LRASM and AIM-120, it could significantly improve Ukraine's position overall in areas that are critical (defense against cruise missiles, long range strike, and sea control). - fin 31/n

Ref: https://twitter.com/BrynnTannehill/stat ... 7026762753

It can be called pessimistic or realistic, depending on your point of view. As I wrote before, to me the good news is it shows the partners are gearing up to support UA in the long term. Hopefully this leads to sending the most modern F-16s to UA. These of course don't fix the issues with stealth, but do have a radar that is superior to anything the enemy side has.

I think the F16 can allow for area’s of air superiority. Especially in the southern front if they can be successfully conduct SEAD missions on SAMs in Crimea. It will enable other equipment like TB2 to be used, similar to what happened in the first week or two when the Harms were introduced…

Alfons wrote:

What exactly is the advantage of having the F-16, for Ukraine? Not talking about the psychological aspect. Ukraine has no widespread ECM capability, the S-300/400 will see the F-16 300kms ahead (can the HARM fly that far)?

Have we not seen enough to not take the Russian weapon performance at face value?

Even of we can attribute the range of the S400 at 300km, the farther back you can push them, the more elevation your fighter can operate near the front line due to the curvature of the earth.

F-16 can add range to harpoons and other ground launch cruise missiles.

F-16 may not be able to push the Russian fighter cap as far back as desired, but they can surely clear the front lines of Russian helos and ground attack aircrafts.

Finally short of sending over some AEW&C, F-16 can probably provide better airborn radar surveillance than the Migs. NATO AWACs flying at the Polish and Romainian border don't have the radar range to reach the front line.

bt

This week's Perun is not about Ukraine, it's on the subject of space warfare and anti satellite systems.

But speaking of things that launch;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmtFukg-E7o

marcelh wrote:

After reading the thread I don’t think more modern F16s would make a huge difference. Biggest A2A threat are those long-range R37 which outperform the AIM120.

If R37 were so potent, why isn't UA down to zero airplanes after 15 months of opportunities to shoot them down?

I'd imagine a big problem for both sides is to keep the airplanes equipped with the high end missiles.

In particular, RU's supply chain is well known for corruption and for dependence on components they can't source themselves.

To me the 'huge difference' comes from UA getting replacements for MiG-29s as they get attritted, since up to this point there was no answer other than hoping some other former USSR victim could scrape some MiG-29s together. They've been lucky with Poland and Slovenia, but IIRC that was probably the bottom of the barrel.

And as I wrote above, it's showing the partners have a long term commitment to UA, and IMO shows a path to a future purchase of F-16V with modern AESA radar that would make a "huge difference" on the battlefield.

“I have a flat assurance from Zelenskyy that they will not, they will not use it to go on and move into Russian geographic territory,”

In political speak . . . Go ahead and shoot down Rusian aircraft over Russian territory as long as it's not part of any offensive to take Russian territory.


bt

Revelation wrote:

marcelh wrote:

After reading the thread I don’t think more modern F16s would make a huge difference. Biggest A2A threat are those long-range R37 which outperform the AIM120.

If R37 were so potent, why isn't UA down to zero airplanes after 15 months of opportunities to shoot them down?

In the Twitter thread you posted, it was the main concern why those “mid 90 upgraded F16s” are inadequate.

I'd imagine a big problem for both sides is to keep the airplanes equipped with the high end missiles.

In particular, RU's supply chain is well known for corruption and for dependence on components they can't source themselves.

I haven’t read the AMRAAM is in short supply, so that should primarily be a Russian issue.

To me the 'huge difference' comes from UA getting replacements for MiG-29s as they get attritted, since up to this point there was no answer other than hoping some other former USSR victim could scrape some MiG-29s together. They've been lucky with Poland and Slovenia, but IIRC that was probably the bottom of the barrel.

And as I wrote above, it's showing the partners have a long term commitment to UA, and IMO shows a path to a future purchase of F-16V with modern AESA radar that would make a "huge difference" on the battlefield.

True, but a future F-16V purchase doesn’t help Ukraine much for now. Also - and I don’t want to make this political but it’s something Ukraine may have to deal with - it’s unclear those purchases can be made when there’s a “wind of change” in the WH in about 500 days.

marcelh wrote:

Revelation wrote:

If R37 were so potent, why isn't UA down to zero airplanes after 15 months of opportunities to shoot them down?

In the Twitter thread you posted, it was the main concern why those “mid 90 upgraded F16s” are inadequate.

It's just that particular author's opinion. Clearly having R37 isn't conclusive for RU, just as having AIM120 won't be conclusive for UA.

True, but a future F-16V purchase doesn’t help Ukraine much for now.

The main idea is to solve the zero MiG-29 problem first.

it’s something Ukraine may have to deal with - it’s unclear those purchases can be made when there’s a “wind of change” in the WH in about 500 days.

Time will tell if that's an issue in the future or not. Till then, it's best to get as much aide in place as possible.

The Su-57 is so stealthy because no one has seen it in action over Ukraine.

Rumours of a Su-35 having joined the Moskva at the bottom of the Black Sea.

https://twitter.com/Occupied_Air/status/1660385492813385728

tomcat wrote:

Rumours of a Su-35 having joined the Moskva at the bottom of the Black Sea.

https://twitter.com/Occupied_Air/status/1660385492813385728

First official confirmation by the Kherson Defense Forces:

The head of the press service of the Kherson Defense Forces, Dmytro Pletenchuk, confirmed the downing of the Russian Su-35.

https://twitter.com/Flash_news_ua/status/1660396925135335424

bikerthai wrote:

I wonder if the log jam on the F-16 broke because the Ukrainian have shown that with the Patriots, they can defend against anything the Russian can throw at them. So they are confident that they can defend an airfield.

I would expect an announcement of another Patriot battery or two before the F-16 arrive. Add half a dozen paving trucks and you can repair any damage quicker than the Russian can launch missiles.
bt

Russia just launched a missile attack that reportedly saw an entire battery "shoot its wad", let's ignore that somehow someway they seem to have damaged some element of the battery. The attack most likely was either to create terror or to inflict damage on something they think is important to the upcoming offensive, do you think that target is more important than a base hosting F-16's? Ukraine will need much more than 2 Patriot batteries to effectively get F-16's in the air for more than one mission, with US supply constraints, hopefully the Europeans have an alternative that they can supply in adequate numbers to ensure the F-16'sdo get the option to join the fight.
Now if they are stationed as far from the Russian border to ensure that they can only carry limited ordinance as extra fuel will have to be carried, that could ensure that they are mostly used for targets in Ukraine versus cross border raids, no aerial refueling to extend range.

GDB wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Now that it appears that F-16's are on their way, I hope that A-10's would be sent soon and used this summer. The SU-25's of the UAF must be wearing out. The A-10's ability to carry standoff ATM would add a needed capability.
It would be a stretch to consider their deployment an escalation.

There would be no escalation, A-10's would just be doing something they have never have to do before, face some actual quantity of SAM/AAA and not under total air superiority.
Don't recall Ukraine asking for them either.

As for 'having to wait for a year', the situation has changed.
It is Russia that has allowed it to happen too, by concentrating so many of their limited stock of missiles capable of quickly ending any F-16 operations from long runways, with their campaign against the civil infrastructure and terror bombing, in turn making the case for supply of systems like Patriot (which took some time for the new users to be trained on), which in turn exposed the idea of an 'unstoppable' weapon in the Kinhzhal.

None of those conditions were in place last year.

A-10's could carry Mavericks and JDAMS tomorrow. From 2005 to June 2011, the entire fleet of 356 A-10s and OA-10s were modernized in the Precision Engagement program and redesignated A-10C. Upgrades included all-weather combat capability, an improved fire control system (FCS), electronic countermeasures (ECM), smart bomb targeting, a modern communications suite including a Link-16 radio and SATCOM.

I can't see how they would be any more vulnerable than the SU-25 which the UAF is still using.

And if Wikipedia is correct " In an interview in December 2022, Ukrainian Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov said that in late March he asked the US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin for 100 surplus A-10s, noting their value against Russian tank columns. However, Secretary Austin reportedly told Minister Reznikov that the plan was "impossible", and that the "old-fashioned and slow" A-10 would be a "squeaky target" for Russian air defenses"

MohawkWeekend wrote:

GDB wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Now that it appears that F-16's are on their way, I hope that A-10's would be sent soon and used this summer. The SU-25's of the UAF must be wearing out. The A-10's ability to carry standoff ATM would add a needed capability.
It would be a stretch to consider their deployment an escalation.

There would be no escalation, A-10's would just be doing something they have never have to do before, face some actual quantity of SAM/AAA and not under total air superiority.
Don't recall Ukraine asking for them either.

As for 'having to wait for a year', the situation has changed.
It is Russia that has allowed it to happen too, by concentrating so many of their limited stock of missiles capable of quickly ending any F-16 operations from long runways, with their campaign against the civil infrastructure and terror bombing, in turn making the case for supply of systems like Patriot (which took some time for the new users to be trained on), which in turn exposed the idea of an 'unstoppable' weapon in the Kinhzhal.

None of those conditions were in place last year.

A-10's could carry Mavericks and JDAMS tomorrow. From 2005 to June 2011, the entire fleet of 356 A-10s and OA-10s were modernized in the Precision Engagement program and redesignated A-10C. Upgrades included all-weather combat capability, an improved fire control system (FCS), electronic countermeasures (ECM), smart bomb targeting, a modern communications suite including a Link-16 radio and SATCOM.

I can't see how they would be any more vulnerable than the SU-25 which the UAF is still using.

And if Wikipedia is correct " In an interview in December 2022, Ukrainian Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov said that in late March he asked the US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin for 100 surplus A-10s, noting their value against Russian tank columns. However, Secretary Austin reportedly told Minister Reznikov that the plan was "impossible", and that the "old-fashioned and slow" A-10 would be a "squeaky target" for Russian air defenses"

None of those mods affect the fundamentals that Austin pointed out.
Ukraine is using SU-25's since they along with everything else, use what they have and in this case, are very familiar with.
And would request anything they could, now they have the F-16 option I doubt that a request will be made again, it might be that they decided to concentrate lobbying on F-16's.
Personally, integrating the 40 mile range and modern Brimstone 2 on to the SU-25 would make more sense, they are getting better unguided and possibly guided rockets from the US.

Besides being replacements for wear and attrition on Ukraine's soviet jets the F-16 should take a lot of friction out of using western missiles and ammunition and actually exploiting their capabilities.

Patriot is still a rare premium resource, but IRIS-T should also go from initially 2 to later 6 platforms which should help limiting threats to at least some airbases.

Given the rather low success rate Russia is having with its rarest and most expensive attack platforms and the increasing risk their airforce is seeing while attempting to launch them this should skew the odds further into Ukraine's favour.

And as to timing: Experience so far has been in several cases that when public political announcements were made at least some of the systems had already been prepared or even delivered.

Clearly the already running pilot training is such a case of overlap between actual decision and public announcement as well, even if actual deliveries may still take some time.