Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "Comparing the fighter jets that could be sent to Ukraine" video.

  1. Factor in combat losses , and other factors the 271 Gripens built are not feasible for Ukraine The USAF allow operates 1200 F-16s out of 2300 in inventory The USAF could provide 200 F-16s considerably faster The other factor is that Poland , and Romania which borders Ukraine uses the F-16s More countries in the EU use the F-16 ,so getting Ukraine pilots training is extreme easy and dont have to travel far
    2
  2.  @mwtrolle  Wrong on all counts Its not quantity vs quality its called feasible How many Gripens are available right, estimates say just 271 examples Factoring in combat losses, the possibility of accidents and aircraft down time There is no way that the Gripen can meet the Ukraine's needs if Ukraine had 112 Gripens in place of its MiG-29, Su-24,25 and Su-27s and the current Gripens operator had at leas 80 planes each with the Swedish air force with 160 plus, then the Gripen would iffy as feasible goes , they would be able to source aircraft from operators as needed but again SAAB would still need to boost up its production line. The Gripen would be perfect but its not feasible The F-16 is feasible as the USAF alone has 1200 F-16s. They could earmark 200 F-16s for Ukraine as well replace losses with virtually no effort The F-16 does not have the Gripen's ruggedness but has the numbers and weapons to fight on a much wider scale Secondly Right now what needed is the F-16C/D Block 50/52 Plus and UPAZ-1A buddy refueling pod F-16s with AIM-9M/R and AIM-120C-5 gives Ukrainian decent WVR and BVR capability AGM-84 block II plus can strike both land and sea targets 77 to 120 miles away AGM-65 and GBU-12/16 plus the gun is all the weapons the Ukrainian air force needs There is enough older models in the US inventory that would prevent Russia from gleaming anything The block 52 supports Conformal Aerial Refueling Tank System (CARTS) which allows the F-16 to use drogue instead of boom The UPAZ-1A buddy refueling pod fitted the MIG-29s allow them to act as mission tankers Why this is important The Black sea fleet is Novorossiysk which 700 miles round trip. F-16s with CARTS and MiG-29s as mission tankers would be able to strike Novorossiysk with ease As well all targets in Crimea The additional benefit of the CFT has Israeli has done is EW Israel has added in additional EW in the empty spaces on the CFTs which Ukraine can take advantage off
    2
  3.  @bjjace1  They are getting planes , just not the F-16 or Gripen. As the MIG-29 has been successfully integrated with the AGM-88 and they working on the locally upgrading MiG-29MU2, More than likely, it will be more MiG-29 upgraded with western tech The route I would go would AIM-9M/R and AIM-120C-5 gives Ukrainian decent WVR and BVR capability AGM-84 block II plus land and sea targets. AGM-65 and GBU-12/16 for general purpose with second gen targeting pod UPAZ-1A buddy refueling pod so they could carry out extend range attacks
    2
  4. The Gripen is the only real choice but getting to them is a problem
    2
  5. The Gripen is the perfect choice but the F-16 is only the feasible choice The F-18 is not an option The F-16s in USAF service have far more upgrades but most importantly more available flight hours than the F-18
    1
  6. The problem with the F-18 is numbers There were a 1480 F-18A-D built while there over 4500 F-16s models The USAF allow operates 1200 F-16s out of 2300 in inventory The USAF could provide 200 F-16s considerably faster than 200 F-18 The USN sent all theirs to bone yard. The USMC already stripped those of useful parts Canada has been doing the same for its CF-18s The only operator with enough is the USMC or Austrailia's left over Simple put, sourcing the F-18 is problematic The other factor is that Poland , and Romania which borders Ukraine uses the F-16s More countries in the EU use the F-16 ,so getting Ukraine pilots training is extreme easy and dont have to travel far There no doubt that F-18 ruggedness is better than the F-16 but its simple not feasible
    1
  7.  @guyb7995  Its not numbers its sourcing flyable air frames is the problem
    1
  8.  @guyb7995  Considering Ukraine situation they need airframes with a lot of hours
    1
  9. The Gripen is the perfect choice but the F-16 is only the feasible choice
    1
  10. The Gripen would be perfect but its not feasible. The F-16 is only real option The F-16 is feasible as the USAF alone has 1200 F-16s. They could earmark 200 F-16s for Ukraine Factoring in combat losses, the possibility of accidents and aircraft down time, 200 F-16s could easily meet Ukraine needs. Even if all 200 were destroyed, the F-16 total example built is over 4500 planes. The F-16 checks all the boxes There are only 271 Gripens Ukraine realistically needs at least 100 planes Besides combat losses, the possibility of accidents and aircraft down time, there are also other factors You need combat air patrol airborne 24x7 You need aircraft able to perform time sensitive strike at any point on the front to support ground forces You need aircraft continuously striking Russian bases in Crimea as well Black Sea HQ in Novorossiysk You need aircraft striking targets in the separatist regions Lastly , you need to able to fight Russian forces head on in the air Thats a lot of planes but checking all those boxes prevents Russian forces from striking with impunity Ukraine problem is hypersonic weapons but they are ways to minimize its effects
    1
  11.  @AndyWoohoo666  The Gripen is simple not feasible As for the US looking at the Gripen, incorrect Pilot training for the USAF is done in the T-38 which is over 60 years old. The USN and USMC use the BAE systems Hawk as aircraft carrier-capable trainer. The USAF released tender called T-X program for its replacement The Gripen was not part of that Tender ,however Saab did team with Boeing to build a completely new aircraft Now the UK is planning on retire its Hawks and as the Empire Test Pilots' School uses a Gripen D for training, they may be leaning in that direction but logistics, cost, support machine etc is killing the USAF, not likely as the USAF is drawing down its F-16s in favor of the F-35 20 Gripen is useless You have to factor in combat losses, accidents , down time and coverage and 20 is literally a joke They would burn through those airframes a matter of weeks Next is availability of weapons The Gripen isn't rated for the Harpoon but the F-16. The problem with KEPD-350 is severally limited stock. The Harpoon is in the thousands whereas the KEPD-350 is barely 900 The Gripen E is integrated with newer weapons whereas the more numbers Gripen C is not Specifically the Gripen E improvement allow to carry the heavier 1000lbs and 2000lbs GBU while the Gripen C limited to 500lbs GBU Hence why the F-16 is the only real option
    1
  12.  @soulsphere9242  In order to be of use, they would need to strike the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol and Novorossiysk. Both bases would need to completely destroyed The benefit of having a large number of F-16s You can load a few for SEAD to knock out defenses, and load the rest with AGM-65 each, GBU-12/10 Depending on the number of targets, you could commit 12 planes to each target and have 12 more act as decoys to keep Russian forces busy 36 plans total Remember, you need to destroy ships, ports, fuel and weapon storage as well as support facilities Strike both is the option as they can' reinforce the other
    1
  13. The Gripen is the perfect choice but the F-16 is only the feasible choice Ukraine needs an aircraft that can be quickly replace and the shear number of F-16s makes that very easy to do
    1
  14.  @phlogistonphlyte  Gripen despite being the perfect plane for the job low procurement numbers is the problem Now in the aftermath, I would recommend the Ukrainian air force to buy the Gripen E/F Right now what needed is the F-16C/D Block 50/52 Plus and UPAZ-1A buddy refueling pod F-16s with AIM-9M/R and AIM-120C-5 gives Ukrainian decent WVR and BVR capability AGM-84 block II plus can strike both land and sea targets 77 to 120 miles away AGM-65 and GBU-12/16 plus the gun is all the weapons the Ukrainian air force needs There is enough older models in the US inventory that would prevent Russia from gleaming anything The block 52 supports Conformal Aerial Refueling Tank System (CARTS) which allows the F-16 to use drogue instead of boom The UPAZ-1A buddy refueling pod fitted the MIG-29s allow them to act as mission tankers Why this is important The Black sea fleet is Novorossiysk which 700 miles round trip. F-16s with CARTS and MiG-29s as mission tankers would be able to strike Novorossiysk with ease As well all targets in Crimea The block 52 also supports EW as Israel has shown If West stops dragging and commits to F-16,, they could have it operational in 4 months
    1
  15.  @mwtrolle  BTW, as for the Israeli EW pods, Israel has blocked their weapons from getting sent to Ukraine BTW, you can't read SMH The additional benefit of the CFT has Israeli has done is EW Israel has added in additional EW in the empty spaces on the CFTs which Ukraine can take advantage off The block 52 also supports EW as Israel has shown" Pretty I sure I never said that the EW would come from Israel, only the fact that Ukraine can take advantage of using CFT to add EW Novorossiysk is not included in that. The Black Sea Fleet is located in Sevastopol and Novorossiysk which are legitimate targets What the US does not want, is deep incursions or them making a play at Moscow which is just 469 away A small number of Gripen wouldn't change anything Before you can operate a hundred of F-16's you need to train pilots and mechanics for those planes Considering that Poland and Romania operate the F-16, what is the issue again ?
    1
  16. The Gripen is the perfect choice but the F-16 is only the feasible choice SWAF only as has 100 Gripens where the US has over 1200 F-16s
    1