Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "" video.

  1. Its very simple The A-10 excels at air to ground but Ukraine needs more than that . more to point, they need flexibility The plane for Ukraine is the F-16 The F-16 can carry AIM-9s and AIM-120s for counter air operations. The US can provide older model AIM-9M and AIM-120C-5 so even if the missiles ended up in Russian hands both are late 90s but still very effective It also can carry the AGM-84 Harpoon which opens to the door for Ukraine to knock out the Black Sea fleet completely as well AGM-65s and GBU-10/12/24s for general purpose The AGM-84 also has land attack capability which opens to the door for Ukraine strike Russia at targets previously out of reach Some would agree a combination of the F-16 and A-10 but for quick, easy and simply, just one plane and the F-16 is the plane
    8
  2.  @whatdoesntkillyoumakesyous6707  The planes for this job JAS-39 F-18 F-16 The JAS-39 is best choice. Gripen is designed for force dispersal and can be serviced with a small amount of personnel and vehicles as well able operate off roads its a lightweight powerhouse with access to everything Ukraine needs but doesnt exist in the numbers that Ukraine needs. The F-18 like the Gripen checks all the boxes but numbers and condition of flyable airframes is a problem Which narrows it down to the F-16 Other key points Taking out the Black Sea Feet can be done with ease with JAS-39, F-18 and F-16, the A-10 not so much Russia has moved its operations from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk JAS-39, F-18 and F-16 can attack Novorossiysk with stand off munitions but most importantly, if they time it right, they can catch the Kilo class in port Trying to use the A-10 in that role is impossible
    2
  3. The simple fact is that A-10 is not the plane for this kinda of job They need the F-16
    2
  4. As glorious as the A-10, its simple not the right tool for this job
    1
  5.  @whatdoesntkillyoumakesyous6707  Its more than firing HARM and longer range sensors , The A-10 is high subsonic while Russian jets are supersonic The A10 lacks radar while again Russian jets There is whole list of reasons why the A-10 is not the plane for this job
    1
  6.  @Chuck_Hooks  Aircraft require do require support but if Ukraine wants a realistic chance of pushing Russian forces out , they need aircraft Ideally the JAS-39 but they dont exist in the numbers that Ukraine needs so the only choice is the F-16 To get the F-16 up to speed only takes 4 months. The pilots go to nearest country with F-16 sim and start training Since they are already pilots, they simply need familiarization. 2 weeks in the sim. 2 weeks in the books 1 month of flying in the two seaters learning all the tech. 1 month solo flying and 1 more of practical application The norm is 12 months but if you condense it the essentials , 4 months is doable The maintenance personnel spend 4 months working along aside F-16 maintenance personnel in Poland They can learn the day to day requirements and troubleshooting very easily For more advance problems, western personnel can help and there would nothing Russia could say because they do the exact thing with their own aircraft that export Have advisors on hand for problems For weapons just keep it to the essentials. AIM-9 and AIM-120s for air to air. AGM-84 ASM and land attack. AGM-65s and GBU-10/12/24s for general purpose plus the gun The F-16 is rated at over 30 types of weapons,however Ukraine only need 5. The GBU-10/12/24 hardware is the same The F-16 has the CART which allows it use the drogue instead of boom for aerial refueling. The MIG-29s could be adapted in tankers for the F-16s No one denying that bring a fighter into service will be process but Ukraine needs them more than HIMARS Example, the Kherson bridge, The F-16 with GBUs or Mavericks would have knocked that bridge out in strike Russian ships docked in port again, smoked with a single 2000bls GBU-10 targeted at the waterline Russian airfields with KA-52, Mi-28 and MI-35s Two F-16s with 6 Mavericks or 6 GBU-12s , completely knockout in one strike
    1
  7.  @whatdoesntkillyoumakesyous6707  The A-10 can't use it as effectively
    1
  8.  @benghazi4216  There are ways to get the Gripen but it still boils down to numbers 150 F-16s is very easy as there over 4500 built and that would completely replenish the Ukrainian air force
    1
  9.  @totalnerd5674  That doesnt track as most F-16 block have been heavily upgraded
    1
  10.  @LentPanic7  Its can to a degree but the JAS-39 and F-18 are far better austere operations
    1
  11. The A-10 is not the plane for this job Ukraine needs F-16s , its only plane for this job The A-10 excels at air to ground but Ukraine needs more than that . more to point, they need flexibility The F-16 can carry AIM-9s and AIM-120s for counter air operations. The US can provide older model AIM-9M and AIM-120C-5 so even if the missiles ended up in Russian hands both are late 90s but still very effective It also can carry the AGM-84 Harpoon which opens to the door for Ukraine to knock out the Black Sea fleet completely as well AGM-65s and GBU-10/12/24s for general purpose The AGM-84 also has land attack capability which opens to the door for Ukraine strike Russia at targets previously out of reach Some would agree a combination of the F-16 and A-10 but for quick, easy and simply, just one plane and the F-16 is the plane
    1