Comments by "" (@jonlittle5032) on "F-16s for Ukraine" video.

  1. If it was such an effective tactic, how come they only bagged one F-16?
    7
  2. Try again, Ivan.
    6
  3. And how much time do you have in an F-16 airframe? Certainly more than an F-16 instructor?
    5
  4. The F-16 was far more advanced then, and now.
    4
  5. Ask MAGA.
    3
  6. What can't it carry, flyboy? The colonel is an experienced F-16 pilot and instructor. What are you?
    3
  7.  @AlexAnteroLammikko  Russia is in its third year of a three day war. If they haven't acquired air superiority by now, what makes you think they can when the 16s start to fly?
    3
  8. You didn't listen, did you? The Falcon's they are getting are active duty airframes that were already upgraded for the owning countries.
    3
  9.  @SparePhone-ej6lk  And look how good Ukrainian infantry has performed with that OJT, sport.
    1
  10. Beginning to see a pattern in the BS. Like a recurring hiccup.
    1
  11.  @Jakob_DK  Doesn't answer the question. Why wouldn't the tactic work on a different day?
    1
  12.  @Jakob_DK  Not a very effective tactic, if target acquisition takes several days and allows daily attacks on your own forces until you get the aircraft in your sights.
    1
  13.  @jerseyshoredroneservices225  Yep. But that wasn't the OPs point. Talk to them.
    1
  14.  @jerseyshoredroneservices225  My comment was deliberately and overtly sarcastic.
    1
  15.  @Jakob_DK  Say it one more time and then click your heels.
    1
  16. Let's revisit this conversation after the first sortie, eh?
    1
  17. I love it when they pretend not to get the sarcasm.
    1
  18.  @SparePhone-ej6lk  Nope. That was total training, from first stick-up to airframe-specific training. He was not saying how much time an experienced MiG pilot would need to learn the new systems. Most of the Ukrainian pilots already know how to fly, know basic and advanced tactics. It does not take 3 years to learn a single airframe.
    1
  19. The bulk of Russia's air fleet is Su-27s and MiG-29s. Those other are limited editions and Russia keeps them far away from the front.
    1
  20.  @AlexAnteroLammikko  The Su-34s and -35s are built on the earlier airframes. Variants of US jets don't get new nomenclatures unless the airframe is significantly different. So no, the -34s and -35s aren't more advanced airframes. And the Su-57s aren't battletested.
    1
  21.  @atacorion  Wow. That is a significant shortcoming, sport (sarcasm). Oh, and I am a sociopolitical observer from Rigel who has been monitoring y'alls for several hundred years.
    1
  22.  @atacorion  No, they are still tricked-out Flankers.
    1
  23.  @atacorion  I am aghast that as a former USAF tech you are unaware that the B/D models of the F-15 and F-16 were stretched to make them two-seaters and that the FB-111 was stretched at least once - but they are still the same airframe. Ivan.
    1
  24.  @atacorion  Stock phrase for "Bail! Bail! Bail!"
    1
  25. Interesting that you, a USAF tech and instructor, knew immediately that the Russian Flanker variants were stretched, but don't know the development history of USAF's finer fighter aircraft.
    1
  26.  @atacorion  An air-launched land-based anti-tank torpedo?? I bet they call it the Molerat. No wonder it needs to be liquid-cooled.
    1
  27. Quickstrike (and the aforementioned Torpedo, or Hammerhead) are Navy ordnance. Operationally, the Air Force does uses them - on bombers, hough they can be fitted to fighter aircraft in a pinch. But as a Tech, you knew that.
    1
  28.  @pogo1140  Irrelevant. So are the Su-34 and Su-35.
    1
  29.  @pogo1140  What is relevant is the Su-34 and Su-35 are built on an Su-27 airframe and share similar flight characteristics.
    1
  30. Is that true?
    1
  31.  @moblet  Ok, we have two alleged quotes. Is either true?
    1
  32.  @moblet  Dude. Sarcasm. Cope.
    1
  33.  @moblet  Fluent? Sarcasm, right?
    1