Comments by "Tx240" (@Texas240) on "Jake Broe"
channel.
-
1
-
@lewisdoherty7621 - are you suggesting that Ukraine has a bunch of unaccounted for equipment at its national guard bases?
If that's what your suggesting, it's doubtful. First, Ukraine is a poor country and was never a military threat to Russia, as Russia claimed. Ukraine's military would've already been transferring that equipment or munitions to the east where there was a need to defend against regular probing attacks from the DNR and LNR forces occupying the east of Ukraine. That stagnant battle line existed for 8 years prior to the invasion in 2022. Even if it was low intensity, there was shooting.
Third, since the mobilization of Ukraine on a war footing, the only way stuff is sitting unused and unaccounted for in a national guard base is through corruption, which is a possibility. Remember, those units had troops. Those troops are going to want to take equipment and ammunition with them when they need to go fight.
4th, an accounting that you suggest probably took place when the various military units were organized into a national defense. Bean counters exist everywhere.
If you were talking about US state national guard inventories, I don't see how that's relevant other than they do have lots of old equipment that Ukraine could benefit from and would probably like to replace it with new equipment if the old stuff could be sent to Ukraine.
Second,
1
-
Regarding F-16 and it's "meh" impact on the Ukraine theater (snipped from a sub comment reply)
Russia doesn't control the skies. Both sides have proliferated ground based air defenses (GBAD) that prevent the other side from safely operating aircraft.
Russian air superiority jets stay over Russian controlled territory, protected by their GBAD and lob R37 long range missiles at Ukranian aircraft when they are detected by Russian AWACS over the black sea or Russian territory or ground based radar. These long range attacks are mainly to make the Ukrainians evade and stop trying to do whatever they're trying to do. The R37 was designed to hit B52 stratofortress bombers, not fighters and while very fast, isn't maneuverable.
Unfortunately, the F-16 offers no safe counter to either the Russian GBAD or the Russian R37 vollies.
The R37 has a range of up to 200 km. The US AIM 120 AMRAAM that the F-16 will carry has a range of about 60km. The F-16s will never get in range to attack Russian aircraft. The Russians will simply fly away from the F-16s and encourage the F-16s to fly over Russian GBAD to snack on a few missiles. The F-16s will decline the offer and the Russian jets will turn around and pop off a couple more R 37s. That's modern air combat. Air to air battles aren't "dogfights" and the F-16 brings nothing valuable to the Ukrainian air superiority situation.
Where the F-16 could be effective and where it will have to be effective if air superiority is the goal is SEAD or suppression of enemy defenses. The Ukrainians have already dabbled in firing Western HARM anti radiation (anti radar) missiles from Mig 29s. The F-16 will offer better integration of these missiles as well as other guided missiles like the AGM 65 maverick and various unguided munitions (bombs and rockets) which can all be valuable for elimination of Russian GBAD.
The problem is that Ukraine will lose jets and pilots doing this, hunting the things designed to shoot them down. The Russian PANTSIR system can integrate multiple launchers into each other's radar so that "dark" launchers can still fire at Ukrainians hunting the units with active radar.
Think Iraq 1, where the US blitzed Saddam's GBAD and where we (the US) lost aircraft and had pilots paraded on Iraqi TV. Then turn that up to 11 and you have what Ukraine is facing in trying to deal with Russian GBAD.
The F-16 will be similar to the Leopard, except even less significant. Ukraine operates the Mig 29. It's the functional equivalent of the F-16 in flight performance, munitions carrying ability, and mission profiles. The F-16 doesn't bring much to Ukraine that the Mig 29 doesn't already give them... Except more airframes that can be sacrificed in Ukraine's fight for independence, ultimately, from Russia.
What Ukraine REALLY needs is the Swedish Gripen. First, this jet can use the British Meteor, which the F-16 currently doesn't. This is a longe range air to air missile that would give rough parody to Russia's R37. It's a little shorter but designed to hit fighters and so, more of a threat than the R37.
The Gripen can also carry the Storm Shadow missile which the F-16 doesn't. Ukraine is currently using aging and few Su 24 aircraft to carry and launch the Storm Shadow. Having Gripen would ease the burden on the Su24s and allow Ukraine to continue using such long range missiles as the Soviet era jets wear out.
Gripen for long range air to air and Storm Shadow missions with F-16 for SEAD, close air support and locking down the Black Sea with AGM 84 Harpoon missiles in addition to combined use of ATACMS, decoys, S200s, etc would be an ideal combination to enable Ukraine to blitz Russian GBAD.
The problem arises as Ukraine closes distance to Russia. The ground launched anti air missiles can be inside Russian territory which means they're safe from Western or US weapons and free to shoot down F-16s over Ukraine.
The F-16 alone will be less of a game changer than Leopard tanks were. It's ironic that one of the best dog fighters ever built will see it's most significant use in the ground attack role in Ukraine and virtually no air to air combat (unless helicopters count).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1