Comments by "Comm0ut" (@Comm0ut) on "F-16 vs Mirage 2000: which is more useful to Ukraine?" video.

  1. The logistics train has existed for decades and Fedex/DHL/etc deliver globally. Supporting three or four squadrons worth in austere operating conditions is little different than supporting any of many prior deployments. Maintainers are not difficult to train at accelerated rates in existing tech schools and existing Field Training Detachments. The aircraft are designed to be easy to work on (which I did for over 20 years, the others spend on Phantom and Bronco) therefore high sortie rates are a breeze to maintain IF parts arrive on time. Life for "armorers" (load toads on the line, Ammo in their MSA) is pretty comfy even at high sortie rates. I was an engine troop later merged with crew chiefs (easy since most engine troops were already trained), Red X all systems yadda yadda. Viper maintenance processes are long refined, easy to teach and easy to learn.
    3
  2. Where are all these fantasy Gripen supposed to come from?
    2
  3. F-16 needs a decent runway which are easily cleaned by common inexpensive FOD sweepers and the usual FOD walks. They can ingest considerably sand and all that does is clean the fan and compressor (I've borescoped many a Pratt and GE). F-16s have launched from roads and it's not rocket surgery. People lacking personal deployed experience constantly regurgitate memes.
    2
  4. NDI can easily intercept structural issues which can be addressed by airframe reinforcement as done in SLEP. Ukrainian and nearby Polish labor costs favor doing work as far east as practical.
    2
  5.  @lqr824  Training "ground crew" is old hat since long before F-16s were designed. It does not take long to learn F-16 maintenance and be effective because I've personally done that and I'm not special. The "huge inventory" of spare parts does not need to be onsite at Ukraine for the same reasons it is not onsite for US operations. Parts are sent where required other than basic unit bench stocks and deployment packages. Cannibalization to buffer Supply makes the military aviation world go round and the US-style rotating cann program switches cann birds to they are not taken down too far. Storage in Poland with delivery to Ukraine operating locations would be most logical.
    2
  6.  @KSCPMark6742  FOD walks are standard procedure in any air force. Remember multiple airframes use runway and taxiways and that FOD isn't just about intakes but protecting aircraft tires. Running a towed sweeper down runway prior to launch is not at all complex. I find FOD fears hilariously exaggerated.
    2
  7.  @cagatayaydemir3556  Both engines are long debugged (I worked on both as a USAF engine mech and crew chief). Pratts can have their FTIT limit raised for war by adjusting the fuel control as we did during Desert Shield if extra thrust is wanted. We had nil maintenance issues with that (I borescoped many for 50-hour and other inspections.)
    2
  8. Why would aircrew training be a bottleneck with so many nations flying them?
    1
  9.  @2IDSGT  Guessing based on precisely what relevant combat aviation experience?
    1
  10. ORLY? Where will those come from?
    1
  11. Post your relevant expertise.
    1
  12. Because not everyone is some teenage gamer who never flew nor worked on a real combat aircraft.
    1
  13. You're another Russian shillposter and not very good at it so if your supervisor reads this, give the lad a Moisin and a ride to the front.
    1
  14. What is your relevant personal military aviation expertise in maintenance and Supply on either aircraft? Why do you imagine they would somehow conflict when individual bases have supported multiple aircraft types since the dawn of aviation?
    1
  15. I can as I've worked on multiple airframes. The same maintainers don't have to work on all three (though that eventually makes better technicians). Translating tech data then proofreading it against the original isn't exotic. 16s don't break much and are easy to work on. Remember factory tech support is a phone call or email away. Also remember Ukraine only need manage the equivalent of a large mixed DEPLOYMENT. It need not duplicate existing Depot etc infrastructure. If maintainers are trained at least to US standards they'll be immediately capable of most tasks and can ask if they run into difficulty. They'll be replacing LRUs and fixing what they can in the field, not duplicating NATO back shops. Parts will as usual be overhauled, new or have service life remaining if cannibalized to buffer Supply. If they've any sense they'll duplicated the USAF cannibalization program which prevents hangar queens.
    1
  16. There are no airframes. Where do you imagine Gripens will come from?
    1
  17.  @robson668  F-16s can operate from austere conditions and that's been done often. How many years experience do you have maintaining aircraft in a combat environment or are you just repeating memes? Digging under the highway??? Tell us you know nothing about HAS without telling us you know nothing about HAS. Besides being blatantly obvious from space and requiring enormous effort, shelters beneath roads (which do not usefully resist bombs or missiles) will be prone to flooding during rasputitsa.
    1
  18. Where are these magical Gripen going to come from? Is everyone else here just a gamer?
    1
  19. Why hasn't it won the three day Special Military Operation yet? Glavset shills and tankies are hilarious.
    1
  20. Only to people who have no personal experience with either. One does not "split" logistics. Procurement is done far away from the battlefield and existing supply systems have no problem delivering to Europe of which Ukraine is part. Supply troops support multiple airframes on one base with little fuss because a stock number is a stock number. Given the few troops required for support why precisely would they be "split"? Jets are often much easier to work on than spectacularly annoying modern cars (I've thousands of hours on both). Combat aircraft are designed for ease of maintenance. Any real technician can learn multiple airframes but there is no mission-oriented immediate need to train the same techs on both. If that's desired it should be done much later after the techs are experienced on one airframe. Learn one aircraft then subsequent are easy. Weapons load crews can easily certify on multiple airframes as can Fuels (who mostly do their thing away from the flightline other than operating refuel and defuel trucks). Ground support equipment for multiple systems is standard. Generators, air compressors, air conditioning carts, air compressors, maintenance stands, jacks etc are simple and easy to manage.
    1
  21. One does not need a "separate" logistics system. One needs to PROCURE a variety of parts which is very different. The same Supply logistic system supports every US aircraft for example. There are not airframe-specific Supply clerks. Technicians who train on multiple airframes (I am one) make better more versatile maintainers. For example I worked Phantom, Bronco and F-16s in three different AFSC which made it easy to be versatile. One can take any engine troop and bring them up to speed on a different engine with a short FTD course. The US maintenance ecosystem easily supports different airframes on the same base. Pilots are not interchangeable but maintainers who can work on one system can work on others. Reading tech data and operating test equipment aren't difficult. Troops coming off old systems have the tactile understanding of machinery that makes learning newer systems a breeze. Been there, done that, have the proverbial t-shirts.
    1
  22. Most of logstics is easier than it looks if one copies the highly refined US system. PROCUREMENT is the hard part, not managing assets once available if proper tracking is maintained. That's why if a USAF jet breaks for a part while deployed one can be sourced from any base having it in stock.
    1
  23.  @ASpyNamedJames  Got empiric evidence for those assertions? "Logistics" very much includes commercial providers. Fedex, DHL etc deliver most spares. Why do you imagine "expertise" is somehow stretched? BE SPECIFIC. Supporting a few extra airframes in continental European locations leverages every available asset in NATO and supporting Vipers is not difficult nor is maintaining them. Only FOL tasks need be done in Ukraine while more demanding tasks could be done at any decently equipped NATO base. There just isn't much difficult work on F-16s.
    1
  24. Where will these Gripen come from?
    1
  25. In what air force have you served maintaining F-16s in which war? I enjoy hearing from experts.
    1
  26. Where are these magical Gripen? Their fangurls forget one needs airframes not fantasies.
    1