Comments by "Comm0ut" (@Comm0ut) on "Russia Military Spending already at 25% of Budget, France says 500K RU Casualties, Trump in Effigy?" video.

  1. F-16s are easy to maintain even in austere conditions (I spent over twenty years including Desert Shield/Storm as an engine troop later merged with crew chief on A/B/C/D/CJs, this is not speculation) and thanks to the high volume of airframes parts will mostly be easy to manage through existing supply systems (which are global). Getting pieces and parts to Europe is business as usual (FedEx, DHL and UPS make the world go round). While fantasists dream dogfight dreams that's childish nonsense. Vipers are valuable for the variety of standoff weapons they can carry. They can operate in conjunction with other systems including drones to distract Russian AAM and any system which can attack Russian air bases to disrupt launches. Russia may or may not be able to afford 24/7 CAP missions (even if it can those wear out equipment imposing a sustainment burden) and every defensive sortie is one offensive sortie not flown. Aircraft exist to generate effective sorties. Losing AWACS reduces Russian surveillance coverage, not least because heavies must land for refuel, crew swaps (assuming the have enough trained operators), repair, inspections and maintenance. Ukraine will lose a few (it's war after all and not a one-sided US constabulary mission zapping peasants with no air power) but employed properly 16s will do considerable damage and divert considerable NeoSoviet resources. War is not a game of performance statistics but a creative contest between systems of systems.
    1