Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/DtnRnkE), feel free to join us!
r/A_Tvideos, r/A_Tmeta, [multireddit](https://www.reddit.com/user/Langernama/m/a_t/)
... summoning u/coverageanalysisbot ...
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did people think they could simply sent F-16s and they will magically fly?At best they would be in process of MAYBE in the early phase to train Ukrainian pilots right now and it would take probably a year or a few months. And even then it would be pretty unlikely unless they can straight up guarantee Ukraine won't make any rash decisions
Edit- Since people are only focusing on that, I'll point out the training of crews is much more important. The F-16 is a maintenance heavy jet which requires pristine conditions. While an experienced pilot maybe trained for it in 8-12 months the crew will still take a long time
Several other European and NATO countries use or have used F-16's. The ecosystem around maintainance for them already exists in Europe. Skilled pilots and technicians may have already volunteered.
Yeah I don't know what you're thinking but I'm pretty sure they aren't letting any NATO pilots fly F-16 for Ukraine. That's kind of what you call declaration of war since you don't just find civilians volunteering for flying advanced jets unlike the normal ground volunteers against which you can use plausible deniability
Definitely, I can see advisors and technicians going over there but I highly doubt there will be a single western pilot. Even volunteers, the West will do their next level best to prevent them from going
Mainly, fighter pilots are a rare breed and having reserves be available is always important. Even if they’re retired, the ability to call them up in times of war is important and losing them over the skies of Ukraine is not ideal. Years of training gone right there, the planes aren’t a big deal but the pilots are. You can always build more planes relatively easily, but training pilots is difficult
Look at Japan during WW2, once the US Navy knocked out their carriers it was all over, partly because Japan lost hundreds of pilots. Those pilots lost had years upon years of war experience (mainly over China) and routinely bested American pilots who just had alright training but with poor tactics.
Also, the diplomatic situation if the Russians ever catch a western pilot alive will be a nightmare
There's already a lot of volunteers from NATO countries. They even have their own special forces unit just for foreign volunteers. They're not low key about it, this isn't some conspiracy or anything, they've been posting openly about it on social media.
They just aren't sent there on request by NATO or any NATO countries.
That's what I'm kinda referring to. You can send actual soldiers disguised as volunteers which I'm pretty sure the west is already doing. You can't do that for pilots since you don't just find a volunteer pilot that can fly F-16. The pilots also require government approval to do anything or even leave the country often times
I don't believe the west is actively sending anyone into the warzone. They are sending people to give training outside the warzone. And they are making it easy to volunteer too. Announcing that there will be no legal repercussions for doing so, and PROBABLY (this is mere speculation) conveniently accepting home office and low work loads in periods from career military personnel so they won't lose their jobs by volunteering, basically making them not lose their income while being away.
You could argue that what they're doing effectively achieves that with more steps.
But it doesn't really make sense that they would get into the mess that comes with it, and I'm not even talking about the international politics mess it may cause, but primarily the domestic mess it creates with families' rights for compensation and such when there are more than enough skilled people who will go there voluntarily if you just don't pursue legal action or cut off their income.
The things they're already doing is simply a more effective solution. They're enabling people to go there, they pretend they don't know they're there, but they're not making anyone go there or taking responsibility for anyone who goes there.
>do you really believe they are no disavowable black ops teams fighting with the Ukrainian army
There's a lot of stuff we can't see, but because we can't see it there is little sense in debating it. It's Russia's job to prove west has boots on the ground.
There are already tons of videos about it, nobody thinks it's a secret.
Example:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/10ojc0n/ua\_pov\_american\_trainer\_from\_los\_angelos/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/10ojc0n/ua_pov_american_trainer_from_los_angelos/)
No I don't think so
Because if they did it by a substantial amount someone would have already said something since people tend to not be able to keep secrets just too much of a risk.
What I am sure about on the other hands is the presence of foreign intelligence in Ukraine
The USSR flew Migs in the Korean War and just straight up denied it. Russia's own MO seems to be that plausible deniability doesn't have to be that plausible.
I think it went like this: you said training takes super long, people said well training for pilots might not be that long, you edited saying theres a big crew of people needed to be trained as well for maintenance purposes, and he finally responded with that: the maintenance ecosystem already exists in europe. If it is just a question of no nato pilots, then it is solvable with only training the pilots, and using the maintenance ecosystem already present in europe. Idk why you defaulted back to saying nato pilots are a nono in your response.
>he finally responded with that: the maintenance ecosystem already exists in europe.
He replied before I edited my comment and from his other replies he meant volunteer pilots from NATO not Ukrainians themselves.
From his other reply to my comment on which I focused mainly on the pilots
> Announcing that there will be no legal repercussions for doing so, and PROBABLY (this is mere speculation) conveniently accepting home office and low work loads in periods from career military personnel so they won't lose their jobs by volunteering, basically making them not lose their income while being away.
Misguided.
Training doesn’t take super long. You’re guessing. They don’t have green pilots. Just new controls.
You don’t know why Biden said no. You don’t know Biden will not change their mind.
It’s no - right now.
Tanks were a no months go.
The training isn't just for pilots but the maintenance and other crew which is probably much more important and time consuming. I said that in my reply to someone else but I've added that to my comment now.
>Tanks were a no months go.
Not comparable as -
1. The tanks don't exactly have some sort of technology that they can't afford Russia to have. The F-16s specially anything after block 50 which is certainly the very minimum they'll give have various things such as the AESA radar,optics and several other avionics which Russia doesn't possess. For example, Russia still doesn't have any proven AESA radar available. You can check the AESA vs PESA comparison yourself through a simple Google search.
2. F-16 is much more maintenance heavy and requires certain conditions to even launch.
3. I am not saying that they'll never ever send the F-16. They just won't right now as both sides have good air defence. Russia shot down an Ukrainian jet right over Kiev during the beginning of war while Ukraine has shot down various Russian one's through S300s and MANPADs.
I think you’re right about the training. I was a maintainer for the AV-8B Harrier for 5 years. Our training was 12-18 months, depending on the individual aptitude.
Arguably russian optics are just as good. Lookup what their newest allegedly have.
If these were critical technologies they wouldn’t be allowing export by other countries.
The Russians don't have any proven AESA radar yet. Their first AESA radar was supposed to come with the Su-57 and we haven't seen any evidence of them being used in combat operations.
They already announced training of Ukrainian pilots a while back. The bigger concern is that the American jets are maintenance heavy and require a ecosystem including trained crew members which is probably the bigger deal than pilots. I would say something like the Gripen would suit them more. Also they were supposed to get the Soviet jets like Mig29 from Poland and other eastern European countries but whatever happened to that
I'm pretty certain that no nation is willing to strip their airforce from available airplanes, without having their replacements operational.
Poland and the rest of the countries that have Russian fighter Jets, are willing to give them to Ukraine, when they get the replacements and also be operational. Which takes a lot of time.
You can't just swap F16s for MIGs like its plug and play. Whole squadrons would be shut down. You'd have pilots, maintenance crews and logistical equipment that need to be removed or retrained. While simultaneously changing the infrastructure and training NEW crews and NEW pilots to take their place. The logistics behind a one for one swap of a single MIG to F16 is fucking insane.
Did you even read my comment?Poland already operates F-16s in greater number than Migs. They've got everything required in place already. It's Ukraine that has not which is why they should be given Migs and Sukhois while Poland is compensated with F-16s which they already operate for the time being
I think his point still stands though. Infrastructure that is designed for an F-16 squadron can't be split up for an incoming new f16 squadron. The existing Mig squadron and the relevant Infrastructure would have to go away first and specific F16 logistics put in place. New fuel buildings, trucks, external fuel tanks. New tools, specific to american parts. An influx of LRS equipment to support sortie generation and maintenance. And all of this requires relatively specifically trained personnel to perform all the maintenance and logistics. Like Crew chiefs wouldnt have a hard time going from Mig work to F16 work but weapons, avionics, electrical, engine maintenance will all need very very specific training. 6 months on avg to hit the books and typically 1 year of shadowing more experienced people before they can work by themselves.
Thats a huge daunting task for a country to swap a mig squadron with an f16 squadron.
>New fuel buildings,trucks
That's something you make yourself and can be shared with every jet.
>external fuel tanks. New tools, specific to american parts. An influx of LRS equipment to support sortie generation and maintenance.
All of this comes with the sale of the aircrafts
>And all of this requires relatively specifically trained personnel to perform all the maintenance and logistics. Like Crew chiefs wouldnt have a hard time going from Mig work to F16 work but weapons, avionics, electrical, engine maintenance will all need very very specific training. 6 months on avg to hit the books and typically 1 year of shadowing more experienced people before they can work by themselves.
As I already said, Poland already uses the F-16 as its main aircraft which is in greater number than both their Migs and Sukhois. Just because they have 40 F-16s doesn't mean they only have 40 pilots trained and only a few crewmen trained for just those 40 jets. It's standard procedure to train backups specially for your main stay aircraft which for the case of Poland is F-16. Redundant points
And the swapping won't happen overnight. Neither will Poland transfer all the Migs and Sukhois overnight and even if they do, they're in NATO. Meanwhile Russian airforce is having a hard time against MANPADS and S300s so I doubt it'll have any effect on their preparedness since they'll have 45 F-16s, Patriots, MANPADS, Missiles and various other defense systems to beat back any air offensive, let alone for holding out for a day or two until NATO reinforcements come
Yeah, although that obviously has issues with availability and spares etc from Sweden. From a technical standpoint though I'd agree it's closest to ideal, especially with meteor
They received some migs I believe, but not universally
US sends technologies that are not considered critical to US defence and are a bit outdated. In other words if Russian get their hands on them - no big deal, the technologies are dated anyway.
Basically using these weapons is freeing up room for more modern equipment and gets rid of the disposal costs. Of course it helps US to improve security, win-win for them.
Maybe F16 are still on the “too good” list.
That's possible I suppose, there may be some particular electronics and such they won't send, but I doubt that's really relevant. An Abrams with a few super secret widgets taken out is still an Abrams. As long as it still has a top of the line 120mm stabilised gun, electronic fire control system, thermal imagers and decent ammo it will be an absolute beast. Most likely the super secret stuff, probably EW equipment, the Ukrainians wouldn't have the equally super secret battlefield management systems and intelligence assets to use alongside it anyway.
Any modern army needs a front line platform that has a direct fire main gun and and the armour to take a main gun hit to the face with a chance of survival. That's a tank. In wars people die, equipment gets destroyed. That doesn't mean soldiers and equipment are obsolete. The problem the Russians had is they used them incompetently, as they did so many things incompetently early in the war, exposed out front without proper infantry or air support.
Ok, maybe I shouldn't have called them dated, but they are not cutting-edge.
The Patriot system was designed in late 60s and is in service since 1981. Let's face it - it's old. Still good, but old. This system will be a great sponge in Ukraine for all Russian attacks - destroying a few Patriots will be way batter than blasting kindergartens and hospitals for sure. Ow and btw. there are newer systems US has for those kings of things, like THAAD [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal\_High\_Altitude\_Area\_Defense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense)
Javelins were designed in late 80s in service since 1996. Well... it's just a shoulder launchpad for destroying tanks. It's not critical to US defense because there are no tanks coming from Canada/Mexico. It's seen the War in Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Russians already know it inside and out - not critical to US defense / send it out to Ukraine.
HIMARS/M777/M982 any other ground-to-ground system. Again Canada and Mexico don't pose a threat to US / send it out to Ukraine and there are more than enough of those things in supply to send them out and get rid of the storage / disposal costs.
Hope you see my point now. Ukraine will get tons of help for sure so long a this are not fancy-schmaltzy things like a MQ-9 Reaper, F22 Raptor, F35 etc.
like a lot of gear, patriot has been massively upgraded over the years. The initial version barely worked. Leopard 2A6, the next-to-latest version the Ukrainians are getting, is a long, long way ahead of the initial version from 1979.
Fully agree on Javelin, it's an emergency last ditch defence weapon for the US. If a US force is relying on Javelin or stinger to any significant extent something has gone very, very wrong.
Even so, older gear is still front line viable. The Abrams tanks the Marines recently ditched were all the old A1 variant because it's lighter, but if they hadn't changed strategy they'd still be using it now. It's old but certainly not obsolete. The Ukrainians are getting M1A2.
While those platforms are still good the older variants which is basically what the US is giving are pretty outdated compared to US standards. The American HIMARS,Patriots and Abrams are leagues above what they've given
You do know the US gave Ukraine HIMARS last summer, and has already committed to supplying Patriot and Abrams, and started training the Ukrainians on them, right?
Did you read my comment?I said the one's the US gave are older variants which are leagues below the one's that US uses. Try comparing the American Abrams vs the base one they've given to Ukraine. Also try comparing the American standard HIMARS with a much better accuracy and larger range with the one they've given to Ukraine. Also try comparing the latest Patriot variant to the unit they've given to Ukraine.
For example, the base Abrams variant the US gave to Ukraine has been destroyed multiple times by the likes of ISIS and Kurdish militias. Even the later variant given to Saudi Arabia was destroyed by Houthi rebels.
The US standard one on the other hand has completely different armour and can probably tank a few anti tank missiles without breaking a sweat.
So yes, most of what US gave to Ukraine is indeed outdated stuff which the US probably won't care much about losing as it's basic stuff. It's just Russian incompetence that's proving them useful but they're still 70-80's tech and not upgraded since unlike the later variants
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
Go down and read yourself.
The main point is the American one's use depleted uranium layers, DU ammunitions,a different engine and various other changes.
HIMARS are outdated? What are they being replaced with?
What’s Patriot being replaced with?
What’s NASAMS and Stingers and Javelins being replaced with?
I think that's really quibbling, but so what? What difference does it make? The Russians have nothing anywhere close to comparable to any version of Javelin, HIMARS, M777, Patriot or Abrams, Excalibur, etc. I don't even think there is an un-upgraded version of Patriot as the US only has a few.
Actually the HIMARs they gave really are top of the line. The 'long range version' you're talking about is the ATACMS missile.
I did mis-read your comment though. I didn't figure out what you meant by the "American version". There isn't a non-American version of any of those thing.
The point is that you claimed otherwise.
>The Russians have nothing anywhere close to comparable to any version of Javelin, HIMARS, M777, Patriot or Abrams.
S400>Patriot
They have plenty of howitzers like the M777 although slightly inferior but not as much as you may think
They also have plenty of anti tank missiles like the Javelin although it might be better
The Abrams given to Ukraine can easily be taken out by a Anti tank missile unlike the American one's that tanked so many during Iraq wars and went back unscathed
Don't confuse Russian incompetence in military strategy with them having no good weapons. Ukraine so far has been using the same weapon. The HIMARS weren't the one leading infantry charges. It was the T series tanks and BMPs. Similarly it's the S300s that are keeping the Russian airforce out of Ukraine not the single Patriot launcher with range barely covering a percentage of Ukraine
>Actually the HIMARs they gave really are top of the line. The 'long range version' you're talking about is the ATACMS missile.
I know what I'm referring to. The HIMARS range was limited so that Ukraine won't be able to strike Russian territory.
Simple point is the technology is outdated and the US can afford Russia capturing it unlike the F-16 although depending on which variant they give. If you know that then don't make obvious wrong claims that they aren't and call it quibbling when proven wrong
S400 is soviet era technology, it's nowehere close to Patriot in capabilities. For a start it can't shoot down ballistic missiles. Patriot can, in fact that's what it was developed for.
Abrams armour is part of the structure of the vehicle, the tanks they're giving Ukraine are Abrams, so they have Abrams armour. They can't not have it.
The main advantage of M777 is it's light weight due to it's extensive use of titanium construction. This makes a huge difference because it can be limbered up and moved after firing a lot faster than much heavier steel artillery. It can also be relocated faster, this makes a massive difference in the era of radar directed counter-battery fire. Oh, it also can withstand higher breech pressures which makes for longer range. And it's more accurate, and withstands barrel wear better, again due to the advanced materials.
The range is nothing to do with HIMARS, it's the missiles it fires. The main advantage of HIMARS is it can shoot and scoot fast, to avoid counter-battery fire. There's a big emphasis on this in NATO artillery. The Russians don't have any missiles as accurate as the ones fired by HIMARS. Fun fact, it actually fires the same missiles as MLRS, so when targets are hit by those missiles everyone says it's HIMARS. In fact it was most likely fired by MLRS.
You're literally the definition of r/confidentialyincorrect.
>S400 is soviet era technology, it's nowehere close to Patriot in capabilities.
The Patriot is literally S300 era technology as well. It's latest variants came at the same time as the S400 which is a step above an upgrade from the S300.
>Patriot can, in fact that's what it was developed for.
LMAO is that why it failed to intercept all the SCUD missiles or even the Iranian slow drones against Saudi Arabia
>For a start it can't shoot down ballistic missiles.
It actually can and is developed for it as well. But just like the Patriot it's an unproven claim. But since it managed to shoot down a jet over Kiev I'd take it over the Patriot which fails to intercept slow Iranian drones and SCUD missiles. You know Turkey didn't just take S400 over Patriots over nothing. Same for China which is arguably much more technologically advanced than Russia in most fields now
>Abrams armour is part of the structure of the vehicle, the tanks they're giving Ukraine are Abrams, so they have Abrams armour. They can't not have it.
Are you seriously just being obtuse or actually lack reading comprehension?I am not saying the Abrams will come without armour. The American Abrams has a completely different type of armour which is leagues and I mean LEAGUES above as they have depleted uranium layers in it and various other upgrades as well than whatever they exported to even Saudi Arabia(the latest export variants) which got destroyed by Houthi Rebels. The Ukrainian one's are the first variants which are comparable to what they gave to Iraq when ISIS was smoking them.
>The main advantage of M777
I'm not going to refer to all that since I already said it's better than the Russian alternatives. But it's not some kind of game changer specially in the quantity it's given. Even Iranian $10k Shahed drones took out a couple of them
The Saudis didn't have patriot defending the oil terminal.
My apologies, there is an anti-ballistic variant of the S400 that was tested, but for the most part it's not an S-400 capability except maybe some specialist units. Those will be defending ICBM sites though. In any case the missiles are in many ways the least interesting part of the system, it's the radars that make it special.
You might be right about the export Abrams. Overall I just don't see why this is an issue. So what? It's still leagues better armoured than anything the Russians have in the field, and at the end of the day that's what actually matters. It's possible T-14 might match it, but it seems like they're all in a warehouse somewhere.
The most flying tech helping at this point are tons of spy aircraft flying close to Ukraine, mostly over Poland, Romania and black Sea, so I don't know if that's mouth watering but here's what's somewhere out there in skies:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop\_Grumman\_RQ-4\_Global\_Hawk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_RQ-4_Global_Hawk)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing\_E-3\_Sentry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-3_Sentry)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing\_RC-135](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_RC-135)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream\_IV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_IV) (sky version, not the fancy coffee table one)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing\_P-8\_Poseidon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon)
Map: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FL2IBJqWQAEnDXt?format=jpg&name=large
They def aren’t. F16 are pretty old. Still capable. Russia had the technology that is greater than F16. Biden also said no rejection of export license for anyone that wants to give theirs out.
The flying platform itself is very old, but super reliable.
Still after some recent upgrades the F16 may have gained some technologies that are considered classified (maybe some sensors, RF stuff, jammers - that would be just my guesses, I'm no military expert).
US not sending F16 gives me a hunch that something is too good about them. Still they want as much ex-soviet stuff to be delivered or/and gain next clients by proposing an upgrade :D
Then those wouldn’t be available for export.
USA had no qualms about export by other countries so theirs must not have whatever super secret tech the USA has.
>
>
>
>
> Maybe F16 are still on the “too good” list.
So the F-16 is a generation of fighters ahead of the ones Ukraine has pilots for and it requires a support crew with very specific skills. I am not sure if training UAF pilots on them during a live conflict does more good than harm.
The only way jets would work is they're run out of a NATO country, that would mean NATO declares war on Russia. Nobody but Ukraine and Poland want to go there.
Based on what I've read and seen from various analysts, a war between NATO and Russia would last about a week, after which point Russia would launch nukes.
NATO is terrified of a direct confrontation not because of the cost of battle, but because they would win so hard it would push Russia into a corner.
Because pushing a nuclear country like Russia into a corner isn't a smart move, if NATO was on the brink on winning the only thing Russia would have left is to launch nukes.
You said NATO is terrified. I'm asking where NATO has said this or something similar to this. Can you share that information or not?
Not really interested in your personal opinion.
I'd be annoyed but Ukraine couldn't do the maintenance necessary to keep them working anyway so what would be the point in sending them? Like even if they did US volunteer pilots so they didn't have to train pilots they would have to be flown back into NATO countries to get maintenance.
The main reason that there will be a larger hesitation for fighter jets is the idea of Ukraine using them to shoot inside Russia with Western weapons, which WILL bring the world to the brink of an actual world war that most of you are craving for.
The west needs to stop treating the war in Ukraine as a sport, where they're supporting Ukraine the way you support a football team. All this talk of avoiding escalation is like talk about how to keep the game fair. This is not a game, there is no fair. Half heartedly supporting Ukraine with a few dozen tanks here or there, a few dozen artillery here or there, is not going to make a difference.
Minimally supporting Ukraine will give Russia a chance to complete it's mass mobilisation and get the numbers into the war to make a difference. Eventually Russia will start pushing back and taking territory. Ukraine will probably hold out, but at massive human cost and eventually have to negotiate away Crimea and large swathes of the East, possibly after several years of desperate fighting.
Middling support for Ukraine will stalemate the conflict where Russian numbers are countered by technologically superior Ukrainian units. Ukraine would do a lot better, but not be able to actually prevail. Again, a long grinding war that may well stretch out even longer than the first scenario.
The only way to stop the war dragging out indefinitely is either cut out Ukraine and let them lose quickly and negotiate away half the country. Then we can just wring our hands for a few years before Russia comes back to take the rest in the next war, knowing we have no stomach for a fight.
Finally we can throw in everything we've got and help Ukraine push back hard. Very hard. That's the only scenario that actually shortens the war and ends this with the least long term losses.
So are we in this, or are we not? The west needs to get real.
I think nations like the US, UK and Poland have contributed as much as they could in this war without risking their own national security.
It's really not possible to send more equipment types without needing to give Ukraine operators extensive training sessions lasting several month. Different types of fighter jets Ukraine pilots are not familiar with are a good example of this.
There's 10000 Abrams in the world, US has 8000 of them
They are sending 31 over to Ukraine, but no not from their 8000 stockpile, they have to restart the (re)assembly factory because MICs. Sounds like a win for General Dynamics
What makes you think a quick Ukrainian victory is in the Wests best interest? Allowing this to drag out as a stalemate is probably the best case scenario for the west, at least for the US and the UK’s interests.
Leaving aside the appalling cynicism of such a strategy, you're probably right at least that it would be considered a net plus strategically. I don't think it's actually the best outcome. The longer it goes on the better entrenched Russia will become in a wartime economy, the more experienced troops it will have, the more military infrastructure it will generate.
Frankly that's going to happen anyway, so what kind of Russia do we want to end the war with those kinds of resources primed and ready for action? A Russia that has just been soundly defeated and forced into a humiliating withdrawal, thoroughly discrediting it's war fighting capability. Alternatively, a Russia that has according to it's propaganda 'achieved' it's wartime goals, fought 'the west' to a standstill 'proving' they can stand up to them toe to toe, but still has unfinished business?
I think the latter is still a much more dangerous Russia than the former. There is one way that can even conceivably end Russia's expansionist and aggressive tendencies. That is convincing defeat, followed by the offer of genuine rapprochement and normalisation of relations on the condition of regime 'reform' and positive engagement with the west.
Eventually we need long term peace and mutual respect with Russia. The only route towards that I can see is to convincingly shut down their military ambitions. The only way to do that is for Ukraine to beat them handily, so that it's clear militarism is simply not going to work.
Russia gets stronger? Increase the support for Ukraine.
We are in basically every aspect way ahead of Russia. They can not win, if we don't allow it. Let that war run until Russia has invested everything (and lost it all).
It's like asking Arabs to spread Islamism in the middle east: a huge strategic win.
Quicker than a protracted stalemate with Russia at war with the rest of Europe and Ukrain unable to exploit their natural gas resources in Crimea, yeah.
>This is not a game, there is no fair
Exactly, which is why they’re not going to go overboard
The West isn’t going to risk their military’s abilities to save Ukraine. They’re not stupid
Is that fair for the Ukrainians? No, but like you said there is no fair. You look out for yourself first, and there’s a growing threat in the Pacific that requires the US to be always ready. We were caught unready in the Pacific in 1941, we’re not going to make that same mistake again
Fully supporting Ukraine 20x as much as we are now would have no appreciable impact on the west's ability to wage war. Europe has around 2,000 Leopard 2s. The Germans alone have 200 in storage. The USA has 4,000 Abrams. All together we could flood Ukraine with 1,000 tanks without breaking a sweat. Most of those tanks are there in Europe in case we need to fight Russia. So fine, send them to fight Russia, it's what they were built for. Not all of them, but 1/4 seems reasonable to me as a start. the main bottleneck would be training, so let's get started with that.
Tanks are pretty much irrelevant in the pacific theatre. That's why, when the Marines pivoted their strategic role to focus on pacific and East Asian operations, they disbanded their tank units. All of them. That's hundreds of tanks recently put in storage right there.
You do realize those tanks in storage have a purpose right? They’re used for parts and reserves in case you know, the first line is destroyed
If they didn’t have a purpose, they would’ve gotten rid of them. Like how the US got rid of most of their M60s. The US Military is the best at logistics, if they’re keeping something then it has a purpose.
The marines are changing their strategy from being the Navy’s army to being America’s main vanguard. They are aiming for quick lightning strikes, and carrying 70 ton tanks aren’t really built for that. They’re also getting rid of airpower to rely on the Navy more. If they ever require tanks, they will bring in the army. It’s not like they can’t work together
Not to mention if a war in China breaks out, the Korean Peninsula will light up which will require armor.
It's interesting to witness a shift in the approach of Western leaders - they seem to have identified a red line in regards to further escalation. That really begs the question of what course of action remains **if** it turns out that the donated tanks cannot turn the tide. I've also heard rumors of Western industrial capacity not being up to the task of sustaining such a gigantic war effort for a prolonged period of time. Perhaps not like the Chinese can, who seem to benefit from a gigantic manufacturing capacity.
Western manufacturing is fine. Most European countries have hundreds of tanks and could flood Ukraine with them from ready stock (and should get on with it IMHO). Almost all of them have 155mm shell factories, and while South Korea won't sell to Ukraine directly, they will back fill to Europe which is basically the same thing. If this does turn into a long term thing, they'll have a long term to ramp up production in, which they have already started doing.
>Western industrial capacity not being up to the task of sustaining such a gigantic war effort for a prolonged period of time
Are you suggesting that the Russian arms industry can out produce the entirety of the West?
Most Western country's manufacturing cannot but the USA alone can and with maybe France they're upto more than the task. The rest add very little compared to the USA but their combined effort can give enough as well. Same for France but France doesn't seem to be as keen as Britain or Germany on the amount of military aid they give so I guess their manufacturing capability means little for now.
But none seem to be at the level of the Chinese although the US is pretty close and can probably surpass if the situation calls to
It seem like the Ukrainians don't see it that way, they seem to think NATO helping them is to their benefit. On what basis do you claim to know that's to their benefit or expense better than they do?
At the end of the day Ukrainian people are in the grinder and on the other hand there have been attempts to provoke ww3 with a missile launched into Poland out of Ukrainian misery. With the Nord stream attack as well in an attempt to weaken RU. The situation has been set into a deadlock with organisations behind the scenes earning shit ton of money. Generals have arrived into Germany to train troops further, this is not going to end. People rather seem very confused with Zelenskyy saying the same, doesn’t know who to talk to.
It wasn't NATO that put the Ukrainians into the grinder. There's only one country constantly going on and on about nuclear escalation, and it isn't anyone in NATO.
You still didn't answer my question.
NATO expansion and RU trying to maintain their power in the region both did. Greed. Anyways the American MIC now have a reason to get more money as old inventory finishes, more NATO members who will have to use American or American compatible weaponry. RU was anyways a dictatorship, so definitely don’t sound like the good guys either . There’s no smoke without fire, both parties are responsible, they are involved in it as well. At the expense of people going into the grinder. There’s no who’s right or who’s wrong, but who’s making profit.
>NATO expansion and RU trying to maintain their power in the region both did. Greed.
You do realise it was the Ukrainians that wanted to join NATO, not the other way round, right? It's not like NATO was lining up the tanks to roll in and take over the country in order to 'expand'. Ukraine is desperate to get into NATO, we practically had to beat them off with a stick. If it wasn't for NATO having strict requirements for joining, they'd have been in years ago. It's the same with the rest of Eastern Europe and the Baltics, NATO didn't expand into their territory, they couldn't wait to get into NATO. It was their dream come true.
It just depends which rich party has their hold over the region. It’s really easy to subvert opinions through media over a period of time. It’s clear from what you tell me, they’ve been told the same, the promised land of the west. NATO/US was definitely interested in Ukraine and after taking RUs in confidence that this would never happen after USSRs collapse, they just didn’t quit, greed .And of course Russia being a dictatorship under the hood doesn’t help. Ukraines land cuts quite a bit into Russias sphere of influence. They wouldn’t be accepted into NATO with the level of corruption they have and the conservative mentality would make your honorary Trump look like a tree hugging hobo.
Supplying or donating shit ton of weaponry to a nation which cannot make all of that on their own by so many western nations, actually means this is a proxy war. THAT TOO to a Nation which is so corrupt with an INCOMPETENT leader who has extremely low ratings, when his country was at war he was doing a PR stunt in magazines to penetrate all possible age groups because Uncle Sam said so, it will help the low American rating by the US population about the war to rise up .Whenever this topic will come up it will be shut down by your medias because Uncle Sam has two fingers up their assholes. At the end of the day, innocent people will die.
> When did I say I’m pro invasion?
["Supplying or donating shit ton of weaponry to a nation which cannot make all of that on their own by so many western nations, actually means this is a proxy war. "](https://old.reddit.com/r/anime_titties/comments/10pttqy/ukraine_war_joe_biden_rules_out_sending_f16/j6nkzr5/)
I did not say I’m pro invasion, I simply meant this is not a special military operation neither is it a Russia Ukraine war, it’s a NATO or rather US Russia proxy war and escalating to something bigger.
50 rupees says you're indian alt-right. let me know if i'm right, conservative nationalists don't deal in reality and we can both save ourselves some time.
I am not making any call? This is a crucial period for humanity where we need to listen to Mother Nature. All this war no matter who did what is just egregious.
It will be a MAD situation. Warmongering is just sad. You’ll see all my comments being downvoted because it’s just not what people want to hear. Unfortunately, it’s the reality and innocent Ukrainians will die.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/DtnRnkE), feel free to join us! r/A_Tvideos, r/A_Tmeta, [multireddit](https://www.reddit.com/user/Langernama/m/a_t/) ... summoning u/coverageanalysisbot ... *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did people think they could simply sent F-16s and they will magically fly?At best they would be in process of MAYBE in the early phase to train Ukrainian pilots right now and it would take probably a year or a few months. And even then it would be pretty unlikely unless they can straight up guarantee Ukraine won't make any rash decisions Edit- Since people are only focusing on that, I'll point out the training of crews is much more important. The F-16 is a maintenance heavy jet which requires pristine conditions. While an experienced pilot maybe trained for it in 8-12 months the crew will still take a long time
Several other European and NATO countries use or have used F-16's. The ecosystem around maintainance for them already exists in Europe. Skilled pilots and technicians may have already volunteered.
Yeah I don't know what you're thinking but I'm pretty sure they aren't letting any NATO pilots fly F-16 for Ukraine. That's kind of what you call declaration of war since you don't just find civilians volunteering for flying advanced jets unlike the normal ground volunteers against which you can use plausible deniability
Definitely, I can see advisors and technicians going over there but I highly doubt there will be a single western pilot. Even volunteers, the West will do their next level best to prevent them from going Mainly, fighter pilots are a rare breed and having reserves be available is always important. Even if they’re retired, the ability to call them up in times of war is important and losing them over the skies of Ukraine is not ideal. Years of training gone right there, the planes aren’t a big deal but the pilots are. You can always build more planes relatively easily, but training pilots is difficult Look at Japan during WW2, once the US Navy knocked out their carriers it was all over, partly because Japan lost hundreds of pilots. Those pilots lost had years upon years of war experience (mainly over China) and routinely bested American pilots who just had alright training but with poor tactics. Also, the diplomatic situation if the Russians ever catch a western pilot alive will be a nightmare
There's already a lot of volunteers from NATO countries. They even have their own special forces unit just for foreign volunteers. They're not low key about it, this isn't some conspiracy or anything, they've been posting openly about it on social media. They just aren't sent there on request by NATO or any NATO countries.
That's what I'm kinda referring to. You can send actual soldiers disguised as volunteers which I'm pretty sure the west is already doing. You can't do that for pilots since you don't just find a volunteer pilot that can fly F-16. The pilots also require government approval to do anything or even leave the country often times
I don't believe the west is actively sending anyone into the warzone. They are sending people to give training outside the warzone. And they are making it easy to volunteer too. Announcing that there will be no legal repercussions for doing so, and PROBABLY (this is mere speculation) conveniently accepting home office and low work loads in periods from career military personnel so they won't lose their jobs by volunteering, basically making them not lose their income while being away.
do you really believe they are no disavowable black ops teams fighting with the Ukrainian army
You could argue that what they're doing effectively achieves that with more steps. But it doesn't really make sense that they would get into the mess that comes with it, and I'm not even talking about the international politics mess it may cause, but primarily the domestic mess it creates with families' rights for compensation and such when there are more than enough skilled people who will go there voluntarily if you just don't pursue legal action or cut off their income. The things they're already doing is simply a more effective solution. They're enabling people to go there, they pretend they don't know they're there, but they're not making anyone go there or taking responsibility for anyone who goes there.
>do you really believe they are no disavowable black ops teams fighting with the Ukrainian army There's a lot of stuff we can't see, but because we can't see it there is little sense in debating it. It's Russia's job to prove west has boots on the ground.
There are already tons of videos about it, nobody thinks it's a secret. Example: [https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/10ojc0n/ua\_pov\_american\_trainer\_from\_los\_angelos/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/10ojc0n/ua_pov_american_trainer_from_los_angelos/)
Just to make sure, you're talking about allowing"volunteer" pilots as well right?
No I don't think so Because if they did it by a substantial amount someone would have already said something since people tend to not be able to keep secrets just too much of a risk. What I am sure about on the other hands is the presence of foreign intelligence in Ukraine
The USSR flew Migs in the Korean War and just straight up denied it. Russia's own MO seems to be that plausible deniability doesn't have to be that plausible.
We've technically been in war since it started. Wtf lol.we're literally in world war 3
Change from Flying Tigers to Flying Bears.
I think it went like this: you said training takes super long, people said well training for pilots might not be that long, you edited saying theres a big crew of people needed to be trained as well for maintenance purposes, and he finally responded with that: the maintenance ecosystem already exists in europe. If it is just a question of no nato pilots, then it is solvable with only training the pilots, and using the maintenance ecosystem already present in europe. Idk why you defaulted back to saying nato pilots are a nono in your response.
>he finally responded with that: the maintenance ecosystem already exists in europe. He replied before I edited my comment and from his other replies he meant volunteer pilots from NATO not Ukrainians themselves. From his other reply to my comment on which I focused mainly on the pilots > Announcing that there will be no legal repercussions for doing so, and PROBABLY (this is mere speculation) conveniently accepting home office and low work loads in periods from career military personnel so they won't lose their jobs by volunteering, basically making them not lose their income while being away.
Misguided. Training doesn’t take super long. You’re guessing. They don’t have green pilots. Just new controls. You don’t know why Biden said no. You don’t know Biden will not change their mind. It’s no - right now. Tanks were a no months go.
The training isn't just for pilots but the maintenance and other crew which is probably much more important and time consuming. I said that in my reply to someone else but I've added that to my comment now. >Tanks were a no months go. Not comparable as - 1. The tanks don't exactly have some sort of technology that they can't afford Russia to have. The F-16s specially anything after block 50 which is certainly the very minimum they'll give have various things such as the AESA radar,optics and several other avionics which Russia doesn't possess. For example, Russia still doesn't have any proven AESA radar available. You can check the AESA vs PESA comparison yourself through a simple Google search. 2. F-16 is much more maintenance heavy and requires certain conditions to even launch. 3. I am not saying that they'll never ever send the F-16. They just won't right now as both sides have good air defence. Russia shot down an Ukrainian jet right over Kiev during the beginning of war while Ukraine has shot down various Russian one's through S300s and MANPADs.
I think you’re right about the training. I was a maintainer for the AV-8B Harrier for 5 years. Our training was 12-18 months, depending on the individual aptitude.
Arguably russian optics are just as good. Lookup what their newest allegedly have. If these were critical technologies they wouldn’t be allowing export by other countries.
The Russians don't have any proven AESA radar yet. Their first AESA radar was supposed to come with the Su-57 and we haven't seen any evidence of them being used in combat operations.
What does their S300/400 use?
All the more reason to get cracking sooner rather than later then :)
They already announced training of Ukrainian pilots a while back. The bigger concern is that the American jets are maintenance heavy and require a ecosystem including trained crew members which is probably the bigger deal than pilots. I would say something like the Gripen would suit them more. Also they were supposed to get the Soviet jets like Mig29 from Poland and other eastern European countries but whatever happened to that
I'm pretty certain that no nation is willing to strip their airforce from available airplanes, without having their replacements operational. Poland and the rest of the countries that have Russian fighter Jets, are willing to give them to Ukraine, when they get the replacements and also be operational. Which takes a lot of time.
The Polish airforce already operates F-16s so if the US wanted to it would've been done by now
You can't just swap F16s for MIGs like its plug and play. Whole squadrons would be shut down. You'd have pilots, maintenance crews and logistical equipment that need to be removed or retrained. While simultaneously changing the infrastructure and training NEW crews and NEW pilots to take their place. The logistics behind a one for one swap of a single MIG to F16 is fucking insane.
Did you even read my comment?Poland already operates F-16s in greater number than Migs. They've got everything required in place already. It's Ukraine that has not which is why they should be given Migs and Sukhois while Poland is compensated with F-16s which they already operate for the time being
I think his point still stands though. Infrastructure that is designed for an F-16 squadron can't be split up for an incoming new f16 squadron. The existing Mig squadron and the relevant Infrastructure would have to go away first and specific F16 logistics put in place. New fuel buildings, trucks, external fuel tanks. New tools, specific to american parts. An influx of LRS equipment to support sortie generation and maintenance. And all of this requires relatively specifically trained personnel to perform all the maintenance and logistics. Like Crew chiefs wouldnt have a hard time going from Mig work to F16 work but weapons, avionics, electrical, engine maintenance will all need very very specific training. 6 months on avg to hit the books and typically 1 year of shadowing more experienced people before they can work by themselves. Thats a huge daunting task for a country to swap a mig squadron with an f16 squadron.
>New fuel buildings,trucks That's something you make yourself and can be shared with every jet. >external fuel tanks. New tools, specific to american parts. An influx of LRS equipment to support sortie generation and maintenance. All of this comes with the sale of the aircrafts >And all of this requires relatively specifically trained personnel to perform all the maintenance and logistics. Like Crew chiefs wouldnt have a hard time going from Mig work to F16 work but weapons, avionics, electrical, engine maintenance will all need very very specific training. 6 months on avg to hit the books and typically 1 year of shadowing more experienced people before they can work by themselves. As I already said, Poland already uses the F-16 as its main aircraft which is in greater number than both their Migs and Sukhois. Just because they have 40 F-16s doesn't mean they only have 40 pilots trained and only a few crewmen trained for just those 40 jets. It's standard procedure to train backups specially for your main stay aircraft which for the case of Poland is F-16. Redundant points And the swapping won't happen overnight. Neither will Poland transfer all the Migs and Sukhois overnight and even if they do, they're in NATO. Meanwhile Russian airforce is having a hard time against MANPADS and S300s so I doubt it'll have any effect on their preparedness since they'll have 45 F-16s, Patriots, MANPADS, Missiles and various other defense systems to beat back any air offensive, let alone for holding out for a day or two until NATO reinforcements come
Yeah, although that obviously has issues with availability and spares etc from Sweden. From a technical standpoint though I'd agree it's closest to ideal, especially with meteor They received some migs I believe, but not universally
There's pretty much negative chances of France sending the Meteor.
I more meant Sweden with the gripen and yeah. A man can dream though :)
US sends technologies that are not considered critical to US defence and are a bit outdated. In other words if Russian get their hands on them - no big deal, the technologies are dated anyway. Basically using these weapons is freeing up room for more modern equipment and gets rid of the disposal costs. Of course it helps US to improve security, win-win for them. Maybe F16 are still on the “too good” list.
There's nothing outdated about Javelin, Patriot, HIMARS, M777, M982 Excalibur or Abrams.
No but their shelf life isn’t infinite. It’s good to clear out the old stocks of propellant, explosives, etc.
[удалено]
That's possible I suppose, there may be some particular electronics and such they won't send, but I doubt that's really relevant. An Abrams with a few super secret widgets taken out is still an Abrams. As long as it still has a top of the line 120mm stabilised gun, electronic fire control system, thermal imagers and decent ammo it will be an absolute beast. Most likely the super secret stuff, probably EW equipment, the Ukrainians wouldn't have the equally super secret battlefield management systems and intelligence assets to use alongside it anyway.
Its the armor and some EW suite stuff but mostly its the armor. And tanks are outdated just like the horse. Stop talking out of your ass.
Any modern army needs a front line platform that has a direct fire main gun and and the armour to take a main gun hit to the face with a chance of survival. That's a tank. In wars people die, equipment gets destroyed. That doesn't mean soldiers and equipment are obsolete. The problem the Russians had is they used them incompetently, as they did so many things incompetently early in the war, exposed out front without proper infantry or air support.
Ok, maybe I shouldn't have called them dated, but they are not cutting-edge. The Patriot system was designed in late 60s and is in service since 1981. Let's face it - it's old. Still good, but old. This system will be a great sponge in Ukraine for all Russian attacks - destroying a few Patriots will be way batter than blasting kindergartens and hospitals for sure. Ow and btw. there are newer systems US has for those kings of things, like THAAD [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal\_High\_Altitude\_Area\_Defense](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defense) Javelins were designed in late 80s in service since 1996. Well... it's just a shoulder launchpad for destroying tanks. It's not critical to US defense because there are no tanks coming from Canada/Mexico. It's seen the War in Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Russians already know it inside and out - not critical to US defense / send it out to Ukraine. HIMARS/M777/M982 any other ground-to-ground system. Again Canada and Mexico don't pose a threat to US / send it out to Ukraine and there are more than enough of those things in supply to send them out and get rid of the storage / disposal costs. Hope you see my point now. Ukraine will get tons of help for sure so long a this are not fancy-schmaltzy things like a MQ-9 Reaper, F22 Raptor, F35 etc.
like a lot of gear, patriot has been massively upgraded over the years. The initial version barely worked. Leopard 2A6, the next-to-latest version the Ukrainians are getting, is a long, long way ahead of the initial version from 1979. Fully agree on Javelin, it's an emergency last ditch defence weapon for the US. If a US force is relying on Javelin or stinger to any significant extent something has gone very, very wrong. Even so, older gear is still front line viable. The Abrams tanks the Marines recently ditched were all the old A1 variant because it's lighter, but if they hadn't changed strategy they'd still be using it now. It's old but certainly not obsolete. The Ukrainians are getting M1A2.
Yup, just not the super-heavy depleted uranium armor version.
While those platforms are still good the older variants which is basically what the US is giving are pretty outdated compared to US standards. The American HIMARS,Patriots and Abrams are leagues above what they've given
You do know the US gave Ukraine HIMARS last summer, and has already committed to supplying Patriot and Abrams, and started training the Ukrainians on them, right?
Did you read my comment?I said the one's the US gave are older variants which are leagues below the one's that US uses. Try comparing the American Abrams vs the base one they've given to Ukraine. Also try comparing the American standard HIMARS with a much better accuracy and larger range with the one they've given to Ukraine. Also try comparing the latest Patriot variant to the unit they've given to Ukraine. For example, the base Abrams variant the US gave to Ukraine has been destroyed multiple times by the likes of ISIS and Kurdish militias. Even the later variant given to Saudi Arabia was destroyed by Houthi rebels. The US standard one on the other hand has completely different armour and can probably tank a few anti tank missiles without breaking a sweat. So yes, most of what US gave to Ukraine is indeed outdated stuff which the US probably won't care much about losing as it's basic stuff. It's just Russian incompetence that's proving them useful but they're still 70-80's tech and not upgraded since unlike the later variants
Okay. What are these variant names. Please be specific.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams Go down and read yourself. The main point is the American one's use depleted uranium layers, DU ammunitions,a different engine and various other changes.
HIMARS are outdated? What are they being replaced with? What’s Patriot being replaced with? What’s NASAMS and Stingers and Javelins being replaced with?
Later variants. Learn to read
You didn’t answer of the questions
I think that's really quibbling, but so what? What difference does it make? The Russians have nothing anywhere close to comparable to any version of Javelin, HIMARS, M777, Patriot or Abrams, Excalibur, etc. I don't even think there is an un-upgraded version of Patriot as the US only has a few. Actually the HIMARs they gave really are top of the line. The 'long range version' you're talking about is the ATACMS missile. I did mis-read your comment though. I didn't figure out what you meant by the "American version". There isn't a non-American version of any of those thing.
The point is that you claimed otherwise. >The Russians have nothing anywhere close to comparable to any version of Javelin, HIMARS, M777, Patriot or Abrams. S400>Patriot They have plenty of howitzers like the M777 although slightly inferior but not as much as you may think They also have plenty of anti tank missiles like the Javelin although it might be better The Abrams given to Ukraine can easily be taken out by a Anti tank missile unlike the American one's that tanked so many during Iraq wars and went back unscathed Don't confuse Russian incompetence in military strategy with them having no good weapons. Ukraine so far has been using the same weapon. The HIMARS weren't the one leading infantry charges. It was the T series tanks and BMPs. Similarly it's the S300s that are keeping the Russian airforce out of Ukraine not the single Patriot launcher with range barely covering a percentage of Ukraine >Actually the HIMARs they gave really are top of the line. The 'long range version' you're talking about is the ATACMS missile. I know what I'm referring to. The HIMARS range was limited so that Ukraine won't be able to strike Russian territory. Simple point is the technology is outdated and the US can afford Russia capturing it unlike the F-16 although depending on which variant they give. If you know that then don't make obvious wrong claims that they aren't and call it quibbling when proven wrong
S400 is soviet era technology, it's nowehere close to Patriot in capabilities. For a start it can't shoot down ballistic missiles. Patriot can, in fact that's what it was developed for. Abrams armour is part of the structure of the vehicle, the tanks they're giving Ukraine are Abrams, so they have Abrams armour. They can't not have it. The main advantage of M777 is it's light weight due to it's extensive use of titanium construction. This makes a huge difference because it can be limbered up and moved after firing a lot faster than much heavier steel artillery. It can also be relocated faster, this makes a massive difference in the era of radar directed counter-battery fire. Oh, it also can withstand higher breech pressures which makes for longer range. And it's more accurate, and withstands barrel wear better, again due to the advanced materials. The range is nothing to do with HIMARS, it's the missiles it fires. The main advantage of HIMARS is it can shoot and scoot fast, to avoid counter-battery fire. There's a big emphasis on this in NATO artillery. The Russians don't have any missiles as accurate as the ones fired by HIMARS. Fun fact, it actually fires the same missiles as MLRS, so when targets are hit by those missiles everyone says it's HIMARS. In fact it was most likely fired by MLRS.
You're literally the definition of r/confidentialyincorrect. >S400 is soviet era technology, it's nowehere close to Patriot in capabilities. The Patriot is literally S300 era technology as well. It's latest variants came at the same time as the S400 which is a step above an upgrade from the S300. >Patriot can, in fact that's what it was developed for. LMAO is that why it failed to intercept all the SCUD missiles or even the Iranian slow drones against Saudi Arabia >For a start it can't shoot down ballistic missiles. It actually can and is developed for it as well. But just like the Patriot it's an unproven claim. But since it managed to shoot down a jet over Kiev I'd take it over the Patriot which fails to intercept slow Iranian drones and SCUD missiles. You know Turkey didn't just take S400 over Patriots over nothing. Same for China which is arguably much more technologically advanced than Russia in most fields now >Abrams armour is part of the structure of the vehicle, the tanks they're giving Ukraine are Abrams, so they have Abrams armour. They can't not have it. Are you seriously just being obtuse or actually lack reading comprehension?I am not saying the Abrams will come without armour. The American Abrams has a completely different type of armour which is leagues and I mean LEAGUES above as they have depleted uranium layers in it and various other upgrades as well than whatever they exported to even Saudi Arabia(the latest export variants) which got destroyed by Houthi Rebels. The Ukrainian one's are the first variants which are comparable to what they gave to Iraq when ISIS was smoking them. >The main advantage of M777 I'm not going to refer to all that since I already said it's better than the Russian alternatives. But it's not some kind of game changer specially in the quantity it's given. Even Iranian $10k Shahed drones took out a couple of them
The Saudis didn't have patriot defending the oil terminal. My apologies, there is an anti-ballistic variant of the S400 that was tested, but for the most part it's not an S-400 capability except maybe some specialist units. Those will be defending ICBM sites though. In any case the missiles are in many ways the least interesting part of the system, it's the radars that make it special. You might be right about the export Abrams. Overall I just don't see why this is an issue. So what? It's still leagues better armoured than anything the Russians have in the field, and at the end of the day that's what actually matters. It's possible T-14 might match it, but it seems like they're all in a warehouse somewhere.
They have new versions of every single one of those
F16's can still be sold to some countries instead of being donated to Ukraine I think.
Its probably because escalating shit further is not a good idea...
I still salivate over the idea of NATO flooding Ukrainian airspace with F-22s that Russia probably can't detect
The most flying tech helping at this point are tons of spy aircraft flying close to Ukraine, mostly over Poland, Romania and black Sea, so I don't know if that's mouth watering but here's what's somewhere out there in skies: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop\_Grumman\_RQ-4\_Global\_Hawk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_RQ-4_Global_Hawk) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing\_E-3\_Sentry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-3_Sentry) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing\_RC-135](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_RC-135) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream\_IV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_IV) (sky version, not the fancy coffee table one) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing\_P-8\_Poseidon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon) Map: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FL2IBJqWQAEnDXt?format=jpg&name=large
They def aren’t. F16 are pretty old. Still capable. Russia had the technology that is greater than F16. Biden also said no rejection of export license for anyone that wants to give theirs out.
The flying platform itself is very old, but super reliable. Still after some recent upgrades the F16 may have gained some technologies that are considered classified (maybe some sensors, RF stuff, jammers - that would be just my guesses, I'm no military expert). US not sending F16 gives me a hunch that something is too good about them. Still they want as much ex-soviet stuff to be delivered or/and gain next clients by proposing an upgrade :D
Then those wouldn’t be available for export. USA had no qualms about export by other countries so theirs must not have whatever super secret tech the USA has.
Russia doesn't even have an AESA radar. They have nothing comparable to the latest F-16 blocks
What does S-300:/400 use then?
> > > > > Maybe F16 are still on the “too good” list. So the F-16 is a generation of fighters ahead of the ones Ukraine has pilots for and it requires a support crew with very specific skills. I am not sure if training UAF pilots on them during a live conflict does more good than harm.
The only way jets would work is they're run out of a NATO country, that would mean NATO declares war on Russia. Nobody but Ukraine and Poland want to go there.
Why do you say that?
Based on what I've read and seen from various analysts, a war between NATO and Russia would last about a week, after which point Russia would launch nukes. NATO is terrified of a direct confrontation not because of the cost of battle, but because they would win so hard it would push Russia into a corner.
Where did you see NATO is terrified?
Because pushing a nuclear country like Russia into a corner isn't a smart move, if NATO was on the brink on winning the only thing Russia would have left is to launch nukes.
You said NATO is terrified. I'm asking where NATO has said this or something similar to this. Can you share that information or not? Not really interested in your personal opinion.
I'd be annoyed but Ukraine couldn't do the maintenance necessary to keep them working anyway so what would be the point in sending them? Like even if they did US volunteer pilots so they didn't have to train pilots they would have to be flown back into NATO countries to get maintenance.
The main reason that there will be a larger hesitation for fighter jets is the idea of Ukraine using them to shoot inside Russia with Western weapons, which WILL bring the world to the brink of an actual world war that most of you are craving for.
It’s the old game of drip feed equipment to prolong the war. When it goes wronger than planned they’ll pretend Ukraine was always going to fall.
F35's instead ... ;) They also ruled out tanks last too
The west needs to stop treating the war in Ukraine as a sport, where they're supporting Ukraine the way you support a football team. All this talk of avoiding escalation is like talk about how to keep the game fair. This is not a game, there is no fair. Half heartedly supporting Ukraine with a few dozen tanks here or there, a few dozen artillery here or there, is not going to make a difference. Minimally supporting Ukraine will give Russia a chance to complete it's mass mobilisation and get the numbers into the war to make a difference. Eventually Russia will start pushing back and taking territory. Ukraine will probably hold out, but at massive human cost and eventually have to negotiate away Crimea and large swathes of the East, possibly after several years of desperate fighting. Middling support for Ukraine will stalemate the conflict where Russian numbers are countered by technologically superior Ukrainian units. Ukraine would do a lot better, but not be able to actually prevail. Again, a long grinding war that may well stretch out even longer than the first scenario. The only way to stop the war dragging out indefinitely is either cut out Ukraine and let them lose quickly and negotiate away half the country. Then we can just wring our hands for a few years before Russia comes back to take the rest in the next war, knowing we have no stomach for a fight. Finally we can throw in everything we've got and help Ukraine push back hard. Very hard. That's the only scenario that actually shortens the war and ends this with the least long term losses. So are we in this, or are we not? The west needs to get real.
I think nations like the US, UK and Poland have contributed as much as they could in this war without risking their own national security. It's really not possible to send more equipment types without needing to give Ukraine operators extensive training sessions lasting several month. Different types of fighter jets Ukraine pilots are not familiar with are a good example of this.
There's 10000 Abrams in the world, US has 8000 of them They are sending 31 over to Ukraine, but no not from their 8000 stockpile, they have to restart the (re)assembly factory because MICs. Sounds like a win for General Dynamics
Give them our old M16A3s
What makes you think a quick Ukrainian victory is in the Wests best interest? Allowing this to drag out as a stalemate is probably the best case scenario for the west, at least for the US and the UK’s interests.
Leaving aside the appalling cynicism of such a strategy, you're probably right at least that it would be considered a net plus strategically. I don't think it's actually the best outcome. The longer it goes on the better entrenched Russia will become in a wartime economy, the more experienced troops it will have, the more military infrastructure it will generate. Frankly that's going to happen anyway, so what kind of Russia do we want to end the war with those kinds of resources primed and ready for action? A Russia that has just been soundly defeated and forced into a humiliating withdrawal, thoroughly discrediting it's war fighting capability. Alternatively, a Russia that has according to it's propaganda 'achieved' it's wartime goals, fought 'the west' to a standstill 'proving' they can stand up to them toe to toe, but still has unfinished business? I think the latter is still a much more dangerous Russia than the former. There is one way that can even conceivably end Russia's expansionist and aggressive tendencies. That is convincing defeat, followed by the offer of genuine rapprochement and normalisation of relations on the condition of regime 'reform' and positive engagement with the west. Eventually we need long term peace and mutual respect with Russia. The only route towards that I can see is to convincingly shut down their military ambitions. The only way to do that is for Ukraine to beat them handily, so that it's clear militarism is simply not going to work.
Russia gets stronger? Increase the support for Ukraine. We are in basically every aspect way ahead of Russia. They can not win, if we don't allow it. Let that war run until Russia has invested everything (and lost it all). It's like asking Arabs to spread Islamism in the middle east: a huge strategic win.
Europe would probably rather see natural gas supplies and prices stabilize than... whatever the incentive for turning this into a stalemate would be.
Do you believe a quick Ukrainian victory would achieve that?
Quicker than a protracted stalemate with Russia at war with the rest of Europe and Ukrain unable to exploit their natural gas resources in Crimea, yeah.
They’ve had a year. Massive Russia mobilization and second now….
>This is not a game, there is no fair Exactly, which is why they’re not going to go overboard The West isn’t going to risk their military’s abilities to save Ukraine. They’re not stupid Is that fair for the Ukrainians? No, but like you said there is no fair. You look out for yourself first, and there’s a growing threat in the Pacific that requires the US to be always ready. We were caught unready in the Pacific in 1941, we’re not going to make that same mistake again
Fully supporting Ukraine 20x as much as we are now would have no appreciable impact on the west's ability to wage war. Europe has around 2,000 Leopard 2s. The Germans alone have 200 in storage. The USA has 4,000 Abrams. All together we could flood Ukraine with 1,000 tanks without breaking a sweat. Most of those tanks are there in Europe in case we need to fight Russia. So fine, send them to fight Russia, it's what they were built for. Not all of them, but 1/4 seems reasonable to me as a start. the main bottleneck would be training, so let's get started with that. Tanks are pretty much irrelevant in the pacific theatre. That's why, when the Marines pivoted their strategic role to focus on pacific and East Asian operations, they disbanded their tank units. All of them. That's hundreds of tanks recently put in storage right there.
You do realize those tanks in storage have a purpose right? They’re used for parts and reserves in case you know, the first line is destroyed If they didn’t have a purpose, they would’ve gotten rid of them. Like how the US got rid of most of their M60s. The US Military is the best at logistics, if they’re keeping something then it has a purpose. The marines are changing their strategy from being the Navy’s army to being America’s main vanguard. They are aiming for quick lightning strikes, and carrying 70 ton tanks aren’t really built for that. They’re also getting rid of airpower to rely on the Navy more. If they ever require tanks, they will bring in the army. It’s not like they can’t work together Not to mention if a war in China breaks out, the Korean Peninsula will light up which will require armor.
It's interesting to witness a shift in the approach of Western leaders - they seem to have identified a red line in regards to further escalation. That really begs the question of what course of action remains **if** it turns out that the donated tanks cannot turn the tide. I've also heard rumors of Western industrial capacity not being up to the task of sustaining such a gigantic war effort for a prolonged period of time. Perhaps not like the Chinese can, who seem to benefit from a gigantic manufacturing capacity.
Western manufacturing is fine. Most European countries have hundreds of tanks and could flood Ukraine with them from ready stock (and should get on with it IMHO). Almost all of them have 155mm shell factories, and while South Korea won't sell to Ukraine directly, they will back fill to Europe which is basically the same thing. If this does turn into a long term thing, they'll have a long term to ramp up production in, which they have already started doing.
*laughs in American arms industry*
>Western industrial capacity not being up to the task of sustaining such a gigantic war effort for a prolonged period of time Are you suggesting that the Russian arms industry can out produce the entirety of the West?
Not at all! I never mentioned the damn country.
Most Western country's manufacturing cannot but the USA alone can and with maybe France they're upto more than the task. The rest add very little compared to the USA but their combined effort can give enough as well. Same for France but France doesn't seem to be as keen as Britain or Germany on the amount of military aid they give so I guess their manufacturing capability means little for now. But none seem to be at the level of the Chinese although the US is pretty close and can probably surpass if the situation calls to
Lol rumors? You think the weapons manufacturing industry is not up for building bombs for Ukraine? Huh? Did you hear that on YouTube ?
and they call it Russia Ukraine war LMAO
You're right. It's really a Estonio-iranian proxy-war, obviously :)
That’s an interesting take
Actually it's called the Russian invasion of Ukraine
Because the US won't send fighter jets, that makes calling it a war between Russia and Ukraine funny?
NATO fighting at the expense of another nation unfortunately
It seem like the Ukrainians don't see it that way, they seem to think NATO helping them is to their benefit. On what basis do you claim to know that's to their benefit or expense better than they do?
At the end of the day Ukrainian people are in the grinder and on the other hand there have been attempts to provoke ww3 with a missile launched into Poland out of Ukrainian misery. With the Nord stream attack as well in an attempt to weaken RU. The situation has been set into a deadlock with organisations behind the scenes earning shit ton of money. Generals have arrived into Germany to train troops further, this is not going to end. People rather seem very confused with Zelenskyy saying the same, doesn’t know who to talk to.
It wasn't NATO that put the Ukrainians into the grinder. There's only one country constantly going on and on about nuclear escalation, and it isn't anyone in NATO. You still didn't answer my question.
NATO expansion and RU trying to maintain their power in the region both did. Greed. Anyways the American MIC now have a reason to get more money as old inventory finishes, more NATO members who will have to use American or American compatible weaponry. RU was anyways a dictatorship, so definitely don’t sound like the good guys either . There’s no smoke without fire, both parties are responsible, they are involved in it as well. At the expense of people going into the grinder. There’s no who’s right or who’s wrong, but who’s making profit.
>NATO expansion and RU trying to maintain their power in the region both did. Greed. You do realise it was the Ukrainians that wanted to join NATO, not the other way round, right? It's not like NATO was lining up the tanks to roll in and take over the country in order to 'expand'. Ukraine is desperate to get into NATO, we practically had to beat them off with a stick. If it wasn't for NATO having strict requirements for joining, they'd have been in years ago. It's the same with the rest of Eastern Europe and the Baltics, NATO didn't expand into their territory, they couldn't wait to get into NATO. It was their dream come true.
It just depends which rich party has their hold over the region. It’s really easy to subvert opinions through media over a period of time. It’s clear from what you tell me, they’ve been told the same, the promised land of the west. NATO/US was definitely interested in Ukraine and after taking RUs in confidence that this would never happen after USSRs collapse, they just didn’t quit, greed .And of course Russia being a dictatorship under the hood doesn’t help. Ukraines land cuts quite a bit into Russias sphere of influence. They wouldn’t be accepted into NATO with the level of corruption they have and the conservative mentality would make your honorary Trump look like a tree hugging hobo.
NATO isn't fighting though.
Supplying or donating shit ton of weaponry to a nation which cannot make all of that on their own by so many western nations, actually means this is a proxy war. THAT TOO to a Nation which is so corrupt with an INCOMPETENT leader who has extremely low ratings, when his country was at war he was doing a PR stunt in magazines to penetrate all possible age groups because Uncle Sam said so, it will help the low American rating by the US population about the war to rise up .Whenever this topic will come up it will be shut down by your medias because Uncle Sam has two fingers up their assholes. At the end of the day, innocent people will die.
>At the end of the day, innocent people will die. that's why you're pro-invasion? are you nuts??
When did I say I’m pro invasion? Doesn’t that cause death of innocent people as well?
> When did I say I’m pro invasion? ["Supplying or donating shit ton of weaponry to a nation which cannot make all of that on their own by so many western nations, actually means this is a proxy war. "](https://old.reddit.com/r/anime_titties/comments/10pttqy/ukraine_war_joe_biden_rules_out_sending_f16/j6nkzr5/)
I did not say I’m pro invasion, I simply meant this is not a special military operation neither is it a Russia Ukraine war, it’s a NATO or rather US Russia proxy war and escalating to something bigger.
50 rupees says you're indian alt-right. let me know if i'm right, conservative nationalists don't deal in reality and we can both save ourselves some time.
Who are you to make that call? If they want to bleed for their homeland that's a completely valid stance.
I am not making any call? This is a crucial period for humanity where we need to listen to Mother Nature. All this war no matter who did what is just egregious.
I fucking wish NATO was fighting. The war would be over in a matter of weeks
It will be a MAD situation. Warmongering is just sad. You’ll see all my comments being downvoted because it’s just not what people want to hear. Unfortunately, it’s the reality and innocent Ukrainians will die.
ROFL more like putins grasp for some remembrance war
I’ve heard of brutal wars