Can Ukraine sustain its F-16 fleet if Trump halts US aid? (kyivindependent.com)

submitted 1 week ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/ukraine@sopuli.xyz

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] elucubra@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Short answer: yes. Long answer: yes.

BTW, F16s are not as the article says 5th gen fighters. They are 4th gen, and early blocks at that. they are almost discards. They are obsolete fighters that are being replaced by modern fighters by the nations donating them. There is no goody goodness here. Ukraine is being used to use up old stock to replenish with shinier stuff.

Have European countries sent Eurofighters, or Rafales, or Leopards 2A6s? Hmmm....

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 64 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There is no goody goodness here.

Those F-16 fighters could have been sold instead of giving them away.
I'm from Denmark, and I find it absolutely disgusting that you try to diminish our help to Ukraine in that way.
The delivery of those planes required a lot of training and preparations, and we are also helping with maintenance. And I expect other donor countries are doing the same.
Ukraine wanted these fighters very much, and they have actively saved Ukrainian lives. Shooting down Russian missiles.

Yes the fact that F-16 is being replaced makes it easier to give them to Ukraine, as replacements are already ordered.
But the thing is, the stuff we give to Ukraine needs to be available relatively quickly. And something not made yet cannot be quickly delivered.
Denmark also gave Ukraine all of our bran new artillery direct from factories in France.
Ukraine is definitely not just receiving old discarded shit. And although F-16 is old, it's not obsolete, especially not to defend against Russian equipment.

So please piss off with such offensive comments.

[-] ZMonster@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

[-] killea@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

Additionally, F-16s are good 4th gen fighters, and can still launch standoff weapons with proper setup. Russia really only has 4th gen fighters anyways. Maintaining them is dependent on availability of parts and mechanical skill, which I cannot speak to, but hope it's included somewhere in the aid packages. They are by no means discards. Speaking from my armchair milsim experience (Arma 3 lol) they are still quite advanced with a substantial weapons loadout capability. And I imagine US aircraft carriers still keep some fa/18s and f16s onboard.

[-] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The f-16 ought to be able to go up against anything Russia can field presently.

Ukraine can Buy it’s on f35s when it joins NATO

[-] bluGill@fedia.io -5 points 1 week ago

And something not made yet cannot be quickly delivered.

That is NOT an acceptable excuse when the topic is something used in war. If NATO gets into a world war will will need to go from 150 per year to 150 per day in just a few months (and of course have the ability to train enough people to operate them at similar rates). Your excuse allows the enemy (who ever they are) time to win the war while the rest of us are scaling production instead of fighting.

[-] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago

That is NOT an acceptable excuse

Correct. It's a perfectly logic reason, not an excuse. I'm all in for Ukraine, but giving what you don't yet have instead of what you actually have is just nonsensical.

[-] bluGill@fedia.io -3 points 6 days ago

But we should have all that - or at least t ability to make it fast

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

You know USA has a defense budget about as big as the next 10 biggest military budgets by country combined.
F-35 is made in USA, and even they can't do what you are asking. Having unused production capacity cost money, and yields nothing.
This situation with Russia is completely unheard of since WW2, which ended 79 years ago!
You claim we should have prepared better for a situation everybody tried to avoid except Putin, and almost everybody frankly thought was unthinkable today.

Instead of the insanity you promote, we for instance created EU in Europe, with a specific purpose to help prevent war in Europe.
We have managed to keep the peace on our side, it's only the former Warsaw pact side that has created problems, because they did not have similar goals ingrained in the cooperation between them.

What you propose is one sided heavy military build up and preparedness, and that has historically always ended in war. Warmongering is not a way to keep the peace.
But now we DO have a war by Russia at our doorstep, and we commonly agree Russia needs to be stopped now, or else they will continue.

But that doesn't mean that what you claim we should have done about weapons production was ever justified previous to this situation. Not even when viewed in hindsight. Europe is a force for peace, but not under oppression from Russia, which is a major reason why we help Ukraine.

[-] bluGill@fedia.io -1 points 6 days ago

You don't get to choose when you are attacked. I agree you should work for peace but when that isn't possible you need to be ready for war.

[-] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 2 points 6 days ago

I guess it's your time to create a warfare focused state. With blackjack, and hookers

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It's not an excuse it's reality. We are ALSO ramping up production in Europe to be able to help Ukraine more.
AND we are helping Ukraine with development and produktion in their own weapons industry.

while the rest of us are scaling production instead of fighting.

What is that even supposed to mean? You are rambling and not making any sense.
Are you saying supplying Ukraine with weapons is helping the enemy win? Who is "the rest of us"?
Are you Russian trying to sow discourse?

the enemy (who ever they are)

WTF!! obviously the enemy is Russia.

[-] bluGill@fedia.io 1 points 6 days ago

I'm say that if NATO goes to war we will want 150 f35s per month there fore the debate should be how many f35s to send ukrane up to 150 per month with the ability to supply that many already existing.

similar for most everything else we are sending - we would want a lot more if there was war so we should be able to make them.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

That's unrealistic, it would be nice, but it's impossible.
Do you think it's because the Russians are lazy they can only make a handful of their gen 5 planes per year?

https://simpleflying.com/russian-combat-aircraft-production-rates/

It's estimated they can make about 5 SU-30 and 10 SU-34 per year. Their new jets combined they can make about 2 per month. You are speculating about supplying 150 F-35 to Ukraine per month! But they neither have the pilots or the ground teams for that. And training them from scratch would take many years. There are not enough trainers on the planet to train that many F-35 pilots. There have only been 1000 F-35 built since initial production in 2006!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

With the F-16 we had trainers available to train both pilots and ground teams, and the planes were available too. But even then we had to draw back trainers that were transfered to F-35, which means our own defense is delayed to help Ukraine. It would be best if more countries donated more F-16 and training and maintenance, because it's better regarding logistics, armament, pilots, ground crews and maintenance wise to maintain similar planes instead of different types. And we had an arrangement with Norway and Netherlands to supply enough F-16 to make a difference. Unfortunately it hasn't been followed up by more countries AFAIK.

[-] bluGill@fedia.io 0 points 6 days ago

Go look at wwii aircraft production. If another world war breaks out we will need that much again.

now it may be that ukrain doesn't need that many airplanes. that is a different argument, but it is one we should be having. We can also have the arguement of if we should give them any. How ever that we cannot is not this we can't if we want to is not an argument we should have since there is a chance we will need them.

russia has a different battle plan and doesn't need that many airplanes. Though their inability to produce the artilery they need says they are not able to run their battle plans.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Oh my god, you are doubling down!?
Well we are NOT in WW3 are we?
If we were in WW3, we would transform to a war economy, but newsflash we are NOT.
Russia has transformed to a war economy, and still they can only make 2 advanced planes per month.
Apart from that you cannot compare the complexity of making a modern Jet fighter and a WW2 propeller plane.

[-] bluGill@fedia.io 1 points 6 days ago

We are not today, but you never know when we will be. We need to be prepared or we will lose because we cannot gear up in time - just ask france about that.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago

France spend a lot of effort an resources to prepare, but they did it the wrong way.
What you are proposing is also the wrong way, because we have learned from Ukraine that we need to prioritize differently.
It doesn't help to have a shitload of the wrong weapons. Also you complain that last gen weapons are obsolete, so what you propose would be an insane level of production to constantly keep everything at the newest standard.

Do you understand what I'm saying? What you are proposing is insane!!!

[-] bluGill@fedia.io 1 points 6 days ago

Just because you can produce doesn't mean you have to. I agree building more than you need this year is wrong. However you need the ability to build it