bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
As he correctly points out, Easter Ukraine is a VERY flat and VERY open landscape. This will quickly turn into classic WWI style drudge trench warfare unless either side establishes air dominance.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Russia/Ukraine conflict
- Thread starter amolina
- Start date
As he correctly points out, Easter Ukraine is a VERY flat and VERY open landscape. This will quickly turn into classic WWI style drudge trench warfare unless either side establishes air dominance.
sundaymorning
Active Member
From my angle sending US made jet fighters to Ukraine is off the table for various reasons:
1 Ukrainians are not trained in utilizing American made jets. It would take years to train Ukrainians to operate them efficiently. Even high tech surface to air missile systems like the Patriot will take a ton of time to train, and once out on the field takes a lot of time for the system to read the terrain and set up. The system itself will need a ton of military support and to defend, it’s not as simple as putting the mechanics on the field and calling it a day, these systems work in coordination with other systems and our military personnel put hundreds of hours in training to operating/maintaining them. Additionally, when you put these systems into the hands of Ukrainians, you run the risk of their military being overrun and put into Russian hands.
2 Right now all high powered military weapon should be utilize to protect NATO borders, simply put Ukraine isn’t a part of NATO, they don’t get the good stuff when other NATO countries want them. You want to know why Poland was so eager to hand over those migs to Ukraine? It’s because those migs needed a lot of parts to repair, and Poland wants our F-15s in exchange.
3 There are red lines drawn on both sides (US/Russia), that neither side dares to cross in fear that it would lead to a world war. Sending US made jets will give Putin more ammunition to sell this war to his people and up the state propaganda.
The longer this war drags out, the lower troop morale Russians will face, which reduces Putin’s options to attack other NATO countries and triggering WW3. If you think 400 innocent women and children dying in Ukraine is bad, ask yourself how would 30-50 million lives lost in a WW3 scenario feel like, this is if nukes aren’t used. Both Russia and the US has enough nukes to destroy and extinct this planet 10 times over, are you willing to take that risk by sending jets to Ukraine? Ukraine’s military is doing fine with the current ammunition we’re providing them, as this war drags on, NATO will continue to push more support and technology into Ukraine, but at this point, I doubt any jets will be sent in from the West as they’re being put on standby along the NATO borders in case Putin decides to cross that line.
Last edited:
Terminator857
Active Member
Ukraine air force estimates two weeks.
We have 4K F16's sitting in storage. Lets send a steady stream to Ukraine.
Lots stop peeing in our pants over nothing.
Putin won't last long when we adequately supply Ukraine.
sundaymorning
Active Member
A no fly zone without military intervention is an oxymoron. In order to implement a “no fly zone” US troops would need to be sent in (which means boots on the ground), our boys would need to setup its Patriot missile system, map out the terrain and teach the system to read its surroundings, our jets will need to also be sent in to enforce the no fly zone rule is being followed. Then lastly, our military will need to hunt down Russian bases and shoot down any threat that crosses into its stated no fly zone. “A no fly zone” is in essence a declaration of war, WW3 will soon follow if the Us declares a no fly zone should Putin choose to not pull back his troops.
Looking at the various Maxar sat photos and also the videos of Russian convoys moving southwards and westwards in the Donbass they appear to have learnt tactical spacing. I think these links below will work. Also the Russians appear to have a rather substantial amount of kit and their behaviour is apparently more co-ordinated. The Ukraine has a tough fight on its hand here.
War latest: Pope Francis calls for Easter ceasefire – as it happened
Alexander Dvornikov has record of brutality against civilians in Syria, say US officials; Zelenskiy praise comes after Germany said it would stop using Russian oil and coal by the end of the yearwww.theguardian.com
I note all those vehicles have the 'V' symbol which is used by the airborne forces, which are more elite than the general army units. From
UAWarData
there is two VDV combat units in that region, the 51st Guards Airborne Regiment and the 137th Guards Airborne Regiment. Each with about 1 BTG strength.
It sounds like Rheinmetall is converting Marder IFVs into Marder light tanks. Though the Marders are so old it might take that long just to rehab the IFVs.
Conversion to any western weapon system that requires a lot of maintenance is not going to happen while the Ukrainians are repelling Russian offensives. All the Ukrainian troops and mechanics are fully engaged in stopping the Russian advances. If this settles down into a static war of attrition they may be able to spare the mechanics to train on how to maintain western equipment. They probably won't be getting the most sophisticated stuff, instead it will likely be simpler weapons which are easier to maintain.
The US gave around 140 M-1 Abrams to Iraq before pulling out. As part of the deal contractors from the US would train Iraqis to maintain them and do the maintenance until the Iraqis were ready. In December 2017 the contractors were suddenly withdrawn without warning and all the Abrams fell into disrepair shortly afterwards. ISIS captured a few, but those that weren't taken out by US airstrikes quickly broke down. Some pro-Iranian militias also took over some of the Abrams, but they broke down or were knocked out too.
You can claim the Ukrainians are more competent and motivated than the Iraqis, which is probably true, but the Iraqis had years to learn how to maintain the tanks with only a low level conflict going on. The Ukrainians are in a fight for the existence of the country with the entire population mobilized. They don't have time to learn.
Most Ukrainian vehicle losses to date (both destroyed and captured) have been in the Donbas region. The terrain makes the tactics that worked so well in the north much more difficult.
The Ukrainians are overly optimistic about using western jets. They have pilots available, but they don't have mechanics with the free time to learn how to maintain western jets. The US has an F-16 conversion training for pilots of other aircraft (almost all trained on US or other NATO aircraft). It takes 20 months of full time enrollment to train to be a jet engine mechanic for the F-16. For maintenance of other systems the training usually runs 18-24 months full time.
Even if they cram the courses down to the bare minimum it will likely take 6 months to just begin to get the mechanics up to speed. If we gave them F-16s now, they would end up flying for a few days and then go down for maintenance where they will become targets on the ground until the mechanics are ready.
Giving Ukrainians F-16s now is like making the down payment on an expensive car for someone and saddling them with crushing car payments. Trying to come up to speed on maintenance would likely do more harm than good.
Scrape the world for Russian jets the Ukrainians know how to maintain and make deals to send them to Ukraine. That's the best course of action until Ukraine has the time to train up on western jets.
Terminator857
Active Member
Do we really need 20 months of training for a jet that is going to last two weeks?
sundaymorning
Active Member
Ukrainians will say anything to get their hands on our fighter jets. Having 4,000 doesn’t mean much when the other side has likely drawn a red line that sending in Jets could mean a small nuke being deployed. This is a trap to get NATO involved with boots on the ground. As soon as those nukes go off, the probability of WW3 escalates. This is exactly what Ukraine wants, the weaker side always wants to sucker the stronger side into backing them. At this point in time, we have to avoid crossing that red line, and let things play out until there is no other option.
I wonder if Serbia is acting as a conduit for China to supply arms to Russia?
sundaymorning
Active Member
An F15 cost $80 million a piece, a pilot shot down during war is nearly priceless as training takes years to replace. The training process is rigorous, even a healthy quarterback athlete will fail the physical attribute needed to become a fighter pilot. Whereas sending stingers costing $40k each is much more efficient. Remember that this is a war, which means it’s a long long grind it out game, economics is involved just as much as will power, ammunition, etc. Although 4,000 jets seem like a lot, but when they take 6-18 months to produce, you want to hang onto everyone of them to support your troops and NATO. Having jets is just one part of the equation, the Ukrainians will also need lots of backup support that they just don’t have.
sundaymorning
Active Member
You won’t have to worry, we have our military and intelligence looking into this. If supplies are coming from China, they’ll know. After battles, the Ukrainian military will assess the battlefield and send the US a few equipment found on the field for studies, reverse engineering, etc. Especially if that equipment is considered valuable, like hypersonic missile parts. Nowadays, the military can determine which part of the world/country a particular chip, bomb comes from.
The Ukrainians are still flying some of the MiGs they had on day 1 of this conflict. An unmaintained F-16 will be flyable for about 2 days. Military aircraft require constant maintenance to remain flyable.
This discussion reminds me of the discussions that we've had on this forum about putting solar panels on the roof of a Model S and having free energy to drive the car for life. The problem is the Physics of solar panels would only allow for a small fraction of the energy needed to drive the car.
The problem here is the physical logistics of keeping complex war machines operating. There are military vehicles and aircraft that were specifically designed for export that require less maintenance to keep operational. They are less capable but the Ukrainians would have a good chance of being able to learn to maintain them fairly quickly.
Some systems require essentially no maintenance, or very minimal maintenance. That's why the Ukrainians are getting flooded with portable missiles. They are also getting lots of commercial drones, body armor, small arms, and other smaller items.
One thing the US military has excelled at in the last 100 years is logistics. NATO has also learned the US' tricks. The countries allied to the US are giving the Ukrainians almost everything they can think of that the Ukrainians can use now. A few things have run into political problems like the MiGs, but the rest are pipe dreams the Ukrainians can't learn to use in time.
Those 4000 are also in mothballs. It takes about a week to mothball a fighter, and a few weeks to take one out and bring it back into service.
The US was tried to work a deal for the Polish MiGs that would involve the Polish getting a batch of F-16s intended for Taiwan that were ready to go. The US may be rehabbing some F-16s in case there are some other deals to be made, but it will take some time to get them ready to fly.
Terminator857
Active Member
Sounds like a Rusky talking.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Sounds like someone who doesn't want WW III.
All the guys who want to escalate the war - answer this.
What should NATO do if Russia nukes Kiev ?
At this point the best option for NATO is to help Ukraine with intelligence and defensive arms - esp. anti-aircraft and anti-tank.
Terminator857
Active Member
EVNow
Well-Known Member
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Absolutely.
Basically all these guys advocating escalation want NATO to play chicken with Putin and they assume Putin will continuously blink - because he is not "suicidal".
Hardliners in Russia might advocate exactly the same thing - let us escalate in Ukraine because NATO is not "suicidal".
And ofcourse the escalation advocates (on this site and in news channels) have zero responsibility for the result of the escalation. If Russia responds in kind they would want further escalation or all they can muster is - "Ooops".
Never ever listen to war-mongers who have absolutely nothing to lose. Look at all those Iraq war hawks - they didn't pay anything for advocating for a war that has killed a million people.
sundaymorning
Active Member
I bet you most people here have no idea of something called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Both the US and Russia have thousands of nukes aimed at each other to ensure that if one country fires nukes at the other, a phase 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. return fire will send a minimum of 3-5 nukes to each city, destroying, life as you know it. It won’t matter who fires the first shot, both countries as well as Europe will be wiped out. As for the rest of the world, the thousands of nukes automatically set off by MAD will cause all kinds of radiation. This is extinction level stuff, and we don’t want to box Putin in to the point where he feels like he no longer has anything to lose.
The difference between inexperienced boys and grown intellectual men is that one does not assume to know what the other person is thinking.
Ignorance is bliss.
Last edited:
_Redshift_
Member
It is not just the radiation. Many simulations have found that the nuclear winter triggered by even a small scale (think 200) nukes will hit the plant life really hard.
I think it would likely plunge the world into a glaciation period that would likely last 90,000 years.
I do agree that escalating the arms to Ukraine is playing, excuse the pun, Russian roulette with the entire planet.
Just after arguing that the Ukrainians can't learn to maintain western equipment in time, I came across this from the master of logistics Trent Telenko
Thread by @TrentTelenko on Thread Reader App
This is to say logistically it's possible to use private contractors, but politically it may not be.
