US may send fighter jets to Ukraine

[ESay]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure of that too. The language issue doesn't seem to slow them down much, We've seen them operating the French Caesars, German and Dutch PhZ2000's, M109's from Norway, M270's from the UK, HIMARS from the US, and their own Skif ATGM's in Arabic. The wide variety of IFV's and APC's are all different languages too.

In one of the training videos they just had hand written labels taped next to the controls. Heck, all of my CNC machines use symbols instead of words on the mechanical parts, the programming is it's own language entirely.

A self propelled gun is kind of like an excavator. If you know how to run an excavator, you can run pretty much any excavator even if you can't read the controls. Most of the learning curve for the Ukrainian gunners is about the different math and emplacement routines involved with Western artillery.

What will hurt them is the maintenance and sustainment for all these disparate systems. Using them is one thing, keeping them running in a war is a bigger challenge. They will need to be returned to Western Ukraine or Poland for depot work and the logistics of that, you know...

The authorization for pilot training is $100 Mn in the 2023 NDAA, I suppose we think we can pull some F-16's out of AMARC and whip them into shape, but I think it's a bad idea. JAS-39 Gripen is so much better suited to Ukraine, and a better jet both short and long term.

If the Russians keep shooting down their own jets it won't matter, lol.

Plus the combination of drones, counterbattery, and long range precision fires plugs a lot of the holes created by the lack of close air support, and at lower risk and cost.

Yes, the maintenance of these systems is another issue. I don't know how it will be resolved in short term, but after a while there should be find a way to do that in Ukraine.

I have heard about Gripens. Maybe they are better for Ukraine's realities, I don't know. But what is evident is that Ukraine should switch to NATO standards as soon as possible.

Some estimations emerge that Russia has already lost its offensive potential and it will require an operational pause that will last for months. Some say that it won't even be able to capture the remaining part of the Donbas this year. But the active fighting will resume next year with their goal to capture Odesa and Kharkiv. Well, the time will show.

 

[Ringo]

Relentless Russian bombings were “the closest thing I’ve ever seen to hell,” an American who served several tours of the Middle East said.

'The closest thing I've seen to hell’: U.S. veterans fighting in Ukraine describe heavy losses in the battle against Russia

Relentless Russian bombings were “the closest thing I’ve ever seen to hell,” an American who served several tours of the Middle East said.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Darkwind]

I don't know what you are disagreeing with. I just stated what you did--If a nuke fell on NYC tomorrow, all hell would break loose. Also, it would be no great loss if it fell on NYC.

Well, I took it to mean that the end of mankind would be no great loss. I disagree with that. If it isn't what you meant, My apologies.

Even the loss of NYC would be bad.

 

[Darkwind]

Kicking Russia out of Ukraine does not give Putin cause for using a nuclear weapon on anyone, and it is contrary to Russia's stated nuclear doctrine.

The nuclear taboo works to Russia's favor, and no P5 country has chosen to go nuclear rather than lose the small war.

The best time to end Putin's imperial ambitions is right now. We better not miss this chance.

This sounds absolutely unstable.

Putin will not accept the loss of Ukraine to the United States.

 

[para bellum]

Yes, the maintenance of these systems is another issue. I don't know how it will be resolved in short term, but after a while there should be find a way to do that in Ukraine.

The most complicated ones are the German SPG's for maintenance. The best thing to do is rotate them out with fresh pieces and do the depot work in Poland or Germany. The training was short and intense and focused on getting good with the system, not on maintaining them.

The crews are doing the daily maintenance already, so it's really when they need major work they have to go back to the depot. I also see the numbers going up steadily as more crews are trained up, I think the donor nations are prepared to rotate out equipment as needed.

I have heard about Gripens. Maybe they are better for Ukraine's realities, I don't know. But what is evident is that Ukraine should switch to NATO standards as soon as possible.

The USAF has been trying to unload their A-10's for years, they are chomping at the bit to give them to Ukraine. Your SU-25 drivers could learn the A-10 PDQ. Tell Zelensky when you see him, lol.

That's really what Ukraine needs. They are made to operate in that kind of battlespace and survive. Fast jets can come later, you guys need some ground-pounders. A-10's are the shit.

Some estimations emerge that Russia has already lost its offensive potential and it will require an operational pause that will last for months. Some say that it won't even be able to capture the remaining part of the Donbas this year. But the active fighting will resume next year with their goal to capture Odesa and Kharkiv. Well, the time will show.

Russia has the largest artillery park in the world. No one knows how much ammunition is stockpiled or how much they can produce. And Putin can mobilize a huge army, and cannon fodder or not- they will still be shooting at Ukrainians.

They've made it pretty clear, I think? Novorossiya is the intent.

Ukraine is doing what they need to do, which is show the west that they can use the weapons effectively. But Ukraine also has to show Europe that Ukrainians can win if they are given their full support.

There is a tough winter ahead for Europeans- there will will be complaining. If Ukraine can take back Kherson, that would make a big impact both on European and Ukrainian morale.

 

[para bellum]

Putin will not accept the loss of Ukraine to the United States.

Ukraine is not Putin's to lose, and the US has no desire to take Ukraine.

Ukraine belongs to Ukrainians, and Crimea is part of Ukraine. As is all of the Donbas, and any other Russian occupied territory within the borders of Ukraine.

So fuck Putin. I don't care about his threats. He started this war and he can end this war anytime he wants. If he doesn't want to end it, it should be made more expensive every day, until he changes his mind or gets a 9mm retirement.

 

[Darkwind]

Ukraine is not Putin's to lose, and the US has no desire to take Ukraine.

Ukraine belongs to Ukrainians, and Crimea is part of Ukraine. As is all of the Donbas, and any other Russian occupied territory within the borders of Ukraine.

So fuck Putin. I don't care about his threats. He started this war and he can end this war anytime he wants. If he doesn't want to end it, it should be made more expensive every day, until he changes his mind or gets a 9mm retirement.

Guess what, Ukraine is NOT our problem. Not our monkeys, not our zoo.

You want to keep Ukraine for Ukrainians, good for you. Go fight for it but leave the USA out of it.

 

[para bellum]

Guess what, Ukraine is NOT our problem. Not our monkeys, not our zoo.

You want to keep Ukraine for Ukrainians, good for you. Go fight for it but leave the USA out of it.

It's a NATO and European problem, and we have an interest. You don't want to support Ukraine, fine. Don't. You want to parrot Putin's nuclear sabre rattling? Fine. Go for it.

I'm too old and not in good health so I will try to support Ukraine in other ways, because it's the right thing to do. That's all the reason I need.

They don't want or need me there, I would be a liability, and wouldn't be doing them any favors by hobbling up and raising my hand at the recruiting center.

I do not call for US ground forces in Ukraine. What is needed is for people to let Ukrainians fight for their country- which if successful, will stop Putin's imperial ambitions, and probably end his presidency.

Because when it's Lithuania or Poland next, we are committed to ground forces and real war with Russia- not this fake social media narrative that the US is at war with Russia. Every war since WW2 has had the US and/or Russia supplying weapons to one or both sides of the conflict. This one is no different.

And if Russia continues to fire missiles indiscriminately at Ukrainian cities, and ADA cannot stop it, then a NATO No-Fly zone over Eastern Ukraine is something I would also support. I'm not there yet, but I'm getting there.

I'm sure as hell not going to cower in a bunker like Biden because Putin is enraged about his shitty army. It's a shitty army because he and his pals siphoned off all the funding to pay for dachas and megayachts.

If Biden wasn't such a feeble old fool we would have sent Ukraine the kind of help we sent Israel in 1973 and this would have been over.

 

[Darkwind]

It's a NATO and European problem, and we have an interest. You don't want to support Ukraine, fine. Don't. You want to parrot Putin's nuclear sabre rattling? Fine. Go for it.

I'm too old and not in good health so I will try to support Ukraine in other ways, because it's the right thing to do. That's all the reason I need.

They don't want or need me there, I would be a liability, and wouldn't be doing them any favors by hobbling up and raising my hand at the recruiting center.

I do not call for US ground forces in Ukraine. What is needed is for people to let Ukrainians fight for their country- which if successful, will stop Putin's imperial ambitions, and probably end his presidency.

Because when it's Lithuania or Poland next, we are committed to ground forces and real war with Russia- not this fake social media narrative that the US is at war with Russia. Every war since WW2 has had the US and/or Russia supplying weapons to one or both sides of the conflict. This one is no different.

And if Russia continues to fire missiles indiscriminately at Ukrainian cities, and ADA cannot stop it, then a NATO No-Fly zone over Eastern Ukraine is something I would also support. I'm not there yet, but I'm getting there.

I'm sure as hell not going to cower in a bunker like Biden because Putin is enraged about his shitty army. It's a shitty army because he and his pals siphoned off all the funding to pay for dachas and megayachts.

If Biden wasn't such a feeble old fool we would have sent Ukraine the kind of help we sent Israel in 1973 and this would have been over.

I'm not parroting anyone but you seem to have swallowed the propaganda koolaid.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence will tell you that Putin is unstable but that he is willing to do whatever it takes to cement his place in Rusisan history.

He is NOT beyond launching nukes. That is not taking his side, that is not sabre rattling. That is a clear-eyed assessment of reality.

This is NOT NATO's problem, this is NOT the United States problem. If anything, NATO shares in the responsibility for getting this war started.

Until we have a mutual defense agreement with Ukraine, NATO can keep their asses out of it too.

 

[para bellum]

He is NOT beyond launching nukes. That is not taking his side, that is not sabre rattling. That is a clear-eyed assessment of reality.

No, that is not a "clear-eyed" assessment. It is media BS.

Russia has a stated nuclear doctrine- have you read it?

"The Russian Federation shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy."

The Embassy of the Russian Federation to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

rusemb.org.uk

Threatening nukes to coerce other nations is something he is capable of. Actually doing it is a completely different level.

This is BS:

Escalate to De-Escalate: Russia's Nuclear Deterrence Strategy

Russia's deterrence strategy: respond to a large, conventional military assault by firing a tactical nuclear weapon.

globalsecurityreview.com

This is not.

https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/160504_Oliker_RussiasNuclearDoctrine_Web.pdf

 

[Darkwind]

No, that is not a "clear-eyed" assessment. It is media BS.

Russia has a stated nuclear doctrine- have you read it?

"The Russian Federation shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy."

The Embassy of the Russian Federation to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

rusemb.org.uk

Threatening nukes to coerce other nations is something he is capable of. Actually doing it is a completely different subject.

You are clearly unhinged.

/thread

 

[para bellum]

You are clearly unhinged.

/thread

Here ya go chicken little.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It's a NATO and European problem, and we have an interest. You don't want to support Ukraine, fine. Don't. You want to parrot Putin's nuclear sabre rattling? Fine. Go for it.

I'm too old and not in good health so I will try to support Ukraine in other ways, because it's the right thing to do. That's all the reason I need.

They don't want or need me there, I would be a liability, and wouldn't be doing them any favors by hobbling up and raising my hand at the recruiting center.

I do not call for US ground forces in Ukraine. What is needed is for people to let Ukrainians fight for their country- which if successful, will stop Putin's imperial ambitions, and probably end his presidency.

Because when it's Lithuania or Poland next, we are committed to ground forces and real war with Russia- not this fake social media narrative that the US is at war with Russia. Every war since WW2 has had the US and/or Russia supplying weapons to one or both sides of the conflict. This one is no different.

And if Russia continues to fire missiles indiscriminately at Ukrainian cities, and ADA cannot stop it, then a NATO No-Fly zone over Eastern Ukraine is something I would also support. I'm not there yet, but I'm getting there.

I'm sure as hell not going to cower in a bunker like Biden because Putin is enraged about his shitty army. It's a shitty army because he and his pals siphoned off all the funding to pay for dachas and megayachts.

If Biden wasn't such a feeble old fool we would have sent Ukraine the kind of help we sent Israel in 1973 and this would have been over.

You want to put NATO pilots and aircraft in Eastern Ukraine to do what? Shoot down Russian aircraft? That's a quick and easy recipe for WWIII when the Russians take them out by aircraft. SAMs, or destroying their bases.

Dumb, really dumb!

 

[para bellum]

You want to put NATO pilots and aircraft in Eastern Ukraine to do what? Shoot down Russian aircraft? That's a quick and easy recipe for WWIII when the Russians take them out by aircraft or destroying their bases.

Dumb, really dumb!

I said, I'm not there yet.

They had no problem shooting down US pilots in Korea and Vietnam.

NATO pilots wouldn't shoot down Russian aircraft in Russian airspace. They would shoot down the missiles, and any hostile aircraft entering Ukrainian airspace. They could take out the ADA in self defense if they had to.

NATO aircraft won't go into Ukraine in isolation, and can operate from bases out of reach of Russian tactical air. They will have to defend against cruise missiles and SRBM's, that's all Russia can really throw at them.

If Ukraine asks for it, NATO has the right to assist in Ukraine's collective self defense under the UN Charter ,and the US and UK specifically under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

A no-fly zone in Ukraine is not an act of war against Russia.

We spent 20 years disarming Ukraine from 1994 to 2014, not just nukes but bombers and long range missiles and millions of tons of ammunition. Much of it went to Russia in exchange for various considerations, most of which Russia didn't honor.

We gave security assurances to Ukraine in exchange, and have some obligation to honor those assurances. Russia also gave assurances, but instead of honoring them, Putin invaded in 2014- and we did basically nothing.

So he's back for another bite, and he's going to have to be stopped somewhere. I think Eastern Ukraine is the place to do it because he's already there.

Yes, NATO could let Ukraine fall to Russia. That is an option. If Putin wants war with NATO he will have it either way.

He will take Ukraine and move on to the balts, or he will go to war with NATO in Ukraine over some imagined immunity he is supposed to enjoy from International Law in this special case. Fuck that shit. He started it, not us.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Guess what, Ukraine is NOT our problem. Not our monkeys, not our zoo.

You want to keep Ukraine for Ukrainians, good for you. Go fight for it but leave the USA out of it.

So you want to go back to the isolationism of the 1930's because that worked out so well for us.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You want to put NATO pilots and aircraft in Eastern Ukraine to do what? Shoot down Russian aircraft? That's a quick and easy recipe for WWIII when the Russians take them out by aircraft. SAMs, or destroying their bases.

Dumb, really dumb!

No one is talking about sending NATO pilots into combat in Ukraine, merely providing Ukrainian pilots with planes to defend their country against the Russian invasion. What will they do? They will shoot down Russian aircraft that are violating Ukrainian airspace and bomb Russian military assets on the ground in Ukraine and there is no rational scenario in which this leads to WWIII, whatever that means. How can there be a world war when no one will be fighting on Russia's side except perhaps Belarus?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They had no problem shooting down US pilots in Korea and Vietnam.

NATO pilots wouldn't shoot down Russian aircraft in Russian airspace. They would shoot down the missiles, and any hostile aircraft entering Ukrainian airspace. They could take out the ADA in self defense if they had to.

ACT OF WAR!

NATO aircraft won't go into Ukraine in isolation, and can operate from bases out of reach of Russian tactical air. They will have to defend against cruise missiles and SRBM's, that's all Russia can really throw at them.

RUSSIA HAS STRATEGIC BOMBERS!

If Ukraine asks for it, NATO has the right to assist in Ukraine's collective self defense under the UN Charter ,and the US and UK specifically under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

A no-fly zone in Ukraine is not an act of war against Russia.

YES, IT IS!

We spent 20 years disarming Ukraine from 1994 to 2014, not just nukes but bombers and long range missiles and millions of tons of ammunition. Much of it went to Russia in exchange for various considerations, most of which Russia didn't honor.

We gave security assurances to Ukraine in exchange, and have some obligation to honor those assurances. Russia also gave assurances, but instead of honoring them, Putin invaded in 2014- and we did basically nothing.

So he's back for another bite, and he's going to have to be stopped somewhere. I think Eastern Ukraine is the place to do it because he's already there.

Yes, NATO could let Ukraine fall to Russia. That is an option. If Putin wants war with NATO he will have it either way.

He will take Ukraine and move on to the balts, or he will go to war with NATO in Ukraine over some imagined immunity he is supposed to enjoy from International Law in this special case. Fuck that shit. He started it, not us.

THE BALTIC STATES ARE ALREADY IN NATO.

SO MUCH IGNORANCE OF REALITY, SO LITTLE TIME TO EDUCATE YOU.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No one is talking about sending NATO pilots into combat in Ukraine, merely providing Ukrainian pilots with planes to defend their country against the Russian invasion. What will they do? They will shoot down Russian aircraft that are violating Ukrainian airspace and bomb Russian military assets on the ground in Ukraine and there is no rational scenario in which this leads to WWIII, whatever that means. How can there be a world war when no one will be fighting on Russia's side except perhaps Belarus?

You obviously did not read the post I was responding to.

para bellum wants a NATO enforced no-fly zone.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You obviously did not read the post I was responding to.

para bellum wants a NATO enforced no-fly zone.

Actually he said he didn't support sending NATO pilots into combat at this time but might in the future. Sending weapons to Ukraine is a decision each country makes for itself and NATO has sent no weapons to Ukraine although some NATO members have, but sending NATO combat pilots into Ukraine would require and unanimous vote of NATO members and that is not likely to happen unless Russia commits some atrocity so huge it cannot be ignored without making those who ignore it complicit in the actions, some atrocity such as using WMD's on the civilian population. Even so, if it did happen, there is no rational scenario that would lead to a world war since other than Belarus, no one would fight on Russia's side.

 

[toomuchtime_]

ACT OF WAR!


RUSSIA HAS STRATEGIC BOMBERS!


YES, IT IS!



THE BALTIC STATES ARE ALREADY IN NATO.

SO MUCH IGNORANCE OF REALITY, SO LITTLE TIME TO EDUCATE YOU.

It is nor going to happen, but if NATO pilots confined themselves to defending Ukraine's airspace shooting down Russian planes violating Ukraine's airspace would not be an act of war. Russian planes violating Ukraine's airspace are committing acts of war and helping Ukraine defend its airspace is in no way an act of war.

For NATO to send pilots into Ukraine, an agreement would have to be signed giving NATO planes the same legal status as Ukrainian planes so as long as NATO planes were operating in Ukrainian airspace to defend Ukraine they would be committing no acts of war. In fact, if they hit a Russian convoy heading for the border while it was still in Russia, under international law, if the convoy presented a clear and imminent danger to Ukraine, blowing it up would be an allowable preemptive strike.