MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
My concern would the amount of air defence equipment that will be needed to protect the air bases where the F-16s are based, it may take away from defence of populated areas.
Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?
My concern would the amount of air defence equipment that will be needed to protect the air bases where the F-16s are based, it may take away from defence of populated areas.
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
Air bases are the air forces achilles heel, one way to get around it is to redeploy the air forces out on roads, which causes logistical problems to get fuel, different munition out to these roads, and to prevent civilians to drive on these roads. The latter can be a huge problem if and when people begin to flee.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
But isn't the strength of the Grippen over the F-16 and F-18 that it can operate from rougher terrain, the Russians can concentrate on air bases and runways but they would have a hell of a job destroying every highway.
The NATO plan seems like a good start but I think it is 8 years too late...
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/g...nounce-three-pronged-plan-to-bring-in-ukraine
Last edited:
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
JAS Gripen has a very short take off and landing and it was designed during the cold war and the Swedish air force planned to deploy to roads if the cold war had turned hot.
The Finnish air force planned to do the same and they are/were flying F-18. I don't know if JAS is more robust than the F-16 and F-18. NATO and many other countries are retiring their F-16s and F-18s to get the F-35 instead.
Ukraine is still operating from its air bases and the Russia hasn't neutralized them instead of attacking playgrounds and pizzerias
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
My understanding is that the Grippen also is easier to maintain.
A friend of mine was in the Luftwaffe when they moved into East Germany and got to fly Russian aircraft, in general he hated almost everything about them but was impressed by their robustness given the poor quality of their runways etc.
At this stage there really isn't any point in Russia attacking air bases as the Ukrainian air force (primarily its out dated aircraft) aren't a threat to Russian aircraft and it's numbers are low, western aircraft may raise their threat level.
Until then there are still plenty of playgrounds, shopping malls and hospitals to focus on.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
This is where the Harrier came into its own, however, the only way she could carry sufficient payload was to do a rolling take off, as with vertical take off her payload was somewhat restricted.
During the Falklands War, she proved just how good she was against supersonic aircraft. Its a pity the supersonic version was never put into production.
The F-18 is more robust than the F-16 due to being designed to take a pounding landing on the Carriers. No idea how they compare in landing/take off distance on a runway. Saw somewhere that the Harrier in VTOL mode was a 50 mile range vs 200 for the ski jump take off.
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
Gripen and the fighter planes Sweden had before Gripen were supposed to be maintained by conscripts or at least the easier part of getting the planes to work. I don't know if it is easier to maintain the Gripen than to do the same with F-16 and F-18. Finland has conscription and had F-18 so I guess it wasn't a problem to teach young Finns to maintain the F-18. On the other hand, the air force has the lowest number of conscripts in comparison with the army and the navy.
Norway has conscription too and they were flying F-16, maybe Red can tell us how it worked in Norway
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
The Finns bought F-18 and I think Australia bought it too. The F-18 has been developed further to be the Super Hornet, but it is replaced with the naval version of the F-35, I think.
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
I am somewhat sceptical if it had worked to deploy the ground crews with fuel, spare parts, air to air missiles, air to ground munition, food, and to guard the section of the road
There is a woke US law prohibiting the production,use, transfer of cluster bombs .
And ''moral hand wringing ''was the official reason for the intervention of woked West in this war .
If you claim that the Russian invasion was (wokedly ) illegal and you give Ukraine illegal cluster ammunition,than is the conclusion
A you are a hypocrite
B you are stupid
C you are a stupid hypocrite
D you are a hypocrite stupid one .
Biden fits with all four .
BTW : Russia and Ukraine are using cluster bombs .Thus both are guilty and the US also .
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Now you have the cart pulling the horse, not one of these things would be necessary or relevant had Russia stayed on its side of the border.
My only complaint with the US, Biden and the west in general on this matter is that we have not done enough or acted soon enough, I hate to say it but I agree with Chris Christy on this matter, the US/West has done just enough to keep Ukraine from losing but we are doing far too little to help them win.
The result is a war that will drag on until Ukraine loses or Putin dies.
Incidentally, neither the US, Ukraine nor Russia have a ban on cluster munitions...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s around,munitions and discouraging their use.
Last edited:
The woke moral hand wringing was already used before the war .The European Union was attacking Lukachenko before the war,because he had an other political ideology ,which was not the business of the European Union .Lukachenko did not attack the Eurocrats,but the intolerant Eurocrats attacked Lukachenko .
Putin also was already attacked before the war,because he disagreed with the wokes .
About Ukraine : Ukraine is not a member of the EU or of NATO and a Russian ( very improbable ) victory will not endanger the interests of the US or of the members of the EU ,thus what happens in Ukraine is not the business of the US,the EU, NZ,but only the business of the military-industrial complex .
If you intervene in a war for moral reasons, you must intervene in all wars for moral reasons .And this will result in WW3 and the end of the world .
Did the US intervene in the wars between Israel and its neighbours ?
Did it help Iran when Iran was invaded by Iraq?
Did it help the Kurds when they were slaughtered by Saddam , by Erdogan, by the Ayatollas ?
Almost a million Indonesians with Chinese forefathers were murdered in 1965-1966 and the West , including New Zealand ,did not only remain silent,but collaborated with the murderers .
I do not whine about what happened in Indonesia because I do not moral hand wringing .But ,if you use moral hand wringing about Ukraine, you must do it every day ,because every day things happen that are worse that what happens in Ukraine .
You can't select the countries where you will intervene for woke reasons .
You can't say that the invasion of Ukraine was illegal,because that would mean that other invasions were legal .
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
So are you saying we should have let Hitler do his thing because we didn't stop the crusades and to avoid appearing "woke"
Your entire argument completely ignores the fact that as a species we learn and our perception of right and wrong changes with experience, there is no doubt that our responses to certain events is also largely driven by political expediency but for the most part as the "people" gain more of a voice they tend to be opposed to wars for any reason.
But once again what my country or anyone else country did in the last 100 to 5000 years does not make the Russian invasion of Ukraine any more acceptable so we have picked a side now it's time to see how that plays out (doesn't sound all that "woke" to me).
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
This was tried many times in Germany during exercises, the system was found to work after sorting out any logistic problems
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
It worked pretty well here too, but wars create refugees and they can get in the way for it.
Btw, The US, Russia, Ukraine, and other countries did not sign the CCM (Convention on Cluster Munition)
https://www.clusterconvention.org/
Last edited:
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
I must have missed something somewhere, I was completely unaware of countries banning cluster munitions, I had no idea it was an issue.
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
I must have missed something somewhere, I was completely unaware of countries banning cluster munitions, I had no idea it was an issue.
They are effective against air bases, vehicle columns, and artillery positions. Maybe not the best weapon to use to hit targets in urban areas when urbans areas tend to contain civilians. The back side of using them is they tend to leave duds behind, which causes issues for the civilians long after the war. This is the major reason for why countries ban the use of cluster munition.
When Biden 1st started providing weapons he said it was to help Ukraine defend itself, but not to win the war, or something to that effect.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I must have missed something somewhere, I was completely unaware of countries banning cluster munitions, I had no idea it was an issue.
It isn't really an issue as neither Russia, Ukraine nor USA have signed the agreement to stop production or usage, Russia is trying to create a moral ambiguity where they get to use them but it is unfair that someone might fire some back, much like Putin's nonsense claiming NATO promised not to expand eastward beyond Germany as the justification for the invasion.