Where Do Things End With Vlad? (h/t romad1)

[romad1]

24 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

AOC is as close as we have here.  Boebert is hot, but too trashy.  I don't know Mallory McMarrow.  

Mcmorrow is a state sen from Ferndale (which immediately gives her a lot of leeway with the hipsters)

Big Gretch is pretty cool, as are Dana Nessel and Jocelyn Benson

[Tiger337]

Massachusetts has always had the most uncool politicians.  

[romad1]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

Massachusetts has always had the most uncool politicians.  

that Irish tendency towards cauliflower ears and rummy noses doesn't help. 

[romad1]

Good trend

There are all sorts of reports that the amount of Russian artillery used in the East has dropped off.  

[romad1]

I got a glimpse of some maps the last few days that are the sort of digital in-the-weeds stuff they compile from all the various inputs.  Most glaring things. 

• Russia cant' stage anything within 80km of the FLOT (forward line of own troops) without it getting creamed. 
• Ukraine has regained a lot of territory in the extreme west of the line (Kherson area).
• On one day last week, the number of "explosion" OPIRs (I actually don't know actual translation but close prox is Operational intel reports) was off the chain just inside the Russian lines. 

I don't know if any Ukrainian offensive will happen but it sure seems like the Russians are straining under all the new heat they face.

[1984Echoes]

2 hours ago, romad1 said:

...  Most glaring things:

• Ukraine has regained a lot of territory in the extreme west of the line (Kherson area).

 

I expected this. The "line" you mentioned is the Dnieper River.

 

2 hours ago, romad1 said:

...  Most glaring things:

• Russia cant' stage anything within 80km of the FLOT (forward line of own troops) without it getting creamed. 
• On one day last week, the number of "explosion" OPIRs (I actually don't know actual translation but close prox is Operational intel reports) was off the chain just inside the Russian lines. 

 

Those would be the Russian ammo dumps and command centers that are exploding. The HIMARS we gave them are working.

 

 

 

 

[gehringer_2]

The advanced artillery systems can level the playing field, but Ukraine can’t win without air power. Thomas Theiner laid out a 1 yr plan to equip an integrated Ukrainian F16 force. Should start on it yesterday. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by gehringer_2

[1984Echoes]

I don't think the F-16's are absolutely necessary; but would be very helpful, on offense.

I say not necessary as their air defenses are still awesome. Russian pilots are afraid to venture into Ukrainian air space so they shoot from Russian territory. So I don't think they are critical as a defense.

What is more critical, today, is HIMARS and rockets that have further range than the 40-mile ones being supplied to them today. They have 12 HIMARS. Give them 150 HIMARS and the Russians are retreating back to their 2014 lines, or all the way back into Russia.

The F-16's would certainly help that, but I think the HIMARS and longer range missiles (I think we have up to 200 mile range missiles for the HIMARS?) are more critical.

Where I think the F-16's are more critical, is an attempt to retake Crimea. Which is an extremely difficult task for Ukraine, a near impossibility without a Navy to speak of (especially in comparison to Russia) and a thin isthmus as an entry point into the virtual island. To invade Crimea, they'll need massive troop transports either by sea or air, and an F-16 force that can control the skies and cover for the invasion.

The Ukrainians are worlds away from attempting to retake Crimea.

But they could certainly push all of the Russians back into Russia from the Donbas and other eastern parts of Ukraine (sans Crimea).

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

I don't think the F-16's are absolutely necessary; but would be very helpful, on offense.

the danger is that the Russians up their drone game with Iranian supplies - then the Himars become vulnerable to targeting unless you can control the local sky above them. A lot more surface to air capability could provide some of the same.

Edited July 16, 2022 by gehringer_2

[romad1]

Thread

[romad1]

18 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

I don't think the F-16's are absolutely necessary; but would be very helpful, on offense.

I say not necessary as their air defenses are still awesome. Russian pilots are afraid to venture into Ukrainian air space so they shoot from Russian territory. So I don't think they are critical as a defense.

What is more critical, today, is HIMARS and rockets that have further range than the 40-mile ones being supplied to them today. They have 12 HIMARS. Give them 150 HIMARS and the Russians are retreating back to their 2014 lines, or all the way back into Russia.

The F-16's would certainly help that, but I think the HIMARS and longer range missiles (I think we have up to 200 mile range missiles for the HIMARS?) are more critical.

Where I think the F-16's are more critical, is an attempt to retake Crimea. Which is an extremely difficult task for Ukraine, a near impossibility without a Navy to speak of (especially in comparison to Russia) and a thin isthmus as an entry point into the virtual island. To invade Crimea, they'll need massive troop transports either by sea or air, and an F-16 force that can control the skies and cover for the invasion.

The Ukrainians are worlds away from attempting to retake Crimea.

But they could certainly push all of the Russians back into Russia from the Donbas and other eastern parts of Ukraine (sans Crimea).

The air power thing is a real problem.  F-16s and Western aircraft in general are something of a challenge.  1.  Ukraine airfields are austere like all soviet era airfields.  They are used to ignoring runway maintenance.   FOD (Foreign Object Debris) is cleared out of the way so the ultra complex GE and Rolls Royce engines on Western fighters can operate without having stones and birds and deer sucked into the engines.

So, the Ukrainian airforce wants F-18s which apparently were modified in 2009 to have improved resistance to FOD and 2.  The F-18 has two engines which give the airframe better survivability. 

That was one of the primary considerations of the Canadians when they chose the F-18 back in the day.  Long distances and arctic conditions meant they wanted their pilots to have a second motor to row the boat home in the event of in-flight emergencies.  I worked in an F-16 unit at Selfridge back in the day.  That plane had a very perilous situation when the engine went out.  They had a back up power unit control the electric controls so it could at least control its flight surfaces.   When that backup power unit was engaged it triggered an automatic checklist with the EPA because the weird substance used was highly toxic.   F-16: wonderful dogfighting aircraft, not as expensive as bigger models, but i'd rather have two engines. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by romad1

[romad1]

16 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

the danger is that the Russians up their drone game with Iranian supplies - then the Himars become vulnerable to targeting unless you can control the local sky above them. A lot more surface to air capability could provide some of the same.

Iranian drones are copies of our drones that Iran captured in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We know how they work and what will slay them.   Because of their DNA, probably better than Russian ones but still.

[gehringer_2]

13 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Iranian drones are copies of our drones that Iran captured in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We know how they work and what will slay them.  

Granted, but like everything else so far, knowing what the Ukrainians need and getting it to them has not always been the same thing. Getting HIMARS to them has been like pulling teeth. And the Germans continue to drag their feet - or foot - as one of theirs is still firmly in the "We need Russian gas more than the future of the Western World" camp. 🙈🙉🙊

[romad1]

Significant

[Netnerd]

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

The air power thing is a real problem.  F-16s and Western aircraft in general are something of a challenge.  1.  Ukraine airfields are austere like all soviet era airfields.  They are used to ignoring runway maintenance.   FOD (Foreign Object Debris) is cleared out of the way so the ultra complex GE and Rolls Royce engines on Western fighters can operate without having stones and birds and deer sucked into the engines.

So, the Ukrainian airforce wants F-18s which apparently were modified in 2009 to have improved resistance to FOD and 2.  The F-18 has two engines which give the airframe better survivability. 

That was one of the primary considerations of the Canadians when they chose the F-18 back in the day.  Long distances and arctic conditions meant they wanted their pilots to have a second motor to row the boat home in the event of in-flight emergencies.  I worked in an F-16 unit at Selfridge back in the day.  That plane had a very perilous situation when the engine went out.  They had a back up power unit control the electric controls so it could at least control its flight surfaces.   When that backup power unit was engaged it triggered an automatic checklist with the EPA because the weird substance used was highly toxic.   F-16: wonderful dogfighting aircraft, not as expensive as bigger models, but i'd rather have two engines. 

F-16 = Lawn Dart

[romad1]

5 minutes ago, Netnerd said:

F-16 = Lawn Dart

There was a stretch in the 80s in Germany where they were just that.   We called them Jarts or lawn darts.  The platform eventually became great.   Ukraine would substantially benefit if they got them.  I suspect they would prefer F-18s or F-15s.

[gehringer_2]

1 minute ago, romad1 said:

There was a stretch in the 80s in Germany where they were just that.   We called them Jarts or lawn darts.  The platform eventually became great.   Ukraine would substantially benefit if they got them.  I suspect they would prefer F-18s or F-15s.

I suspect there is more F16 inventory. Have to think maintenance and support reqs on 15s would be an even longer learning curve. 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

So, the Ukrainian airforce wants F-18s which apparently were modified in 2009 to have improved resistance to FOD and 2.  The F-18 has two engines which give the airframe better survivability. 

 

Is that series Hornet or SuperHornet? I'd be surprised if the US is willing to part with any SH.

Edited July 16, 2022 by gehringer_2

[romad1]

16 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Is that series Hornet or SuperHornet? I'd be surprised if the US is willing to part with any SH.

I think its not quite a SH.  Its some late generation regular Hornet

[1984Echoes]

3 hours ago, romad1 said:

Significant

PS:

I would rate Lockheed Martin currently as a Buy Rating.

[1984Echoes]

And if we're talking to them about F-18's...

Then why don't we just give the go ahead for all the MIG's floating around?

I'm certain they'll figure out how to use them strategically. To protect their own territory. And all the NATO countries want to give them theirs... and we're holding them back.

I'm pretty certain they're not planning to invade Russia and run all the way up to Moscow...

They could have a MIG AF corps and an F-18 AF corps.

I say give the go ahead.

Now.

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

And if we're talking to them about F-18's...

Then why don't we just give the go ahead for all the MIG's floating around?

I'm certain they'll figure out how to use them strategically. To protect their own territory. And all the NATO countries want to give them theirs... and we're holding them back.

I'm pretty certain they're not planning to invade Russia and run all the way up to Moscow...

They could have a MIG AF corps and an F-18 AF corps.

I say give the go ahead.

Now.

the thing with an air frame is that each has a unique training, munitions, maintenance and logistics tail and some are a lot longer than others. Can the Ukrainians get as much effective utility as quickly with the 18 as the 16? That is the question that DOD needs to make a sound judgment about. And you hope that judgment is one wholly based on Ukraine's best interests and not internal DOD/vendor agendas.

Edited July 17, 2022 by gehringer_2

[1984Echoes]

I'm going with Romad on this... he thinks the 18 fits better and to not even think about 16's.

So 18's it is.

MIG's however, they're already trained on. So, separate issue. Give them all the non-Russian MIG's. Now.

[gehringer_2]

Increasing static in the twitterverse about long range HIMARS loads being made available to UKraine and wrangling around US demands the Ukrainians not hit the Russian mainland with them.

[romad1]

4 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Increasing static in the twitterverse about long range HIMARS loads being made available to UKraine and wrangling around US demands the Ukrainians not hit the Russian mainland with them.

I think this is a Jake Sullivan/Joe Biden being clever thing.  If Ukraine had the ability they would be hitting Moscow.   I wonder what all their nuclear rhetoric becomes if Russia has a shopping mall or a kindergarten hit by an US made ATACMS or air sortie?