A Russian official said Saturday that the Western plans to provide Ukraine with American-made F-16 fighter jets bring “colossal risks” after the US announced it would sign off on European countries delivering the aircraft.
“We see that Western countries are still adhering to the escalation scenario. It involves colossal risks for themselves,” said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko, according to TASS.
“In any case, this will be taken into account in all our plans, and we have all the necessary means to achieve the goals we have set,” Grushko added.
During the last day of the G7 Summit in Hiroshima, Japan, President Biden was asked about Russia calling the F-16 plan a “colossal risk.” He replied, “It is for them.”
The provision of F-16s marks a significant escalation of NATO support for Ukraine. The alliance previously ruled out providing Ukraine with Soviet-made fighter jets over fears that Moscow would perceive the move as NATO directly entering the war.
But earlier this year, Poland and Slovakia took the escalatory step of sending Soviet-made MiG-29 fighter jets, and now F-16s appear to be on the way, although there’s no clear timeline for when they will reach Kyiv.
Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands all have F-16s, but they have yet to officially confirm they will be supplying them. First, Ukrainian pilots need to be trained on the F-16s, and estimates on how long that could take vary significantly.
Colin Kahl, undersecretary of defense for policy, previously told Congress the training could take 18 to 24 months. Other Pentagon officials have said an expedited version of the training could take four to nine months.
So far, the US has said it will support the training of Ukrainian pilots but has not pledged to send its own F-16s. On Sunday, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said President Biden hasn’t decided on whether or not the US will provide F-16s and that the US was focusing on other types of weapons.
“I think given the numbers [of F-16s] that are currently available from the stocks of our European allies, and the fact that based on the money Congress has given us, there are so many other priorities for systems to give, it may be that we focus more on third party transfer, but the president has not made a final decision,” Sullivan said.
The efforts to provide Ukraine with F-16s represent NATO’s long-term plans to support Ukraine in its war against Russia, as it could be years before the Ukrainian military can actually use the aircraft.
130 thoughts on “Russia Says West Providing F-16s to Ukraine a ‘Colossal Risk’”
Does it ever occur to these nitwits (NATO) that they are potentially inviting a larger and more dangerous conflict in the region, indeed, perhaps the world?…………….
They seem to think they would win.
Not the US – just them. Our lives seem to be a risk they are willing to take.
It did occur to them earlier. I don’t think they do anymore. They remain firmly in the grip of the Moloch-mechanism, but lost view of even that. The senile-witty comment of Biden at the G7 could be seen as emblematic of that.
Yes, Hollywood Joe really imagines himself Clint Eastwood.
The F-16s will just be hit on the ground or shot down in the air by S300, S400 and S500 missile defense systems. The Patriots are worthless, 2 billion worthless rubbish.
The Russian Winter Campaign is coming to an end, its objective was to take Bahkmut, The Russian Summer campaign will begin soon with the objective of kramatorsk, Slovyansk and Kostyantynivka.
Oh come now, the Patriot system is a perfect modern weapon … it efficiently converts taxpayer $ into corporate profit.
Similarly, sending F16s to die n Ukraine is a perfect way to force more sales of the fabulous new and very very expensive F35s to all our friends/satraps in Europe. Money money money …
Yep. Exactly. It’s a ploy to force Europeans to buy Fail35. Old F16 is a better fighter jet in all regards but, naturally substandard to Russian jets from that era. Forcing Europeans to demilitarize ensure Anglo-American imperial dominance.
But in general, Russians make war machines, Americans and English make fancy toys for show.
Yeah, that’s why the T-72 catastrophically disassembled itself if you gave it the stinkeye, while an M-1 has yet to be destroyed in combat.
LOL yeah. Because there were no destroyed M1 Arabums in Iraq.
And seriously? Tanks? Any Russian tank beats your useless junk with hands tied. Your metal coffins don’t even have auto-loader and require 4 future corpses.
“Because there were no destroyed M1 Arabums in Iraq.”
There were no combat-destroy M1s in Iraq. There were a couple that were destroyed to prevent their capture after damage.
As for “any Russian tank,” I’ve seen what was left of T-72s after they came up against modern weaponry — pieces. Which was a thing to be grateful for, since they didn’t smell like barbecue, like the largely intact T54-55s.
“There were no combat-destroy M1s in Iraq.”
Few videos I’ve seen show otherwise. There are probably hundreds more stored on local media and away from NSA/5-eye greedy claws. Censorship and denials of reality only work when you have total control. Your degenerate empire no longer have it.
I don’t have an empire. And don’t want one.
The problem is, you don’t have total control, either. So when you spew vapid nonsense in public, there’s no particular reason to pretend that’s not what you’re doing.
Right. It is me who is “spewing vapid nonsense” and you are just stating solid, indisputable facts.
You need a cold shower and a meal, soldier.
to prevent their capture after damage
Oh, like the Iraqis were gonna tow it away to their non-existent lines… C’mon, damaged is just a euphemism for destroyed.
“C’mon, damaged is just a euphemism for destroyed.”
Sort of like “Special Military Operation” is just a euphemism for “Unexpected Fiasco.”
“Unexpected Fiasco.” more like an apt description of our Ukrainian gambit.
Yes, the M1 is a great tank, probably the best but artillery will take it out before it gets in the fight.
And the one thing the Russians have in abundance is arty.
The pros know this and that’s why their reluctance in sending them.
Things may have changed since my military days. Back then (pre-1995), what we basically learned was this:
1) The Russians make great small arms.
2) The Russians make great crew-served sub-artillery arms (e.g. 12.5mm machine gun, 82mm mortar).
3) The Russians make great artillery.
It’s not that their weapons in those categories are necessarily the longest range or most accurate. It’s that they’re very durable. The most long-range, accurate weapon in the world is useless if it breaks and you can’t use it. The AK-47 was better than the M-16. Throw an AK in a mud puddle and run over it with a truck, it will fire as soon as you hose the mud off it. Walk NEAR a mud puddle with an M-16 and expect to spend significant time cleaning it before it will fire without jamming.
One nice thing about the Russian 82mm mortars was that they came with a sabot kit which would allow them to fire US/NATO 81mm rockets. Probably not with great accuracy, but being able to use the enemy’s captured ammo is a big plus. And the ones I found in the Iraqi trench lines, which had been abandoned for some time, were probably still eminently fireable (I asked for permission to find out — denied).
But then there was the fourth thing:
4) The Russians make utter and complete garbage if what they’re making requires electronics or low-error-tolerance machine technology.
Every time we didn’t believe (4), we ended up believing we should have been confident in (4).
Like I said, that may have changed since 1995. But I wouldn’t count on it.
And wouldn’t argue with you, particularly on item 3.
I think the pledge of M-1s is an empty gesture on the part of the US. They know this will be over before they can deploy them and they know what’s going to happen to them if they do. Same goes for the F-16.
I agree with you on both the M-1s and the F-16s. Not because I expect the war to be over in any particular time frame, but because tanks and manned fixed-wing aircraft are 20th century weapons systems that are proving themselves obsolete in 21st century warfare.
I suspect a major factor — perhaps the deciding factor — in giving them to the Ukrainians is justifying buying whatever replaces those kinds of systems in the US order of battle. Drones, obviously, but what else? Who knows?
i said a bunch of BS here but then i realized that i should just shut-up so that is what i have done
The M1A2 SEPv2 is arguably the best tank in the world, but that is not what the Ukrainians are getting. Also we deployed the M-1 in what can only be described as ideal conditions against an enemy that was ill trained and unmotivated. We employed the M-1 in maneuver warfare and that is not what is happening in Ukraine today. They will have no air support and will face an opponent well trained in combined arms warfare. Furthermore, the tanks will face drones, anti-tank missiles, concentrated artillery, and air attacks. The battle conditions will be suboptimal.
A lot of what you say there makes sense. The only thing that doesn’t is reference to an “opponent well trained in combined arms warfare.” Lack of effectual oordination between e.g. ground and air elements is a pretty good nutshell explanation of why the initial phase of the invasion turned into such a fiasco, giving Ukraine’s allies time to supply the arms which ensured that the second phase would as well.
I believe that the Russians thought that they could pull off a U.S./Iraq style “shock and awe” attack. Unfortunately, for the Russians, such a strategy against a well trained, prepared, and resolved near peer opponent was doomed (I hope we absorbed this lesson). This is not true however in Eastern Ukraine where the population is majority Russian. This is what the Russians want evidenced by the annexation of those provinces, not to mention other political aims. The Ukrainians have gotten themselves bogged down in a war of attrition trying to hold on to them, a war they cannot possibly win. Some time ago our military advised the Ukrainians to switch to a maneuver style warfare but, they either rejected that outright or were blinded by they’re desire to hold on to Eastern Ukraine at all costs. Short of a NATO intervention the situation is not favorable for the Ukrainians.
Just what is our strategy here anyway? How far are we willing to go to support the Ukrainian war efforts. Is it perhaps time to call a halt to the slaughter and destruction?
Saudi’s apparently lost a few in Yemen https://www.defenseone.com/business/2016/08/us-tank-deal-exposes-saudi-losses-yemen-war/130623/
Also the M1 hasn’t faced a functional Army since 2003 (not counting ones captured by ISIS and used against the Iraqi Army) and hasn’t had to deal with someone with functional air platforms since 1991, so it’ll remain to be seen what it does on the modern battlefield
Oh, it preforms as expected in Ukraine.
And it’s unlikely to face a functional army on the battlefield any time soon. If the US goes to war with China, armor probably won’t be much of a factor (it will mostly be a naval/air war).
Unless the US decides to invade Iran. Because WMDs
The Mil/Ind complex is a feature of all modern countries. Now, Russia, because they are not as rich and are faced with real threats from several directions, don’t have the luxury to waste too much money on wonder weapons and concentrate on the things that really matter to win wars: artillery, intelligence, rocketry, etc. … paired with competent and motivated infantry, they would be unbeatable. Unfortunately, the latter is letting them down presently …
Considering that Fed dollar and euro are overinflated fiats, the entire concept of “western” wealth is fictional and competently beside the point. The real cost in materials and labor is probably the same but Russians focus on actual, real defense, not propaganda dominance in order to “strike fear in hearts of enemies” and reap economic benefits by stealing wealth from weak countries. Russians build weapons of war to defend their land (wealth) and they are damn good at it. That is the difference.
Overinflated, yes … but still at 20-1 nominal they can far far outspend Russia …
As you say, the key is for Russia to spend on the right things … and to motivate its soldiers well.
Outspending in fiat is the same as writing novels and books compered to single sentence to convey meaning. Real wealth vs speculative wealth measurements.
Everything still converts to dollars at the end of the day … inflated is not = worthless …
It is. The size of whatever you measure remains the same regardless if you use French meters/centimeters or English feet/inches. That is what basically fiat currency is. A wealth measurement system. It is worthless without physical wealth.
we disagree … as long as people accept our currency for real things (and people around the world still eagerly accept $ for stuff) then it obviously has value.
It has been a great privilege that our fiat currency has also been the world’s reserve currency. We may have ruined this through over use of the sanctions weapon, but it is still in effect currently.
You are saying that fiat works because it’s fiat. (empty, worthless, trust) This isn’t in dispute. It tell me that you don’t completely understand what is fiat currency and how it function.
Yes, it works as long as there are fools who continue to feed this system but right now the dedolliraziation is exponentially accelerating. It isn’t just direct theft of wealth by the terrorist regime and basically parasitic existence for the last 100 years that contribute to the decline. There are many factors. One of them is the fundamental collapse of any fiat currency. No fiat currency in history ever survived. It all eventually fall. So there wont be any good news on economic front. The best we can do is somehow slow down the collapse of the Fed dollar. Sort of managed demolition…
The Patriot Missiles are as worthless as the Patriot Act. The Media tells the story of the US being victorious & Russia on the losing side. Joe Biden always has that idiotic grin on his face like the one W had when he was waging the War on Terror.
Biden claims to have written the USA Patriot Act in the 1990s. He’s been a Zionist stooge all along.
One has to wonder what the toxic trio of Sullivan, Blinken, and Nuland have on Biden? It’s sickening to watch him do his pathetic little monkey dance with the tin cup and everything. Sure looks like their ultimate goal is to push the USA into a catastrophic unwinnable war with Russia that will be the end of the USA, NATO, Russia, and much of the human race. It’s built-in to the Zionist DNA to do that.
What do they have on Biden?
Reminds me of the old Dean Martin theme: Everybody Loves Somebody Sometime adjusted slightly:
Everybody in Washington Has Something on Everyone All the Time.
“We see that Western countries are still adhering to the escalation scenario. It involves colossal risks for themselves,” said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko.
“In any case, this will be taken into account in all our plans, and we have all the necessary means to achieve the goals we have set,”
translation = “keep it up you idiots!”
Joe probably still thinks that all he has to do is keep the war going long enough to bankrupt Russia.
But the strategy only works if the US can avoid bankruptcy first. It might be a good strategy if the US were in great financial health right now. But that is not the case. Wall Street is rightly nervous about the possibility of a default on US debt payments. The interest rates increases affect the Federal Government too, and it is not unrealistic to expect Federal interest payments to rise from 6.8% of total payments to 8.7% in another year… even if we never borrow another penny and there is no default.
Also, the strategy only works if Ukraine is willing and able to continue. Those are some very big “ifs”.
Will the pentagon still get paid if there is a default?
I hadn’t thought of that. But I assume the military would be compelled to work without pay if there isn’t enough cash to go around.
Top 2 that don’t have to worry:
This one is for Julio, who still believes that Russia is about to lose the war and be chased back across the border. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-05-21/bakhmut-is-only-in-our-hearts-after-ukraine-loses-control-of-city-zelensky-says
Russia lost this war long time ago and I do trust that Ukraine can still regain significant amount of their territory.
If they do regain more land, I expect Russia and its supporters to sing the same old song: Russia is just regrouping to come back stronger, Russia is just pulling back to set up a trap for Ukraine, Russia is returning the land with no strategic value as a goodwill gesture. Russia has already achieved its objective, and Russia is avoiding killing civilians.
The land they’ve lost is not going back to Ukraine. so you don’t have to worry about what so called Russian supporters might think or say about a non happening event.
Because Russia has not lost any previously occupied land. I get it.
But you worry about what I say about a non happening event. Interesting.
I don’t see in my post anywhere that it says I’m worried about what you say as most of your posts are laughable, and just provides a bit of levity to a serious topic.
‘This one is for Julio, who still believes that Russia is about to lose the war and be chased back across the border. https://www.latimes.com/wor…’
You may not worry but you definitely mind what I post as shown in your initial comment.
So again, don’t worry about what I post, just block me and be free to be pro Russian without my injects.
But if I block you, I won’t have a does of comedy when I come to this site and see your silly posts.
Russia certainly will not allow uncle sam to get his hands on Crimea – i believe that is the bulk of the entire issue
“Russia lost this war long time ago and I do trust that Ukraine can still regain significant amount of their territory.”
Does that really make any sense? By what metric could you use to say Russia has lost this war if Ukraine is trying to take back territory?
Ohhhh Wars….😂 Some folks are just incapable of logic!
i don’t think that Julio is any kind of dummy, i think that he really knows what’s up but for some reason acts as a “contrary man”. there was a lot of them after 9/11 and they all seemed like some kind of agency of uncle sam. i see the same tactics such as the “i already know what you are going to say so i am dismissing you in advance”. any time that i see something like that i immediately suspect an ulterior agenda.
Russian economy is crushing, its alleged mighty Army is just a paper tiger with more than 200K casualties, Naval forces are immobilized, thousands of tanks and equipment destroyed, humiliated Armed Forces, intergalactic missiles are exposed, low on Ammo, internal conflict within the Kremlin, Oligarchs pulling their money out, labor force hurting, cannot pay salaries and pensions, lost its biggest customer of oil and natural gas, natural gas sale revenues down 50% in the last quarter, its foreign military sales aren’t selling, Armada tank and Su-57 aren’t seeing any combat because it cannot, losing respect and friends in the world stage and the list goes on. Will it be able to sustain a permanent military presence in the occupied territories?
Yes, it lost the war already.
I suppose we’ll have to wait and see if any of those things, if true, will lead to Russia’s demise. Today, Russia holds Ukrainian territory. Until Russia is driven out of all of Ukraine, including Crimea, there is no way you can say they have already lost this war.
Perhaps, if you solely measure winning by annexed territory. Owning land is very profitable and Putin knows that, this why he will never cease trying to take more land from its neighbors and if Ukraine don’t give him a good lesson, he will come back for more once his sh!t army reconstitutes. He proved why NATO never disbanded and why more neighboring countries requested to be part of NATO. They knew Putin’s ambitions.
Kennan had you pegged:
“Don’t people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime. And Russia’s democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we’ve just signed up to defend from Russia. Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are — but this is just wrong.”
I wasn’t even talking about “winning”. I was giving reasons why they haven’t “lost the war already”. And turn back the clock to 1991 and get NATO the fuck off of Russia’s borders. Otherwise, everything you said is just self-fulfilling prophesy. It was NATO’s actions that necessitated NATO’s perceived need.
what do you say this latest ukraine conflict is all about, Julio ?
Initially Putin wanting to turn Ukraine into another Belarus but after its failed SMO, Russia wanting to establish the land corridor to Crimea and annex the other territories to take the grain, oil, and natural gas rich lands of Eastern Ukraine for profit. Also, take the eastern seaport for exports. That’s what this war is all about. Oh, and there is a huge oil reserve in the Black Sea West of Crimea. I’d ask you the same but I think I’ve already know the standard answer.
“Oh, and there is a huge oil reserve in the Black Sea West of Crimea.”
i don’t believe that Russia actually needs any of Ukraine’s resources, however if there is a huge oil reserve there then Russia has every right to keep everyone else (uncle sam) away from it, just as uncle sam has every right to keep everyone else (Russia) away from Alaska’s oil reserves.
i do believe that Russia stated very plainly for the record that =
1) NATO is getting way too close to us so back off or else.
2) stop attacking the russian speaking regions of your so-called “own country” or else.
3) remove all of the bioweapons labs that you have allowed to be set up there or else.
and since “NATO” failed to heed any of those demands, the result is what we are seeing now. i think that if Russia’s goal was just take Ukraine land and resources for their own then they would have done so very quickly.
“i don’t believe that Russia actually needs any of Ukraine’s resources”
It’s called monopoly and Russia wants it all. Imagine Ukraine selling its own natural gas and oil to the EU. That would hurt Putin pockets.
“remove all of the bioweapons labs that you have allowed to be set up there or else.”
This claim is BS and it was debunked long time ago. The story is open source but the Kremlin needed propaganda.
“if Russia’s goal was just take Ukraine land and resources for their own then they would have done so very quickly.”
By very quicky, did you mean 16 months and counting. Yes, that’s quick.
sorry Don Julio but undersecretary of state Victoria Nuland has already testified before some uncle sam committee or other that Ukraine was indeed hosting bioweapon labs.
whether those labs were uncle sam actions or not will forever be determined by the authority of uncle sam inc. himself.
“undersecretary of state Victoria Nuland has already testified before some uncle sam committee or other that Ukraine was indeed hosting bioweapon labs.”
No, she testified that Ukraine was hosting “biological research facilities.”
Could they have been biological weapons facilities? Certainly. But she didn’t testify that they were.
There was an article on this posted on Yahoo! News yesterday, but it appears- at least to me- that all comments have been shut down site-wide. I’m guessing the official narrative was once again being challenged and far too many commenters were hitting the DoD and MIC a little too close to home. As they say, you know you’re over the target when you’re taking fire- and I’d say (if a comment shutdown is indeed the case for Yahoo) dumping the comments into the Memory Hole is a nuke to the face of John Q Public.
As for the allegedly incoming F-16’s, of course they will be dealt with in short order by Russian anti-aircraft missiles and air superiority fighters. If anyone thinks those NATO nations are going to strip their flight lines of their best planes is delusional at best. They will send F-16’s no doubt, but my guess is that- like the 70’s-era Leopard 1 tanks pawned off on Kiev- they will be older air frames nearing (or having already surpassed) the end of their service life and are too far gone to properly maintain. Also consider that NATO-sensitive equipment will no doubt be stripped out before delivery- and in doing so the F-16 is robbed of the very systems that keep them relatively current. I have a suspicion that an awful lot of 404 pilots are going to die from overly-sunny expectations and lack of skill; for their sake I hope our latest gear delivery included a substantial supply of body bags.
Yes, it doesn’t make much sense. But maybe the sensible part here lies in a plan to train a bunch of Ukrainians just enough to use them as kamikazes to decommission their superfluous aircraft in the most cost-effective way.
Such an expert analysis.
i appreciated it
It fits. Ukraine is being used as cannon fodder and at some point the light bulb will go on.
The F-16 began it’s operational (IOC) career in 1977. It is like a nice little sports car from the 1970s. Although any F-16 jets still in American hands will be upgraded; most likely any F-16 delivered to Ukraine will be older export models from Europe.
Most likely these F-16s will be from Holland, which received it’s F-16s starting in 1979 and took their final delivery in 1992.
“In March of 1980, the Netherlands announced plans (finally approved by the Dutch Parliament in December 1983) to buy an additional 111 aircraft (97 F-16A’s and 14 F-16B’s). This brought the total F-16 inventory to 213 aircraft, 177 A models and 36 B models. The last F-16 rolled off the line at Fokker’s Schiphol plant on February 27th, 1992.”
The F-16 provided to Ukraine will be old tech cannon fodder as they are no match for the S300, S400, BUK or any other Russian SAM system deployed in Russia’s net centric SAM network.
Did I mention that the Russian Air Force deploys 5th generation jets with Beyond Visual Range BVR missiles and clearance to fire BVR They can reach out and touch another jet at 70 to 150 Km?
Just like Nazi Germany hoping for wonder weapons or “Wunderwaffen” to defeat the allies in 1944: Ukraine keeps wishing for the next wonder weapon to save their bacon. Perhaps Zelensky should ask for submarines and nuclear weapons also.
There is one sure way to fix the problem and it is called diplomacy and negotiations. If Ukraine had negotiated 15 months ago 300,000 Ukrainians would still be alive and most of their territory would still be in Ukrainian hands.
How crazy is it for Zelensky and the insane Ukrainian politicians to allow their young men; now younger and older men, to be used as cannon fodder by Western nations in a proxy war of attrition?
In other words those planes are flying coffins?
They have ejection system. Ukrainians need to make sure it works and use it at first opportunity. That old, flying junk is useless in a war against weak countries, never mind top military power like Russia.
Ivan, I believe that ByeDone’s approval of the F16 to Ukraine is nothing more than a “show of faith” for ZelBoy’s benefit, the latter having begged for such for months.
In the end, those F16s will prove useless and ByeDone knows it.
He’s just continuing his capitulation to Ukrainazia.
Zelensky went begging at the G7 meeting in Japan this week. Any objections to Europeans providing their older F-16s to Ukraine were dismissed.
Before you sign up to be a mercenary in Ukraine flying a 30 year old F-16 perhaps a little research into the competition would be in order.
I personally would put the F-18 Super Hornet F-22, F-35, or the F-15 up against the Su-27 and Su-35 as good adversaries. As for 30 year old European export F-16s I don’t think so. Even with upgrades; the runways and environment demands a more rugged aircraft.
The su-27 and Su-35 are two airframes with the Su-57 and MiG-35 also fielding long range hypersonic air to air missiles.
Why is Su-35 the best?
Airframe and Engines
This also allows the Su-35 to achieve very high angles-of-attack—in other words, the plane can be moving in one direction while its nose is pointed in another. A high angle of attack allows an aircraft to more easily train its weapons on an evading target and execute tight maneuvers.
What are the weaknesses of the Su-35?
‘In addition to already poor performance, Irbis-E is vulnerable to jamming by modern EW suites owing to a smaller bandwidth, which you can tell from inferior SAR resolution. Combined with substantially short-ranged missiles put Su-35 at a significant disadvantage in BVR combat.
The latest upgrades have improved on Irbis-E radar deficiencies.
Which is better F-16 or Su-35?
A twin-engine, single-seat aircraft, it is described as “Russia’s signature heavy fighter bomber” by the RAND Corporation think tank. While the F-16 can reach Mach 2, or twice the speed of sound, Russian sources say the Su-35 has a maximum speed of Mach 2.25.
What missiles does the Su-35 carry?
The Su-35 can carry up to eight R-27 missiles simultaneously, which retain an impressive 130km range allowing it to out range many of the Western and Chinese fighters.
What is the range of Su-35 air to air missile?
Its robust capabilities allowed it to engage targets from up to 130 miles.
PENTAGON started Choking on the Fact that the Russian Su-35 became World’s Most Resultative Fighter
Su-35 receives the farthest hypersonic air-to-air missile R-37M
They are very humble now, aren’t they?
I guess Western MSM was wrong about claims that Russia is low on munitions.
F-16s for Ukraine. From where can they take off and land? Where in Ukraine can they be serviced, repaired etc? Any ideas?
Basically from the same places they have been flying their air missions since the war started, whether it’s an existing airfield or a remote/austere landing zone (i.e. a paved road). Their newly trained maintainers and ordnance crew will keep these planes running with the ammunition, spare parts, and tools they will receive as part of the Total Package Approach.
I do not think it is that simple and easy as you discribe it.
2 years to train them to our level of skills or 4 months to teach them to land without crashing.
It isn’t going to be that bad but a 4 month time will result in much less skilled pilots and likely a shorten life spain that will be measured in days.
They got to get them in quick because that war is going to be over in less than 2 years.
You are either an experience fighter pilot or are just repeating Col Macgregor’s and pedophile Putin lover Scott Ritter’s BS?
Are you sure an existing pilot cannot be trained in a different platform in 4 months?
These pilots will most likely graduate with more flying hours in 4 months than a Russian pilot gets in two years.
2 years to full experience as shared by those who train them but you believe a 4 month quick course will do it as well.
Then why do we train our pilots so much? We surely could cut down on training if 4 months is all one needs once you know how how to fly.
I’m pretty sure you have no idea of training schedules in Russia but that is usual for such a claim as yours so I’ll ignore the guess/claim other than laugh at it.
I know this much, the Russian aviation sucks and Russian pilots are pretty incompetent as shown in this ongoing war.
“I’m pretty sure you have no idea of training schedules in Russia….”
But obviously you do.
I know they have way more seat time than your wild guess but then who cares?
Ukraine will be begging for peace before those jets get shot down anyway.
There you go, the closet Pro Putin in you now comes to life. I knew it all along.
Donny we all know you believe everthing Joe Biden tells you so let’s not go down that road. I just can read a situation much better than you.
How’s that fallen city doing?
Are you readying a counter-attack to push Russia out yet?
How is the city doing? It’s doing great, it just got liberated by Russia. See it for yourself.
And I’m not readying any counter attack, Ukraine is and when it happens, I’ll ask you how is the Russian summer offensive going so have an answer handy.
It’s destroyed, no Schiff.
It’s too bad the Ukranians were so obstinate but that’s war.
The Russian now control it despite your endless claims they wouldn’t.
Find a quote from me where I ever stated that Russia would NOT take Bakhmut.
Then what has been your purpose behind saying Putin is failing?
Russia has been advancing albeit very slowly but you keep claiming this war is going badly for Putin and every other claim the State Department makes.
You report every dubious claim you see on CNN as fact yet you claim you always knew it would fall?
Donny, I take you even less seriously now and I viewed you as totally unserious before this.
So are you ready to admit the comedian will be asking for peace soon? Or are you waiting on the talking heads at PBS and CNN to tell you the official US position after the upcoming Ukrainian Offensive that everyone serious says will fail?
Has Fallujah been rebuilt? Those damn Ukrainians and their scorched earth retreats. BTW, snow still on the ground there?
Now some fool wants “scorched earth” for Taiwan to make it resemble Bakhmut.
Time is running out for that vaunted Spring Offensive by the installed UKrainian Dictatorship. Only about a month to go.
The assessments were made by US officials, not McGregor or Ritter.
I’d like to know who those US Officials were.
How about another US official believes the previously made assessment on Ukrainian pilots not being able to be proficient at flying an F-16 in 4 months was wrong.
Yes, of course they were wrong. Once the goods are ok to be sent, the assessments change. Shocking, isn’t it?
I still see you like to counter the pro Ukraine freedom folks here but never the pro Russia. Zero issues with those, in the name of antiwar.
I counter “Ukrainian freedom folks” here who are ok with the continuation of Ukrainian deaths for the US stated goal of weakening Russia. If the roles were reversed, and the US was using Russia to weaken Ukraine, then I’d be against the continuation of Russian deaths being used for the stated goal of weakening Ukraine.
Oh yes, we are good with the continuation of Ukrainian deaths, great way to spin it.
I didn’t spin anything Don. You want a war to continue that can’t be won. A war that will more than likely end with a worse deal for Ukraine than the peace deal that wasn’t allowed to proceed in late March of ’22. Lots of dead people since then. Lots and lots.
They already know how to land without crashing. They’re already skilled pilots. They just have to learn the differences between the aircraft they’re used to and the new ones. Which is not a trivial matter, but also not like they have to get doctorates in astrophysics from a standing start or something.
I know that but if it takes up to 2 years to full skills then 4 months is just enough to get them flying something different but as some are saying their muscle memory will still be for Russian MIGs and those are flown differently.
4 months gets them up but won’t give them the very needed time in the seat to get them the experience to keep them alive.
I have heard from experienced pilots that it’s easier to train new pilots than retrain pilots of Soviet fighters to fly US fighters because of automatic reflexes every pilot acquires of the years. In a stress situation under attack, the old reflexes always resurface.
See? That’s why they can shorten the training. They don’t need to learn landing without crashing because they will be shot down anyways.
Did anyone else notice that we’re sending F-16s and not the latest military jets? Are we hedging, just in case the Russians start shooting those F-16s down as bad as we’re reporting how the Ukrainians are shooting down hypersonic missiles? I can already see the Deep$hitState operatives $hitting in their own diapers: “So the Russians shot down ‘very few’ old F-16s. Big deal! No scratches were big enough that can’t be buffed away!” …No? You can’t see that happening? Sorry. I saw Victoria Nuland’s picture this morning and got a monkey wrench thrown in my brain. (Sarcasm)
Actually, F16’s are our ‘goto jet’ for air superiority and ground attack. That’s what we send to Israel. The only other jet that is supposed to be superior to it is the F35’s. Why not send in F35’s?
I agree with you, Chris! I’m just pointing out that I have a feeling people will be talking that F-16s were from the 70s. So if they do well, they’ll say, “look how smart we are. Even our technology from the 70s beats the dumb Russians.” If the opposite is true, “those airplanes are old US technology from the 70s.” In fact, I have already seen people share how old the F-16s were right here in this space. LOL.
Biden in Hiroshima escalating nuclear war risk ever higher. Unbelievable.
It’s just too… something.. these ironies make me lose my words..
I suppose Hiroshima is the perfect spot to declare actions that will lead to nuclear warfare.
Every criminologists knows that a criminal always returns to the site of his crime. Perhaps from a US standpoint, Hiroshima is a suitable place to trigger WWIII.
Escalation is the order of the day. With Putin fighting for his survival due to his missteps in Ukraine. NATO continuing to arm Zelensky with more and more advanced weapons. While the West and Russia test out their weaponry. The situation is grim for the innocents on the ground caught in the middle. Who’s looking out for them Biden? We know Putin don’t give a crap.
The US wants Ukraine to fight to the last man in defense of the US’s global hegemony. How is that “looking out for Ukrainians”?
US-LED-NATO keeps playing a game of brinkmanship in Ukraine. Warmonger politicians are doing their best to provoke Russia into an open war. This is very irresponsible and very dangerous.
The Russian MOD is fighting a very successful war of attrition disarming NATO (Ukraine was disarmed in March 2022), tank by tank, artillery by artillery, air defense by air defense. Russia now will fight NATO to the last European.
At the May 9th Victory Day Parade Vladimir Putin has included the De-occupation of Ukraine as an objective of the SMO. The SMO now will achieve De-Nazification, Demilitarisation and De-Occupation of Ukraine.
If the Ukrainian people want their sovereignty back then they need to remove NATO who has illegally occupied Ukraine since the coup in 2014.
NATO overall has accumulated the following equipment losses;
428 Aircraft, 235 helicopters, 4262 UAV’s, 424 Anti Aircraft systems, 9257 tanks inc. APC’s, 1100 multiple rocket launchers, 4881 rocket launchers and 10379 military automotive equipment.
What the empire looses in the Ukraine, they loose for the final Russian attack on NATO. Russia has shown they will pre-emptively attack to defend the Motherland when the time is dictated by events on the ground.
US is afraid to send F-16 jets to Ukraine as its reputation would be at risk with the Russian S-400 and S-500 air defense systems…!
No it’s a well known fact that F16’s would be shot down by S-300 and S-400 if their radars are not being jammed, so no reputation to lose, from having a very old plane shot down. If they actually feared this why do you think they would allow their partners to supply F16’s?
“Well Known Fact”? How many F-16 have been shut down by S-400 system and where…?
None, that is not really needed in these times, but you bring up an interesting point, the Russian S-300 and S-400 missiles may be very overhyped and not capable of shooting down even an old fighter like the F16 – I personally do not believe they are this bad and that we are that ignorant of their capabilities.
The Russians have used even their 5th generation fighters very sparingly in Ukraine because the Ukrainians have (had) 30-year old Soviet S-300 air defense systems, which so far prevented the Russians from establishing air supremacy over Ukraine. It’s save to assume that the Russian S-400 and S-500 can easily deal with US 4th generations fighter planes. I used to work in the aerospace field and know for a fact that the Russians/Soviets have a tremendous experience in rocket technology. Moreover, while the US military is offensive with a strong air force and aircraft carriers, the Russian military is defensive with an emphasis in rocket technology and air defenses.
To believe that the Russian air defenses and hypersonic missiles are overhyped would be a dangerous mistake.
On May 16th, the US Patriot PAC3 air defense system in Kyiv was taken out by Russian Kinzhal missiles. In other words, the US Patriot can’t even defend itself in a point-to-point attack. It would be totally useless for protecting other objects in a point-to-area attack. In a desperate attempt to prevent its destruction the Patriot battery fired its entire load of 32 missiles (worth nearly 100 million USD) at two or three incoming Russian missiles without hitting anything except the night streets of Kyiv, where residents picked up the debris for sales on eBay.
May 16th was the day the war between Russia and Nato was decided.
This aligns very well with what I believe we are seeing – the S-500 have AFAIK not been put into serious production, but then they apparently have enough of the S-300 to make this less relevant – the S-300, S-400 being quite adequate to keep F16 away from Russian held territory.
I’m not at all dismissive about the S-300/S-400, I do however doubt how much additional a threat the ‘hypersonic’ missiles (Kinzhal etc) constitutes in a nuclear war – Russia having quite enough ballistic missiles to make any use of hypersonic missiles a foot note.
I’ve not seen conclusive evidence to support this claim – not seen conclusive evidence to prove it wrong either.
The evidence I saw was that it fired a maximum of 10 missiles and AFAIK the total number of missiles at any one launcher is 12 – so there should not have been 32 to launch, if you have a link to the full video showing 32 missiles launched it would be interesting to see.
Just not seeing that – as in no evidence that this was a significant turning point – even if I accepted the idea that Kinzhal could from time to time destroy a Patriot system, it would not make me conclude this, as I did not expect the Patriot to be able to hit a Kinzhal in the first place.
“if you have a link to the full video showing 32 missiles launched it would be interesting to see.”
Thanks! Not all from the exact same location, but certainly not kilometers apart, likely not even hundred of meters apart.
As shown on the map, the Patriot launchers are placed in an airport inside Kyiv only a few dozens of meters from each other, much too close due to the limited space available inside the city. The 32 missiles are fired from different launchers exactly in the locations a couple of minutes later the 3 blasts from the Kinzhal hits can be seen. You can count the missiles in the video. They are all Patriots because they are launched at an angle, while Soviet SAMs are launched vertically. The bloggers who put the video online were arrested by the SBU secret service.
Yes it is the (likely) explanation for the lack of distance between the launchers – though the location (airport) does allow for more distance than I originally estimated (like at each end of the runway – not claiming that they were placed like that though, just what I would have done).
I gave you a thumbs up as I agreed with the analysis that it was 30 odd Patriots fired from as we now agree different launchers – there supposedly could not be three blasts form Kinzhal hits as the Russians only launched 2, that aside there could have been multiple hits or one and secondary explosions from equipment or ammunition on the ground.
The most convincing explanation for the multiple Patriot launch being that they were trying to avoid too large a secondary explosions by ‘removing’ ordinance.
Ukraine said it downed 6 Kinzhals. The Russians didn’t say how man they launched, they only said that it was less than 6 or “a couple” which could mean two or three. There were 3 blasts on the ground in the locations the Patriots had been fired from. It doesn’t matter whether it was 2 Kinzhals and 1 Iskander or 3 Kinzhals.
They can dismiss the reputational loss by claiming that these are old planes. This will serve at the same time as sales pitch for the US to sell it’s F-35s to Europe after Europeans have sent their F-16s to the scrap heap (or grave yard) in Ukraine: “See? Those old F-16s are no use against Russian air defenses! You urgently need new F-35s if you don’t want to be run over by the evil Russians.” It’s all a big racket. Ukrainians are collaterals in the capitalist game of optimizing profits.
I do not believe that there were any new customers for the F16 in Europe anyway, sure exchange old MIG’s for F16’s but none for new purchases. The European nations I know of had a timeline for the pensioning off of their F16 already – being able to ‘write’ them off an aid to Ukraine is probably not the least popular option for any of the governments.
No one in Europe would think that F16’s were of any use against Russian air defenses if these were left more or less intact – we knew this already when engaging in Libya and maybe even longer – to be able to fly these old things the air defenses first have to be suppressed or destroyed – and I do not know if Ukraine has that capability – they have not had it so far (that much I do know).
So given the urgency of rearming in Europe I doubt that there is any need to show the F16 as bad as deployed by Ukraine – it simply is not going to change any purchasing orders, the delivery of F16 will cause a need for new planes, so in that way it will work, though the F35 is so much more expensive that it is a very doubtful substitute for a F16 type plane.
There is no way to train Ukrainian pilots in time. The F-16s will be flown by Nato pilots who have changed their uniform. They will be flown from bases in Poland and Romania, which will make Nato countries the legitimate targets for Russian missile strikes.
John Helmer at Dances with Bears believes that the Nato maneuver “Air Defender 23” scheduled for June 12th to 24th with over 200 aircraft from 20 Nato members may be used as a cover to launch an alleged Ukrainian ambush on Russian targets. After the destruction of the US Patriot in Kyiv, the US knows that the game is up. Only a desperate move can save the empire now. If John is right, we may now be on autopilot for WWIII.
The old F-16s now being phased out by these EU members are not Gen 4.5+ models. They are the old stuff. Worn, technically dated.
It may be that the latest bloc improvement of the F-16 could do better, but that is not what those allies have, not what they can provide. Only the US could do that, and as another NATO ally (Turkey) is now learning such F-16 updates are very expensive, take time, and are tightly guarded by the US, doled out jealously.
No doubt some Flying Tiger style contractor pilots can be provided, and maybe the planes can fly from sanctuaries in NATO states, likely Poland and Romania. But even with all those high risk moves to make this happen, they are still old, tired, dated planes.
Or will the US also send some from its own forces, some of its best? That would be not just escalation, but put the material at risk in ways the US has refused to do with other bloc improvement programs like M-1 tanks.
Comments are closed.