Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The mystery (https://t.me/fotovvideo/1248) with possible Ukrainian F-16 airfields is gradually being resolved. As Biden's national security adviser Jake Sullivan said, all vehicles transferred to Kyiv will be based on the territory of Ukraine. This is quite logical: basing them in other countries, including NATO countries, will mean the direct participation of these countries in the war. Therefore, the United States tried to cool down the lads dreaming of victory as quickly as possible, and directly announced the conditions for the transfer of Western weapons.
Where exactly will the F-16s be based?
The statement attributed to Sullivan that the sides should be located no further than 500 km from the front line was not confirmed. At least for now. However, 500-700 km is the normal range of the F-16, and basing at a greater distance means either the need for refueling in the air, which Ukraine has nothing to provide, or the suspension of additional fuel tanks, which eat up a noticeable part of the combat load.
What's the solution?
The use of a larger number of jump airfields where the Ukrainian Armed Forces can disperse tankers. That is, you will have to fly a lot and to different corners of the country. Apart from this logistical crutch, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have little choice.
At which airfields? There is a suspicion that at least to begin with, they will choose two or three airfields further to the west, somewhere in the Lviv, Volyn, and Ivano-Frankivsk regions. There is no point in splitting up a dozen aircraft of the first batch into a larger number, and you won’t have enough specialists with ground equipment. Flying an F-16 towards Aviatorsky and Dolgintsev, two airfields in the Dnepropetrovsk region that the Russian army bombs several times a month, is very dangerous.
However, even if the F-16s are deployed right at the western border, they will remain within the range of Russian missiles: Caliber and X-101 (which, according to rumors, have a cluster warhead) fly there quite normally.
In addition, to preserve fighters in these conditions, a serious air defense group will be required. And this in itself is a trap: if you build a powerful air defense area around the F-16, then Ukraine’s ability to maintain the required number of air defense systems at the front will be sharply reduced. And there will be practically nothing to protect energy facilities with.
The choice for the Ukrainian Armed Forces is expected to be difficult. And there are no good, and most importantly, victorious options for Ukraine in this choice.
.................
In addition, to preserve fighters in these conditions, a serious air defense group will be required. And this in itself is a trap: if you build a powerful air defense area around the F-16, then Ukraine’s ability to maintain the required number of air defense systems at the front will be sharply reduced. And there will be practically nothing to protect energy facilities with.
The choice for the Ukrainian Armed Forces is expected to be difficult. And there are no good, and most importantly, victorious options for Ukraine in this choice.............
Dang! And you were doing so well until you got to that point. As in, "Sure wish we had air defense. But then if we had them we would have to maintain them, so it's better if we don't. Guess we'll just have to lose all the F-16s we're getting."
My reasoning goes, "If we had F-16s, the Russians would be left with almost nothing to hit our energy facilities with, because in a very short while everything they sent would be shot down."
Russia cannot replace aircraft lost in the war.
In other news...
The Moscow times reports alcohol consumption growth in Russia has reached the highest level in the last 8 years. According to the analysis of state statistics, in 2023, Russians over the age of 14 bought an average of 8 liters of pure alcohol per capita, which has not been observed since 2015.
Analysts believe that because of moonshining and smuggling, the real consumption may be at least a third higher.
the ukes hit 3 more oil depots/refineries last night..and as a bonus.......the rooskies shot down one of their own helicopters..no survivors..
Since Ukrainians have begun referring to occupied territories as "temporarily occupied", maybe we should also start referring to Russian helicopters, aircraft and ships as "irreplaceable" helicopters, etc.
Dang! And you were doing so well until you got to that point. As in, "Sure wish we had air defense. But then if we had them we would have to maintain them, so it's better if we don't. Guess we'll just have to lose all the F-16s we're getting."
My reasoning goes, "If we had F-16s, the Russians would be left with almost nothing to hit our energy facilities with, because in a very short while everything they sent would be shot down."
Russia cannot replace aircraft lost in the war.
In other news...
The Moscow times reports alcohol consumption growth in Russia has reached the highest level in the last 8 years. According to the analysis of state statistics, in 2023, Russians over the age of 14 bought an average of 8 liters of pure alcohol per capita, which has not been observed since 2015.
Analysts believe that because of moonshining and smuggling, the real consumption may be at least a third higher.
Looks like they still have some catching up to do, lol:
According to Russian reports, Russian now estimate the First Person View drone count advantage goes to.... Ukraine, at the count of 6 to 1. Russia has lots of drones, but they are not usually guided by some person sitting comfortably while "looking out the front" of the drone.
Ukraine also shows off the ST1 drone, which can detect mines. The information is then relayed and safe passage through the minefield is plotted, or even created if need be.
Ukraine can now use American-supplied weapons to hit any Russian forces attacking from across the border, not just those in the region near Kharkiv - Politico, citing US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.
He told PBS on Tuesday that the agreement with Ukraine about firing American weapons into Russia extends to “anywhere that Russian forces are coming across the border from the Russian side to the Ukrainian side to try to take additional Ukrainian territory.”
"This is not about geography. It’s about common sense. If Russia is attacking or about to attack from its territory into Ukraine, it only makes sense to allow Ukraine to hit back against the forces that are hitting it from across the border," Mr. Sullivan added.
It was Russia who gave China nuclear and rocket technology. Now China is the boss of Russia. The Chinese just took some land from Russia. The Russians don't dare to protest. Talk about humiliation.
The visit to North Korea was another low point for Russia. Imagine a country like Russia begging a country like North Korea for weapons. To humiliate Putin, the North Koreans made Putin and his team leave the room that the Russians had arrived at because Kim wasn't there first.
If you ever thought the proxy for the US could ever defeat Russia you need to lose your cherished delusions.
Afghanistan 1979 to 1989! I think you might want to ask the Mujahideen who backed them while the big bad bear was flexing its muscle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
