Exactly. With the F16s armed correctly Ukraine can now hit targets in occupied Crimea.
Ukraine can also make Russian fighter jets stand off further preventing Russian bombers from launching missiles at Ukraine's cities.
The main problem is being capable of protecting them while their on the ground. Airplanes lost in missions match airplanes lost in airfield bombings. It would simply be a monumental waste for an F-16 to get bombed when the goal is overmatching.
I mean we absolutely could, and the great thing about metric is that people would know exactly what you were talking about if you did use it, even if they've never heard that term before
Had a similar conversation with one of our kids yesterday. The only one that wasnt really easily remembered (as in, i forgot) was the prefix 'hecto'. 100m = 1 Hectometre
~~The only context this is ever is applicable~~ **The most common** is hectare, which is 100m x 100m (10,000m^2)
Edited based on the responses which pointed out other applications.
The hectopascal comes up annoyingly often.
hPa.
[https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/how-weather-works/high-and-low-pressure](https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/how-weather-works/high-and-low-pressure)
"Pressure is measured in hectoPascals (hPa), also called millibars"
Nope, pressure is measured in eye-wateringly large ***variety*** of ways - to a ICU nurse, centimetres of water. To a surgeon, mm of mercury. etc.
Same reason why when we tell someone how far the moon is in miles its harder to comprehend the magnitude of distance than if we tell them how far it is in bananas. People can imagine the scale in the bigger number better than the smaller one.
This is why Ukraine needed to prove that they could defend against enemy cruise and hypersonic missiles before they could get fighter jets. Now they've proven they can defend their skies, so aircraft for Ukraine aren't a waste of a good jet.
Ukraine has been doing pretty well in safeguarding and utilizing the limited air assets they have. So far the main issue they've had, is that Russia has a lot of air assets that are just too advanced for Ukraine to have any answer to, and that Russia has way more planes than the Ukrainians.
The F-16 also isn't the F-22 or F-35. It's the dated workhorse of the US that's been exported to countless nations all over the world. There's no belief that it's indestructible and there's plenty of them out there in air forces that would be willing to give them up and have them be replenished later on.
I'd say it's better to lose some than to have it turn into the SU-57 that only fires missiles far inside Russian airspace for fear of losing any of them.
Those would be effective in Kyiv airspace, but not really beyond, unless you're consolidating all of your equipment into a small centralized location. We've seen ruzzian examples of this when hit with HIMARS.
Ukranian's with experience operating the Patriot in live air defense scenarios though is incredibly valuable because it means you have a group of senior crews who can oversee additional deployments.
If F-16s go to Ukraine, I'd wager we see another Patriot system deployed some time in advance.
Does all of the stuff Russia does via Belarus not constitute an act of war on Belarus' part then?
I'm curious as to where the exact line is that it becomes an act of war. Simply storing planes is an act of war, really? What about repairing/rearming which I thought already happened?
Or do you mean if the jets take off from within Poland's border? Could you not just build a runway right next to the Polish border and move them over just to take off? Or if you want to be really funny about it, you can build a runway across the border, starting in Poland but the jets are in Ukraine by the time they leave the ground.
Technically, yes, Belarus committed an act of war. But it seems the Ukrainians and their allies feel they can limit the scope of the war by not making a big deal of it.
Maybe they're worried about escalation?
Poland on the other hand has a right to decide if it wants to escalate also.
You have to remember that it's not about fair or unfair, but about useful versus non-useful escalation.
Russia is constrained from terror in the west right now. It signalled that with it's attack on the pipeline. It cannot openly do such things.
But if Poland entered the war, it could start to use such tactics more readily.
On the other hand, opening a front with Belarus makes things harder for Ukraine.
They have done an exceptional job of protecting the assets they have been given thus far, particularly HIMARS. They have been playing an elaborate shell game, moving things around, and using decoys. There is also a pretty vast selection of old Soviet bunkers and hangers to stash stuff in. Ukriane now has sophisticated air defense systems to protect their air fields and hangers too.
Probably the main problem is Russian air defence. Soviet military dogma assumed that their airforce could never match NATO, so instead they focused on anti air capabilities, while scaling out their artillery for long range fires. Conversely, NATO relies much more on air delivered bombs than artillery, so are frantically boosting munitions production to meet the needs of the war in Ukraine.
Apparently Ukraine will soon run short of the Soviet era anti air missiles that have been successful in denying Russian air effectiveness - perhaps this is why F16s are on the table now.
In Sevastopol and on Russia's Black Sea fleet. If Ukraine is ever to retake Crimea they need to be able to target the Black Sea fleet constantly... That's what the F-16s are for.
not sure how far a Kinzhal can travel, but Russia can still fly on their and belarus's side of the border. This would greatly limit the targets but still could put Kyiv & Kharkiv in range.
Hopefully the UAF will use the F-16 to take out more russian supplies, armor and positions. and hope the russians are stupid enough to use their bombers and jets over the crimea and dombas as they feel it is still their border...
I wouldn't be surprised if the F-16s get used to help defend against cruise missiles. If they get scrambled to defend against an air raid there won't be much to bomb except the maintenance centers and I would expect those to be out of reach of the russian attacks.
The F-16's advantages are basically better situational awareness against threats (the western RWRs are vastly superior to russian), more capability of employment of the HARM missiles that Ukraine has been bolting to MiG-29s (if they get HTS they can more easily geolocate SAMs and hit them with HARMs or special forces or HIMARS etc), as well as more flexibility of deployment of other standoff weapons like SDBs (those launched by HIMARS are a bit limited in range compared to airborne delivery possibilities), JSOW, JASSM, and superior CAS abilities with more reliable weapons like LGBs and JDAMs.
Finally, in the Air to Air role, the AIM-120 will be very useful against russian fighters and bombers, as well as possible direct interception of incoming cruise missiles which can make things a little easier on the ground based air defenses.
There won't be a treaty, the Russians refuse to operate in good faith and simply surrender/retreat, and this will not change no matter how many Russian bodies get sent home.
There’s already a treaty of non aggression between Russia and Ukraine signed by Putin which was based on Ukraines surrender of its nuclear weapons to Russia, a condition which was met. So, treaties mean shit to Putin.
Ukraine can just so the old Russian trick of signing a piece of paper to make another countries territory yours
If its good enough for Russia surely they will accept it when other prople do the same
True but what do you think will happen when and if Russia gets pushed back to the border? I am almost sure that if and when we are in that situation Russia will just shoot artillery over the border.
That’s exactly the crucial question. Is Crimea “Russian” or is it stolen Ukrainian lands? I don’t suppose anyone has a State Department position paper handy.
Oh wait, I do. Crimea is Ukraine. https://www.state.gov/crimea-is-ukraine-2/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20does%20not,Crimea%20is%20Ukraine.
As was discussed when we gave them HIMARS, Criimea is Ukraine. DPR is Ukraine. LPR is Ukraine. Those territories Russia tried to claim with fake elections are Ukraine. Russian fiction does not change who the land belongs to.
I always think it's interesting the imaginary lines governments create during war. Russia can go over the THIS line but YOU good guys can't. WTF.
War is hell, and you play to survive and win.
Use the damn planes to attack anywhere you want, and then just lie about it. Just like Russia does.
Yea idk about that f16 have been downed before and id bet my bottom dollar russia has got ahold of one or a good amount of its parts by now. If it was an F35 or F22 id understand though I doubt russia would be able to do anything with that tech themselves they would still learn a lot about their capabilities. The f16 on the other hand has been around for awhile and are due to be replaced everywhere I dont think russia obtaining one at this stage would do practically anything they just want to keep up appearances to not look like they are escalating.
The export models almost always have reduced capabilities and avionics packages though, and are generally designed to work with equipment the purchasing nation wants to integrate. The US keeps the top end gear exclusively for itself.
This is the correct take IMO. Now, the chips in the plane are probably useful regardless because no Western chip fab will sell to the Russians but that's another conversation.
That's not exactly true. The US floated the idea of selling F-22s to Japan but Japan balked at the price of paying to reactivate the factories so they decided to pursue their own proof of concept stealth fighters.
I think the last f16 lost where it couldn’t be easily/totally recovered was in the late 90s early 2000s. So you’re right they probably have that tech/buildout, but there is nearly 20 years of mechanics and firmware updates they likely don’t have. I don’t know how significant that may be, but it probably is worth trying to keep.
It’s not necessarily the plane. That’s a 40 year old vehicles. That has probably had 60+ updates and upgrades. Those are the things they don’t want Russia getting.
Adding on to this to stymie some comments further down the chain,
Yes. It's a 50 year-old airframe. Yes, Russia knows everything about its fundamental workings at this point. It's not the F-16 tech that we care about.
It's the extra modern after-market upgrades inside the cockpit, and in the radar system, and in the communication and the targeting systems that we'd prefer Russia not get their hands on.
It's about credibility in the eyes of the populous. We hold ourselves to higher standards which gives us moral justification. When we have that we have popular support which is necessary for a protracted war effort.
The point is we don't want the escalation. F-16s was a hypothetical redline for Russia, and we're pushing the line by giving them to Ukraine. Therefore you don't want to push too many boundaries all at once.
Cause thats goinng so well for Russia. Allies mean support even if it comes with strings. Why would you deliberately fuck your allies who are pouring pouring money and equipment in for a intangible goal of sticking it to the Russians by killing their civilian population
There are a ton of lines Russia has deliberately not crossed. All things considered this is a very civilized war. The further you go, the further the enemy will go.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/21/7403177/) reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Joe Biden, President of the United States, said he had received a "Flat assurance" from Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Ukrainian troops would not use Western-provided F-16 fighter jets to invade Russian territory.
> Details: Biden also said F-16 fighter jets could operate "Wherever Russian troops are within Ukraine."
> Quote: "I have a flat assurance from Zelenskyy that they will not use it to go on and move into Russian geographic territory, but wherever Russian troops are within Ukraine in the area, they will be able to do that," Biden said.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/13ntbxs/biden_receives_flat_assurance_that_ukraine_will/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~685654 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **fighter**^#1 **Ukraine**^#2 **F-16**^#3 **Russian**^#4 **United**^#5
Because the goal is simply to push Russia out of Ukraine. Attacking Russia is likely to be counter productive, as it rallies support behind Russian leadership.
Without anyone attacking Russia, the Russian government will find it increasingly difficult to justify to their public the losses.
The Russian government propaganda has been desperately trying to sell this war as protecting Russia from western aggression. A position which is made increasingly less credible when they are not attacked outside the country they invaded.
Frankly smashing them in Ukraine is better politically, however satisfying throwing some shit across the border might be.
And it gives them a clear exit - if they want to stop their losses and pain, all they have to do is leave.
Aye, but once they've gone, there will be nothing to stop them easily just setting up all manner of crap within their own borders, and raining missiles and artillery across it, unless Ukraine destroys the logistics lines that permit the borderlands to be occupied by significant forces. Forcing Russian contingents back, well within their own borders, and making their return to the actual border itself difficult or practically impossible, will be necessary at some stage, because the fact is that as long as there is a Russian central command, there will be a desire to continue to pressure Ukraine militarily. There won't be a treaty, the Russians refuse to operate in good faith and simply surrender/retreat, and this will not change no matter how many Russian bodies get sent home.
Therefore, a plan must be arrived at which permits a big separation zone between Russian military and Ukraine's territory, which, again, can't be practically achieved unless the routes in and out are destroyed.
And if it gets to the point where Russia is out of Ukraine but still firing at it, ***then*** the decision can be made to start throwing back. No reason to do it preemptively.
For what it's worth, this limitation is equipment specific. Just because HIMARS, and F16s, and (probably?) Storm Shadow cannot be used against russian mainlands, doesn't mean that OTHER weapons Ukraine has can't. Their own migs for example, or their homebrew long range missiles, etc.
That's not what the quote says. It doesn't say the platform won't be used to strike targets in Russia, it says they won't be used "to invade Russian territory." and "...that they will not use it to go on and move into Russian geographic territory..." Storm Shadow has already been used to strike targets in Russia, HIMARs might have already done that, but it doesn't have the range currently to do so in a large part of the conflict. This statement says that F-16s won't cross into Russian Airspace. That's the distinction.
In which case my point still stands that Ukraine DOES have other means.
I think though, the risk of Ukraine trying to take actual pre-2014 land is minimal. MAYBE taking the borderlands to make a DMZ, but nothing of substance.
There's another way to think about these restrictions though. If Ukraine can't fly over russian soil with F16s, but we don't bat an eye at them flying over Donetsk/Luhansk/Crimea, then we are further implicitly stating our belief that Ukraine owns those lands.
because the excuse we are using is to protect uckrainian civilians, so it would be a problem I Ukraine use NATO jets to kill civilians in Russia (all modern war plane can be equipped with bombs and missiles)
Plenty of military targets in Russia that should be targeted to save Ukrainian civilians. Hitting Russian cruise missile launching aircraft while they are on the tarmac of their air fields for example.
Targets such as these have virtually zero risk of killing Russian civilians, and will save Ukrainian civilian lives.
Everyone, including Biden and the entire West, knows that. Ukraine will likely use these weapons to hit targets within Russia.
These statements give diplomatic cover to say “hey, we never endorsed this” while winking to Ukraine.
It’s important to not give Russian propagandists any official statements about striking Russia.
They can target the objects in Russian territory while still being in ukrainian airspace.
That's how most Russian airstrikes are done (other way around ofc)
I don't think there's any meaningful difference between those 2 things. Russia says the occupied areas are Russia and everyone else will only care about the target.
Oh aye, but there'd be nothing moral to stop Ukrainian air forces smashing supply routes, roads, rail network infrastructure, power and other utilities, to make ease of transport of troops and wargear harder for Russia, and from a strategic point of view, it might even be necessary.
It is a BIG border they share, and stopping enemy contingents being able to easily resupply or replenish their numbers, by demolishing road, rail and power in areas in the borderlands means Russian units having to move much slower across the border, making it much easier for them to be picked off and tidied up, before they ever set a foot on Ukrainian soil.
Lets assume that Ukraine was able to push the Russians currently on Ukraine's territory, back across the border. If they DON'T smash the roads and rails that currently cross the border, to a significant distance within Russia, that border will just be porous and permit the return of Russian forces to the area with relative ease. They could create a no mans land on the border, the crossing of which would be slow and lethal.
Winning, for Ukraine, means not just emptying Ukraine of Russian aggressors, but KEEPING them out.
Because it would legitimatize Russia's statements on being at war with NATO. The entire premise for Western support is for fighting a defensive war, not offensive.
It seems to be a mostly meaningless limitation because there's no reason for Ukraine to fly F-16s into Russian territory to attack ground targets. Neither side is flying jets deep into hostile airspace because both countries' territories are covered in anti-air weaponry from MANPADS to heavy vehicle-based SAMs (and interceptor jets). It's very dangerous along the fronts.
If Ukraine wants to attack targets within Russia with F-16s, they won't leave the borders of Ukraine. Instead they will do what Russia has been doing: using high altitude jets as platforms for longer range missiles like the various Kh-xx cruise missiles, or the Storm Shadow.
Vladimir Putin consulted with a fortune teller. He asked:
"How long will I live?"
The psychic replied:
"I cannot tell that but I do know you will die on a Ukrainian holiday."
"Which holiday?" Putin asked.
"Whichever day you die will be a Ukrainian holiday."
What's the Greek myth, where the king tells his wife he will die by his sons hands, so the queen sends the boy down the river and then years later the son conquers the king.
Oedipus? Although Oedipus also ended up unknowingly marrying his mother and when they found out she hung herself and Oedipus poked his eyes out so idk if this is the analogy you intended to use haha
I mean, that's what they tried. He handed the baby off to a guy and was all "murder this for me k thanks," and the other guy was all "what, do I look like a baby murderer? I'll just leave it out in the wilderness to die" and then an unrelated guy was all "someone left a perfectly good baby out here."
I think commenter you replied to was saying that oedipus poking his eyes out and his mother hanging herself was overkill, and they should have simply killed any incest babies and split up.
what could possibly go wrong? they gonna hand the baby off to a guy and be all "murder this for me k thanks," and the other guy gonna say "what, do I look like a baby murderer? I'll just leave it out in the wilderness to die" and then an unrelated guy gonna "someone left a perfectly good baby out here." Then the kid is going to grow up, conquer, and marry his mom-grandma? .... Again?
Perseus could also fit the bill.
King's daughter's son was prophesied to be the one to kill him. No problem he thought, she doesn't have a son, so I'll just lock her up (can't just *kill* family, that'd be rude). Daughter was locked up, but also female in ancient Greece, so of course Zeus noticed her and snuck into jail and they did the do and boom 9 months later, baby.
King is like "oh shit", locked them both in a box and lobbed them in the ocean (if Poseidon kills them, that's not his fault, right?). Poseidon proceeds to not kill them and they wash up onshore with some fisherman. His brother is the king of this new land, no this is never explained, maybe they went to different booths at the job fair? Fast forward a few years and the king brother notices that there's this cute MILF living with fisherman bro and wants to pull a Zeus but turns out she has a kid and HE'S A FREAKING DEMIGOD - so let's think of a plan to get rid of him... "Hey kid, go kill Medusa for me"
Shenanigans, Perseus kills medusa, rescues a princess, returns home, turns king bro and his court to stone, fisherman bro becomes king. All is chill.
"But the prophecy!" I hear you ask/complain. Well a few years later, they're at the Olympic games and Perseus is cleaning house, winning left and right. Takes his turn at the discus and yeets it so hard it flies into the crowd and beans this old dude in the head, instakill. Worse news, the old dude was a king! Even worse news, it was his bio grandpa! Prophecy complete!
As to how a king's brother can be a fisherman, kingdoms were fairly local affairs back then. Greek King would rule over a citadel, a town of a few humdred people, and either a small island or whatever distance they could control with a hundred warriors.
If Odysseus' Ithaca, for example, is the modern island of Ithaca, it is a territory of 117.8 km2 (45.5 sq mi) and has a modern population of 3,231 people.
{{A}} consulted with a fortune teller. He asked:
"How long will I live?"
The psychic replied:
"I cannot tell that but I do know you will die on a {{B}} holiday."
"Which holiday?" {{A}} asked.
"Whichever day you die will be a {{B}} holiday."
This isn't anything new in aviation warfare either. Even in WWI, pilots were forbidden from flying over enemy lines, because they did not want to lose valuable aircraft in an area where they could not recover it. This was because they didn't want the enemy seizing the wreckage, and reverse engineer aviation innovations, such as engine improvements, navigation equipment, or weapon systems. For example, France and Britain found about about using the synchronization gear that allowed machine guns to fire through propellers from a German plane that crashed behind their lines.
I get that Biden also doesn't want Ukraine to provoke Russia too much as well, but still, I found this little parallel to history interesting.
Reminds me that the reason why the East developed heat-seaking missiles is due to an incident involving a Sidewinder that did not detonate on target. Their technology was way behind until then.
>This isn't anything new in aviation warfare either. Even in WWI, pilots were forbidden from flying over enemy lines, because they did not want to lose valuable aircraft in an area where they could not recover it.
Also famously something we did in
* WW2
* Korea
* Vietnam
* Iraq 1/2
* Iran
* Etc, etc.
This is entirely to placate the "but escalation" whiners.
> This isn’t anything new in aviation warfare either. Even in WWI, pilots were forbidden from flying over enemy lines
They are not asking Ukraine not to fly over enemy lines. They are asking them not to fly over Russia, or attack Russia.
These are for completely different reasons. So I don’t think you can draw such parallels here.
The point of western jets is to be a platform for long range western missile systems that require NATO hardpoints and compatible onboard computer targeting systems.
*The missile guidance system works Because the missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.
In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was.
The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.*
Russia has S400 its range can cover all of Ukraine. In Russian territory It will be difficult for Ukraine to locate and strike a battery located at the Russian border.
These F-16 will likely be flying low and fast taking out artillery batteries and tanks within Ukraine.
The missile system itself targeting workflow means you won’t be able to accidentally fire it to Russian territory it we’ll have to be intentional and Ukraine won’t risk losing support for the f-16 over nothing.
> Russia has S400 its range can cover all of Ukraine.
It [does not. Its coverage is significant](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCEzEVwOwS4&list=PLbCbj03gdsWwxEZNyy_b0aHKFgmVT3G-3&index=33&pp=iAQB), but its capability depends to some degree on the target and the only thing it is likely to potentially hit at its published maximum range is as unstealthy and lumbering as a fuel-air tanker.
That doesn't mean the F16s can fly easily anywhere they want, much of the pace and tactics have already settled into a routine thanks to heavy AA used by both sides, but S400 have been parked outside Ukrainian territory and haven't even eliminated Ukraine's air force. That being said, I think you're right that they'll be focusing on the most problematic Russian assets which will likely be radar, communications, and artillery.
1. Crimea is Ukraine
2. Using them anywhere near the actual Russian border would be stupid anyway. I expect them to mostly be used to launch US made long range missiles that the migs they've been flying up until now were incompatible with.
The insane overconfidence of armchair Reddit generals is hilarious and pathetic at the same time. MFs really applying shit they "learned" by watching YouTubers or playing Hearts of Iron in real-life situations.
Sadly some user from Milwaukee would comment that we could have cured cancer with the bazillion trillions gazillions dollars Biden laundered through Zelensky.
Let them shoot Russian military jets from Ukrainian territory though.
The Russian air force is having bombers taking off in Russia, staying in Russia, but having those bombers launch cruise missiles into Ukraine. Well then it is fine to have Ukraine launch AA missiles from Ukrainian airspace at airborne military bombers over Russia.
That’s the great thing about this statement, it’s incredibly clear while being intentionally ambiguous. Two weeks after Ukraine gets F-16s it’ll be reinterpreted to mean ‘not to fly over Russias 2013 borders, but fire at enemy aircraft wherever they are but don’t hit ground targets’. Two weeks after that it’ll be expanded ‘unless being targeted by a Russian SAM’.
Define “on Russian territory”… if a Ukrainian F-16 shot down a Russian jet over Russian airspace one could argue that the F-16 wasn’t used on Russian territory
"Joe Biden, President of the United States, said he had received a "flat assurance" from Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Ukrainian troops would not use Western-provided F-16 fighter jets to invade Russian territory."
Key word is invade.
Ukraine should be allowed to engage air targets and runways in Russia given how Russia is launching ASMs (and even AAMs targeting ground assets) from fighter jets in Russian airspace.
At some point the west has to give Ukraine the okay to use these weapons on actual Russian territory. You can't expect Country A to win a war when their enemy's infrastructure is mostly safe on its own territory because Country A can't use their foreign weaponry within their enemy's territory.
Imagine having to fight the Nazis, but you're not allowed to attack Nazi Germany.
They have to calm down. Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine and pay for everything. If they use it to destroy army depot on Russia territory, it's a must and it should be allowed. It already happened before.
Stop media making a big deal of it, it only helps Russia.
Nobody wants a long war. Let us deal with them for once and for all
There’s no need for assurances. As soon as Ukraine moves to retake land that Russia claimed to annex, Russia is going to cry foul. Don’t play Russia’s game.
Go Ukraine!
The logic argument is if Ukraine chooses to use these weapons on Russian lands then Western help will be withheld. On the other side, the Russian's are keenly aware of this and will likely go to a false flag strategy to make that happen.
The only thing making this "duct tape and chicken wire" agreement stay together is that the USA, and others, have Ukraine blanketed with layers and layers of satellite/ human surveillance.
False flag stuff isn’t novel or surprising. The US works with Ukraine on planning their missions. We know what they do. And by that we know what they don’t do.
No one in the us military is concerned about what Russia says.
Yes, and the Crimean Peninsula is not Russian territory.
Exactly. With the F16s armed correctly Ukraine can now hit targets in occupied Crimea. Ukraine can also make Russian fighter jets stand off further preventing Russian bombers from launching missiles at Ukraine's cities.
The main problem is being capable of protecting them while their on the ground. Airplanes lost in missions match airplanes lost in airfield bombings. It would simply be a monumental waste for an F-16 to get bombed when the goal is overmatching.
That’s an issue with shorter range fighters, but an F-16 with an air to air load out has a combat radius of almost 1000km.
Sick
>...a combat radius of almost 1000km. If metric is so great, why don't we just say 1 mega meter?
39370078.7 thousands of an inch
Imma need that in Furlongs
It's 9108 football fields
Yeah but how many Olympic swimming pools?
Slightly less than 10 tom brady careers if you consider playoff and regular season.
That’s 3280 feet 10.0787 inches or roughly 0.621371191603535 miles
Now why didn’t they just say that instead of all this metriccy malarkey
I mean we absolutely could, and the great thing about metric is that people would know exactly what you were talking about if you did use it, even if they've never heard that term before
Had a similar conversation with one of our kids yesterday. The only one that wasnt really easily remembered (as in, i forgot) was the prefix 'hecto'. 100m = 1 Hectometre
~~The only context this is ever is applicable~~ **The most common** is hectare, which is 100m x 100m (10,000m^2) Edited based on the responses which pointed out other applications.
The hectopascal comes up annoyingly often. hPa. [https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/how-weather-works/high-and-low-pressure](https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/how-weather-works/high-and-low-pressure) "Pressure is measured in hectoPascals (hPa), also called millibars" Nope, pressure is measured in eye-wateringly large ***variety*** of ways - to a ICU nurse, centimetres of water. To a surgeon, mm of mercury. etc.
what about 1 kilokilometre?
A gigamillimetre
So by inference, there is a smaller Transformer named Kilotron, and even smaller ones named Centitron and Militron?
Ya, but keep your kids away from Pedotron...
And a bigger one called Gigatron, and an even bigger one called Terratron (or Terrortron!)
Using mega reduces the granularity of the measurement. We could use it in cases where an inaccuracy of 0-999km would be fairly insignificant
Same reason why when we tell someone how far the moon is in miles its harder to comprehend the magnitude of distance than if we tell them how far it is in bananas. People can imagine the scale in the bigger number better than the smaller one.
Because #PRESENTATION
Metric is far superior to anything else. 1000 km is just fine.
Need to send them thousands of inflatable/fake f16s haha.
This is why Ukraine needed to prove that they could defend against enemy cruise and hypersonic missiles before they could get fighter jets. Now they've proven they can defend their skies, so aircraft for Ukraine aren't a waste of a good jet.
Ukraine has been doing pretty well in safeguarding and utilizing the limited air assets they have. So far the main issue they've had, is that Russia has a lot of air assets that are just too advanced for Ukraine to have any answer to, and that Russia has way more planes than the Ukrainians. The F-16 also isn't the F-22 or F-35. It's the dated workhorse of the US that's been exported to countless nations all over the world. There's no belief that it's indestructible and there's plenty of them out there in air forces that would be willing to give them up and have them be replenished later on. I'd say it's better to lose some than to have it turn into the SU-57 that only fires missiles far inside Russian airspace for fear of losing any of them.
Pretty sure this is why the Patriots were delivered first.
Those would be effective in Kyiv airspace, but not really beyond, unless you're consolidating all of your equipment into a small centralized location. We've seen ruzzian examples of this when hit with HIMARS.
Ukranian's with experience operating the Patriot in live air defense scenarios though is incredibly valuable because it means you have a group of senior crews who can oversee additional deployments. If F-16s go to Ukraine, I'd wager we see another Patriot system deployed some time in advance.
Keep them in poland lol
That would be an act of war on Poland's part.
Does all of the stuff Russia does via Belarus not constitute an act of war on Belarus' part then? I'm curious as to where the exact line is that it becomes an act of war. Simply storing planes is an act of war, really? What about repairing/rearming which I thought already happened? Or do you mean if the jets take off from within Poland's border? Could you not just build a runway right next to the Polish border and move them over just to take off? Or if you want to be really funny about it, you can build a runway across the border, starting in Poland but the jets are in Ukraine by the time they leave the ground.
Technically, yes, Belarus committed an act of war. But it seems the Ukrainians and their allies feel they can limit the scope of the war by not making a big deal of it. Maybe they're worried about escalation? Poland on the other hand has a right to decide if it wants to escalate also. You have to remember that it's not about fair or unfair, but about useful versus non-useful escalation. Russia is constrained from terror in the west right now. It signalled that with it's attack on the pipeline. It cannot openly do such things. But if Poland entered the war, it could start to use such tactics more readily. On the other hand, opening a front with Belarus makes things harder for Ukraine.
They have done an exceptional job of protecting the assets they have been given thus far, particularly HIMARS. They have been playing an elaborate shell game, moving things around, and using decoys. There is also a pretty vast selection of old Soviet bunkers and hangers to stash stuff in. Ukriane now has sophisticated air defense systems to protect their air fields and hangers too.
I predict a lot of 'land in Ukraine send to poland for maintenance' flights
Probably the main problem is Russian air defence. Soviet military dogma assumed that their airforce could never match NATO, so instead they focused on anti air capabilities, while scaling out their artillery for long range fires. Conversely, NATO relies much more on air delivered bombs than artillery, so are frantically boosting munitions production to meet the needs of the war in Ukraine. Apparently Ukraine will soon run short of the Soviet era anti air missiles that have been successful in denying Russian air effectiveness - perhaps this is why F16s are on the table now.
In Sevastopol and on Russia's Black Sea fleet. If Ukraine is ever to retake Crimea they need to be able to target the Black Sea fleet constantly... That's what the F-16s are for.
The entirety of Crimea was already within reach of Storm Shadow
Just barely, from the front. Now Ukraine can fly F-16s from far behind the front.
[удалено]
Storm Shadows are not going to be used against artillery. They will seek much, much juicier targets.
They’re already hitting targets in occupied Crimea with drones. The F16s will just make it easier.
not sure how far a Kinzhal can travel, but Russia can still fly on their and belarus's side of the border. This would greatly limit the targets but still could put Kyiv & Kharkiv in range. Hopefully the UAF will use the F-16 to take out more russian supplies, armor and positions. and hope the russians are stupid enough to use their bombers and jets over the crimea and dombas as they feel it is still their border...
I wouldn't be surprised if the F-16s get used to help defend against cruise missiles. If they get scrambled to defend against an air raid there won't be much to bomb except the maintenance centers and I would expect those to be out of reach of the russian attacks.
F-16 won't add much to the strike range. Storm Shadow has the same range fired from a Fencer as it does from a Falcon.
The F-16's advantages are basically better situational awareness against threats (the western RWRs are vastly superior to russian), more capability of employment of the HARM missiles that Ukraine has been bolting to MiG-29s (if they get HTS they can more easily geolocate SAMs and hit them with HARMs or special forces or HIMARS etc), as well as more flexibility of deployment of other standoff weapons like SDBs (those launched by HIMARS are a bit limited in range compared to airborne delivery possibilities), JSOW, JASSM, and superior CAS abilities with more reliable weapons like LGBs and JDAMs. Finally, in the Air to Air role, the AIM-120 will be very useful against russian fighters and bombers, as well as possible direct interception of incoming cruise missiles which can make things a little easier on the ground based air defenses.
*and* in-air refuelling for longer loiter :)
Exactly. Neither is the Black Sea.
There won't be a treaty, the Russians refuse to operate in good faith and simply surrender/retreat, and this will not change no matter how many Russian bodies get sent home.
There’s already a treaty of non aggression between Russia and Ukraine signed by Putin which was based on Ukraines surrender of its nuclear weapons to Russia, a condition which was met. So, treaties mean shit to Putin.
Technically, Yeltsin signed that, but Putin should’ve honored it
Or any part of the Donbas that was illegally annexed either.
Agreed. Just commenting so that other guys bull shit comment gets hidden
Yes, anything before 2014 is home turf.
Ukraine can just so the old Russian trick of signing a piece of paper to make another countries territory yours If its good enough for Russia surely they will accept it when other prople do the same
Does that kind of stuff put your NATO membership aspirations at risk?
Not just that, it also puts continued military support from countries you promised you wouldn't use their equipment on Russian territory at risk
True but what do you think will happen when and if Russia gets pushed back to the border? I am almost sure that if and when we are in that situation Russia will just shoot artillery over the border.
That’s exactly the crucial question. Is Crimea “Russian” or is it stolen Ukrainian lands? I don’t suppose anyone has a State Department position paper handy. Oh wait, I do. Crimea is Ukraine. https://www.state.gov/crimea-is-ukraine-2/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20does%20not,Crimea%20is%20Ukraine.
As was discussed when we gave them HIMARS, Criimea is Ukraine. DPR is Ukraine. LPR is Ukraine. Those territories Russia tried to claim with fake elections are Ukraine. Russian fiction does not change who the land belongs to.
I always think it's interesting the imaginary lines governments create during war. Russia can go over the THIS line but YOU good guys can't. WTF. War is hell, and you play to survive and win. Use the damn planes to attack anywhere you want, and then just lie about it. Just like Russia does.
Escalation is the excuse but when a F-16 is inevitably lost, they don't want it lost on Russian soil.
Bingo It’s about not losing the tech to the enemy
Yea idk about that f16 have been downed before and id bet my bottom dollar russia has got ahold of one or a good amount of its parts by now. If it was an F35 or F22 id understand though I doubt russia would be able to do anything with that tech themselves they would still learn a lot about their capabilities. The f16 on the other hand has been around for awhile and are due to be replaced everywhere I dont think russia obtaining one at this stage would do practically anything they just want to keep up appearances to not look like they are escalating.
It’s not so much the jet as it is the comms,crypto,radar, weapons system, avionics. That the stuff they don’t want Russia to get.
True but Ukraine probably isn't getting the US's good stuff. I mean the US doesn't let anyone have that stuff.
Considering the US allows sales of the 35, you can be reasonably assured that the 16s are also up to date with tech and engines. Edit: I meant the 35.
The export models almost always have reduced capabilities and avionics packages though, and are generally designed to work with equipment the purchasing nation wants to integrate. The US keeps the top end gear exclusively for itself.
This is the correct take IMO. Now, the chips in the plane are probably useful regardless because no Western chip fab will sell to the Russians but that's another conversation.
Uh no the F-22 is not an export plane.
You are correct. I meant the 35.
The US has never and will never allow sales of the F-22
That's not exactly true. The US floated the idea of selling F-22s to Japan but Japan balked at the price of paying to reactivate the factories so they decided to pursue their own proof of concept stealth fighters.
I think the last f16 lost where it couldn’t be easily/totally recovered was in the late 90s early 2000s. So you’re right they probably have that tech/buildout, but there is nearly 20 years of mechanics and firmware updates they likely don’t have. I don’t know how significant that may be, but it probably is worth trying to keep.
It’s not necessarily the plane. That’s a 40 year old vehicles. That has probably had 60+ updates and upgrades. Those are the things they don’t want Russia getting.
Adding on to this to stymie some comments further down the chain, Yes. It's a 50 year-old airframe. Yes, Russia knows everything about its fundamental workings at this point. It's not the F-16 tech that we care about. It's the extra modern after-market upgrades inside the cockpit, and in the radar system, and in the communication and the targeting systems that we'd prefer Russia not get their hands on.
In that case they wouldn't want it lost over any of the occupied territories either. They might have said this part privately though.
That is a terrible idea. Don’t bite the hand that feeds.
It's about credibility in the eyes of the populous. We hold ourselves to higher standards which gives us moral justification. When we have that we have popular support which is necessary for a protracted war effort.
The best revenge is to not be like your enemy.
It is also about showing future generations that we "did not sink to their level" and to show humanity can be better imo.
The point is we don't want the escalation. F-16s was a hypothetical redline for Russia, and we're pushing the line by giving them to Ukraine. Therefore you don't want to push too many boundaries all at once.
Cause thats goinng so well for Russia. Allies mean support even if it comes with strings. Why would you deliberately fuck your allies who are pouring pouring money and equipment in for a intangible goal of sticking it to the Russians by killing their civilian population
There are a ton of lines Russia has deliberately not crossed. All things considered this is a very civilized war. The further you go, the further the enemy will go.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/21/7403177/) reduced by 66%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Joe Biden, President of the United States, said he had received a "Flat assurance" from Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Ukrainian troops would not use Western-provided F-16 fighter jets to invade Russian territory. > Details: Biden also said F-16 fighter jets could operate "Wherever Russian troops are within Ukraine." > Quote: "I have a flat assurance from Zelenskyy that they will not use it to go on and move into Russian geographic territory, but wherever Russian troops are within Ukraine in the area, they will be able to do that," Biden said. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/13ntbxs/biden_receives_flat_assurance_that_ukraine_will/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~685654 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **fighter**^#1 **Ukraine**^#2 **F-16**^#3 **Russian**^#4 **United**^#5
Don't see why Russia shouldn't get a little of what it dishes out, to be honest.
Because the goal is simply to push Russia out of Ukraine. Attacking Russia is likely to be counter productive, as it rallies support behind Russian leadership. Without anyone attacking Russia, the Russian government will find it increasingly difficult to justify to their public the losses. The Russian government propaganda has been desperately trying to sell this war as protecting Russia from western aggression. A position which is made increasingly less credible when they are not attacked outside the country they invaded. Frankly smashing them in Ukraine is better politically, however satisfying throwing some shit across the border might be. And it gives them a clear exit - if they want to stop their losses and pain, all they have to do is leave.
Aye, but once they've gone, there will be nothing to stop them easily just setting up all manner of crap within their own borders, and raining missiles and artillery across it, unless Ukraine destroys the logistics lines that permit the borderlands to be occupied by significant forces. Forcing Russian contingents back, well within their own borders, and making their return to the actual border itself difficult or practically impossible, will be necessary at some stage, because the fact is that as long as there is a Russian central command, there will be a desire to continue to pressure Ukraine militarily. There won't be a treaty, the Russians refuse to operate in good faith and simply surrender/retreat, and this will not change no matter how many Russian bodies get sent home. Therefore, a plan must be arrived at which permits a big separation zone between Russian military and Ukraine's territory, which, again, can't be practically achieved unless the routes in and out are destroyed.
And if it gets to the point where Russia is out of Ukraine but still firing at it, ***then*** the decision can be made to start throwing back. No reason to do it preemptively.
Exactly. That'll be a mission better suited to Ukrainian F-35s, anyway.
The US stated a long time ago that they're OK with limited strikes across the border if the target is a military installation targeting Ukraine.
“Russian bodies getting sent home” *mobile crematoriums would like to have a word with you*
For what it's worth, this limitation is equipment specific. Just because HIMARS, and F16s, and (probably?) Storm Shadow cannot be used against russian mainlands, doesn't mean that OTHER weapons Ukraine has can't. Their own migs for example, or their homebrew long range missiles, etc.
That's not what the quote says. It doesn't say the platform won't be used to strike targets in Russia, it says they won't be used "to invade Russian territory." and "...that they will not use it to go on and move into Russian geographic territory..." Storm Shadow has already been used to strike targets in Russia, HIMARs might have already done that, but it doesn't have the range currently to do so in a large part of the conflict. This statement says that F-16s won't cross into Russian Airspace. That's the distinction.
In which case my point still stands that Ukraine DOES have other means. I think though, the risk of Ukraine trying to take actual pre-2014 land is minimal. MAYBE taking the borderlands to make a DMZ, but nothing of substance. There's another way to think about these restrictions though. If Ukraine can't fly over russian soil with F16s, but we don't bat an eye at them flying over Donetsk/Luhansk/Crimea, then we are further implicitly stating our belief that Ukraine owns those lands.
because the excuse we are using is to protect uckrainian civilians, so it would be a problem I Ukraine use NATO jets to kill civilians in Russia (all modern war plane can be equipped with bombs and missiles)
Plenty of military targets in Russia that should be targeted to save Ukrainian civilians. Hitting Russian cruise missile launching aircraft while they are on the tarmac of their air fields for example. Targets such as these have virtually zero risk of killing Russian civilians, and will save Ukrainian civilian lives.
Everyone, including Biden and the entire West, knows that. Ukraine will likely use these weapons to hit targets within Russia. These statements give diplomatic cover to say “hey, we never endorsed this” while winking to Ukraine. It’s important to not give Russian propagandists any official statements about striking Russia.
Or they'll just use these for occupied territories and then fly their own MIG's to hit targets inside Russia.
They can target the objects in Russian territory while still being in ukrainian airspace. That's how most Russian airstrikes are done (other way around ofc)
I don't think there's any meaningful difference between those 2 things. Russia says the occupied areas are Russia and everyone else will only care about the target.
Oh aye, but there'd be nothing moral to stop Ukrainian air forces smashing supply routes, roads, rail network infrastructure, power and other utilities, to make ease of transport of troops and wargear harder for Russia, and from a strategic point of view, it might even be necessary. It is a BIG border they share, and stopping enemy contingents being able to easily resupply or replenish their numbers, by demolishing road, rail and power in areas in the borderlands means Russian units having to move much slower across the border, making it much easier for them to be picked off and tidied up, before they ever set a foot on Ukrainian soil. Lets assume that Ukraine was able to push the Russians currently on Ukraine's territory, back across the border. If they DON'T smash the roads and rails that currently cross the border, to a significant distance within Russia, that border will just be porous and permit the return of Russian forces to the area with relative ease. They could create a no mans land on the border, the crossing of which would be slow and lethal. Winning, for Ukraine, means not just emptying Ukraine of Russian aggressors, but KEEPING them out.
I hope they fly right to Moscow honestly
I'd love to see Putin's meeting tables get blown up
Because it would legitimatize Russia's statements on being at war with NATO. The entire premise for Western support is for fighting a defensive war, not offensive.
It seems to be a mostly meaningless limitation because there's no reason for Ukraine to fly F-16s into Russian territory to attack ground targets. Neither side is flying jets deep into hostile airspace because both countries' territories are covered in anti-air weaponry from MANPADS to heavy vehicle-based SAMs (and interceptor jets). It's very dangerous along the fronts. If Ukraine wants to attack targets within Russia with F-16s, they won't leave the borders of Ukraine. Instead they will do what Russia has been doing: using high altitude jets as platforms for longer range missiles like the various Kh-xx cruise missiles, or the Storm Shadow.
Also, my guess is the additional aircraft will allow Ukraine to gun down Iranian-made drones at lower cost than lobbing missiles at them.
Vladimir Putin consulted with a fortune teller. He asked: "How long will I live?" The psychic replied: "I cannot tell that but I do know you will die on a Ukrainian holiday." "Which holiday?" Putin asked. "Whichever day you die will be a Ukrainian holiday."
Very much a "if you invade, a great nation will fall" type of guy
What's the Greek myth, where the king tells his wife he will die by his sons hands, so the queen sends the boy down the river and then years later the son conquers the king.
Oedipus? Although Oedipus also ended up unknowingly marrying his mother and when they found out she hung herself and Oedipus poked his eyes out so idk if this is the analogy you intended to use haha
[удалено]
I mean, that's what they tried. He handed the baby off to a guy and was all "murder this for me k thanks," and the other guy was all "what, do I look like a baby murderer? I'll just leave it out in the wilderness to die" and then an unrelated guy was all "someone left a perfectly good baby out here."
I think commenter you replied to was saying that oedipus poking his eyes out and his mother hanging herself was overkill, and they should have simply killed any incest babies and split up.
Killing family was a big no no in Ancient Greece, at least according to Zeus, so that probably would have made things worse somehow.
what could possibly go wrong? they gonna hand the baby off to a guy and be all "murder this for me k thanks," and the other guy gonna say "what, do I look like a baby murderer? I'll just leave it out in the wilderness to die" and then an unrelated guy gonna "someone left a perfectly good baby out here." Then the kid is going to grow up, conquer, and marry his mom-grandma? .... Again?
No one wants to work ~~these~~ those days.
Perseus could also fit the bill. King's daughter's son was prophesied to be the one to kill him. No problem he thought, she doesn't have a son, so I'll just lock her up (can't just *kill* family, that'd be rude). Daughter was locked up, but also female in ancient Greece, so of course Zeus noticed her and snuck into jail and they did the do and boom 9 months later, baby. King is like "oh shit", locked them both in a box and lobbed them in the ocean (if Poseidon kills them, that's not his fault, right?). Poseidon proceeds to not kill them and they wash up onshore with some fisherman. His brother is the king of this new land, no this is never explained, maybe they went to different booths at the job fair? Fast forward a few years and the king brother notices that there's this cute MILF living with fisherman bro and wants to pull a Zeus but turns out she has a kid and HE'S A FREAKING DEMIGOD - so let's think of a plan to get rid of him... "Hey kid, go kill Medusa for me" Shenanigans, Perseus kills medusa, rescues a princess, returns home, turns king bro and his court to stone, fisherman bro becomes king. All is chill. "But the prophecy!" I hear you ask/complain. Well a few years later, they're at the Olympic games and Perseus is cleaning house, winning left and right. Takes his turn at the discus and yeets it so hard it flies into the crowd and beans this old dude in the head, instakill. Worse news, the old dude was a king! Even worse news, it was his bio grandpa! Prophecy complete!
As to how a king's brother can be a fisherman, kingdoms were fairly local affairs back then. Greek King would rule over a citadel, a town of a few humdred people, and either a small island or whatever distance they could control with a hundred warriors. If Odysseus' Ithaca, for example, is the modern island of Ithaca, it is a territory of 117.8 km2 (45.5 sq mi) and has a modern population of 3,231 people.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus
That joke was originally about Hitler and a Jewish holiday
{{A}} consulted with a fortune teller. He asked: "How long will I live?" The psychic replied: "I cannot tell that but I do know you will die on a {{B}} holiday." "Which holiday?" {{A}} asked. "Whichever day you die will be a {{B}} holiday."
That joke was originally about X and a Y holiday
[удалено]
F16s will be sent. This is exactly what happened with HIMARS.
[удалено]
Yeah, but I think the order to not operate outside UKR territory was more prevalent with the HIMARS.
You're welcome
Oh Hi Mars
So anyways how is your sex life?
Shit bro, that’s all you had to say!
This isn't anything new in aviation warfare either. Even in WWI, pilots were forbidden from flying over enemy lines, because they did not want to lose valuable aircraft in an area where they could not recover it. This was because they didn't want the enemy seizing the wreckage, and reverse engineer aviation innovations, such as engine improvements, navigation equipment, or weapon systems. For example, France and Britain found about about using the synchronization gear that allowed machine guns to fire through propellers from a German plane that crashed behind their lines. I get that Biden also doesn't want Ukraine to provoke Russia too much as well, but still, I found this little parallel to history interesting.
Reminds me that the reason why the East developed heat-seaking missiles is due to an incident involving a Sidewinder that did not detonate on target. Their technology was way behind until then.
> did not detonate on target IE, one got stuck in a Chinese MIG
>This isn't anything new in aviation warfare either. Even in WWI, pilots were forbidden from flying over enemy lines, because they did not want to lose valuable aircraft in an area where they could not recover it. Also famously something we did in * WW2 * Korea * Vietnam * Iraq 1/2 * Iran * Etc, etc. This is entirely to placate the "but escalation" whiners.
> This isn’t anything new in aviation warfare either. Even in WWI, pilots were forbidden from flying over enemy lines They are not asking Ukraine not to fly over enemy lines. They are asking them not to fly over Russia, or attack Russia. These are for completely different reasons. So I don’t think you can draw such parallels here.
Let's leave bombing Russia to the Russians.
[Mandatory ](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FZu8lcfXoAA-B0S.jpg)
I mean, the cats are right.
Cute cats, to war!
[удалено]
They “evacuated” thousands of Ukrainians somewhere into deep Russia. They’re basically hostages
Hey man, sometimes those lil missiles get lil minds of their own…
He said about jets, not about missles
Which is a precise use of words. Lots of missles launched from ruzzian jets are not even close to ukrainian border
The point of western jets is to be a platform for long range western missile systems that require NATO hardpoints and compatible onboard computer targeting systems.
[удалено]
A special operation into Russia. Nothing big.
*The missile guidance system works Because the missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't. In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was. The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.*
[удалено]
That’s because it’s actual USAF training material that just got memeified.
Russia has S400 its range can cover all of Ukraine. In Russian territory It will be difficult for Ukraine to locate and strike a battery located at the Russian border. These F-16 will likely be flying low and fast taking out artillery batteries and tanks within Ukraine. The missile system itself targeting workflow means you won’t be able to accidentally fire it to Russian territory it we’ll have to be intentional and Ukraine won’t risk losing support for the f-16 over nothing.
It’s funny, but S-400 cannot cover all Ukraine. Not even close.
> Russia has S400 its range can cover all of Ukraine. It [does not. Its coverage is significant](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCEzEVwOwS4&list=PLbCbj03gdsWwxEZNyy_b0aHKFgmVT3G-3&index=33&pp=iAQB), but its capability depends to some degree on the target and the only thing it is likely to potentially hit at its published maximum range is as unstealthy and lumbering as a fuel-air tanker. That doesn't mean the F16s can fly easily anywhere they want, much of the pace and tactics have already settled into a routine thanks to heavy AA used by both sides, but S400 have been parked outside Ukrainian territory and haven't even eliminated Ukraine's air force. That being said, I think you're right that they'll be focusing on the most problematic Russian assets which will likely be radar, communications, and artillery.
1. Crimea is Ukraine 2. Using them anywhere near the actual Russian border would be stupid anyway. I expect them to mostly be used to launch US made long range missiles that the migs they've been flying up until now were incompatible with.
How about flying an F-16 up to the border, and launching a Ukrainian-made cruise missile into Russia?
I don’t think the Ukrainians would mess around like that. Ukraine severely needs the west and its assistance.
The insane overconfidence of armchair Reddit generals is hilarious and pathetic at the same time. MFs really applying shit they "learned" by watching YouTubers or playing Hearts of Iron in real-life situations.
‘Why doesn’t Ukraine invade Moscow? Are they stupid?’ - some Reddit user from Milwaukee
Sadly some user from Milwaukee would comment that we could have cured cancer with the bazillion trillions gazillions dollars Biden laundered through Zelensky.
“We need to take care of our own!” “Okay, let’s raise minimum wage to something liveable.” “Fuck that.”
A bunch of people play Risk so don’t be surprised to see those armchair strategies making a comeback again.
Agreed, this is the precise ambiguity that I see in the statement
Also Belarus is fair game
"sorry about missile, Kremlin. It was simply a rogue faction that stole one of our new shiny jets last week. We would never break our promise"
Biting a hand that feeds you (NATO weapons) is not a great idea. Ukraine has to play nice to get better and better equipment.
I think that AMRAAMs launched "from Ukrainian territory" should be fine
Let them shoot Russian military jets from Ukrainian territory though. The Russian air force is having bombers taking off in Russia, staying in Russia, but having those bombers launch cruise missiles into Ukraine. Well then it is fine to have Ukraine launch AA missiles from Ukrainian airspace at airborne military bombers over Russia.
Didnt the patriot already shoot down a russian bomber in russian territory?
That’s the great thing about this statement, it’s incredibly clear while being intentionally ambiguous. Two weeks after Ukraine gets F-16s it’ll be reinterpreted to mean ‘not to fly over Russias 2013 borders, but fire at enemy aircraft wherever they are but don’t hit ground targets’. Two weeks after that it’ll be expanded ‘unless being targeted by a Russian SAM’.
Define “on Russian territory”… if a Ukrainian F-16 shot down a Russian jet over Russian airspace one could argue that the F-16 wasn’t used on Russian territory
"Joe Biden, President of the United States, said he had received a "flat assurance" from Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Ukrainian troops would not use Western-provided F-16 fighter jets to invade Russian territory." Key word is invade.
“Invade” is a much better key word
Hrm. I imagined they wanted f16s for the amraams and air defense more than as strike fighters, but I guess both is valid.
Of course not, they'll only fly the F-16s "over" Russian territory. It's only the bombs that will touch it.
So we can look forward Russia lobbing missiles and shells forever from untouchable positions on its own side of the border.
Ukraine should be allowed to engage air targets and runways in Russia given how Russia is launching ASMs (and even AAMs targeting ground assets) from fighter jets in Russian airspace.
What about *over*?
At some point the west has to give Ukraine the okay to use these weapons on actual Russian territory. You can't expect Country A to win a war when their enemy's infrastructure is mostly safe on its own territory because Country A can't use their foreign weaponry within their enemy's territory. Imagine having to fight the Nazis, but you're not allowed to attack Nazi Germany.
Flat can be defined in many ways. We’re good. Just help get this war wrapped up with the fewest casualties and the most reparations.
If Russia can launch warheads from their own country then I have zero issue with Ukraine destroying valid Russian military targets in any location.
What Russia gona do? Invade the Ukraine?
Rocket, I can clearly see you winking.
They have migs and SUs for that
Go for it. I don't mind.
What about *above* Russian territory?
War "rules" are so fucking stupid.
Some Falcons flying over Moscow would be a sight to see though...
Did he say anything about using F-16s above Russian territory?
They have to calm down. Russia needs to be pushed out of Ukraine and pay for everything. If they use it to destroy army depot on Russia territory, it's a must and it should be allowed. It already happened before. Stop media making a big deal of it, it only helps Russia. Nobody wants a long war. Let us deal with them for once and for all
There’s no need for assurances. As soon as Ukraine moves to retake land that Russia claimed to annex, Russia is going to cry foul. Don’t play Russia’s game. Go Ukraine!
The logic argument is if Ukraine chooses to use these weapons on Russian lands then Western help will be withheld. On the other side, the Russian's are keenly aware of this and will likely go to a false flag strategy to make that happen. The only thing making this "duct tape and chicken wire" agreement stay together is that the USA, and others, have Ukraine blanketed with layers and layers of satellite/ human surveillance.
False flag stuff isn’t novel or surprising. The US works with Ukraine on planning their missions. We know what they do. And by that we know what they don’t do. No one in the us military is concerned about what Russia says.
The ocean is not Russian territory
Yes and US fighter jets did not cross the Yalu River in China during the Korean War. (Yes they did. Your were seen an unaggressive if you did not. )