If I remember the translation, the guy speaking Ukrainian was saying the change in electronics and sensors is like going from an early smart phone directly to an iPhone 15 Pro without the steps in the middle. Its a lot to take in.
Denmark has made a 10 year commitment to Ukraine with finacial and weapons support. Besides F16 Denmark has donated 100 Leopard MBT, its entire artillery with brand new Ceasar 8x8 155mm howitzer and has just paid Sweden to produce 36 new CV9035 MK4 infanteri vehicles and much more
The abrams was destroyed because they lack artillery rounds and other means of infantry support. It was rushed to cover infantry from getting surrounded. They dont want to lose the tanks thus way, but sometimes there is no other way for them
so you're saying they cant even manage a platoon of infantry but they are going to be able to run a squadron of some of the most advanced fighter jets ever made.
@@jonnie2bad no i am not saying that. Are you on copium? I am saying that these guys (as much as i like them) are looking at this conflict from the viewpoint of US army which is 1000% better positiom than UA army. UA doesnt always have the luxury the US army has, so they have to "patch holes" sometimes. Dont pretend like the US forces have never ever messed something up. The difference is this war is pretty much streamed online, so every mess up is on display
@jonnie2bad neither side in this war masses troops or equipment. That's why you see nothing but squad level skirmishes on video despite the high casualties in the war. It's a death by a thousand cuts. If either side masses troops or equipment, they're immediately destroyed by artillery. A platoon is a huge target.
Putin's supporters have to come to terms that the Russian army gets weaker, the Black Sea fleet is destroyed, and Russia is down to its last A-50, and meanwhile Ukraine gained Javelins and Patriots the first year, main battle tanks the second year, and now air-superiority fighters.
if you're suggesting that each weapons system that NATO has supplied combined will change the tide of the war, you're wrong. None of the weapons supplied has made a significant impact.
@@Annou7la Gilligan's Island "For a three hour tour" vs Putin's Russia "for a two day war" source: lyricsondemand.com/tvthemes/gilligansislandlyrics.html
Regarding the "incorrect" tactical use of the Abrams, have you seen the countless tanks and armoured vehicles being turned into burning wrecks from being swarmed by drones, hammered by artillery (guided by drones) and various anti-tank weapons not to mention extensive minefields and other fortifications/obsticles making freedom of movement for large formations almost impossible? This isn't Desert Storm where large tank formations could roll through the desert, nor is this the kind of European war envisioned in many Cold War scenarios with NATO tanks rolling across Western Europe to meet Soviet tanks doing the same from the East (of which many of these tanks including the Abrams where designed for). This is a WW1 like trench warfare quagmire which funny enough tanks where originally designed to combat. I'll leave Ukranians to decide what is the best tactics for the tanks they are using considering they are the one's experiencing first how to and how not to fight in this kind of warfare. We in the West can hardly point out what they are doing wrong with the equipment they have been given especially considering we have had zero experience in the kind of conflict this has become. It's already been reported that Ukraine has had to abandon some of the NATO tactics they were taught because quite frankly they were outdated ideas from a coalition of armies which at most has played war games and fought against insurgents.
Most "NATO tactics" don't have anything to do with insurgents. In fact, counter-insurgency caught the US with its pants down and a lot of stuff had to be learned on the fly. The manuals weren't re-written for fighting the Taliban. They're still a manual on how to fight the Reds.
At the same time they have limited numbers and up to 3 times heavier than anything they ever used before. But its also tougher and more capable than anything they have used before. Often times the Ukrainians are stuck with forces in bad way and two Bradley's or even one Abrams can turn a battle. Which at the same time brings in Russian attention on those assets immediately. So like the F-16's they have to use and risk losing them if Western weapons are to be useful in war. Its hard for Westerners to put themselves in Ukrainians position. Since its been nearly a century since Americans have ever been truly been the underdog in a fight.
I think the number of western tanks given is too limited. The frontline is very long, and the Ukrainian seems to have spread out the western tanks to strengthen the frontline. Even if they are significantly better than the Russian tanks, the numbers are important. War is very expensive and even if the values given for the provided western material seems huge, it is only small fractions of the US military budgets or the BNP numbers for the European countries (except for the Baltic states that have given all they can provide). I am an EU citizen and I think that we should provide more material, faster. Even older tanks, like Leopard 1, and similar, will make a difference. And perhaps other types of vechicles like mine clearing equipment and Bradleys or CV90s could have even more effect.
Even the best Ukrainian military bloggers admit they have no idea how to use armor. Last year, Kiev said their officers need substantially more western training as their performance in battle is pitiful. Both the Russians & Ukrainians have no idea what to do with armor. Their best troops died early in the war. They're just poorly trained conscripts, with little to no training, battling it out like two angry 3 year olds.
Sweden is very quiet about the Ukranians training in Sweden, but that was the same when it came to CV90 and Archer. Very little info was released untill the Cv90 and Archer was already in Ukraine. So if any jet is likely to be a Surprise that it's in Ukraine it's the Gripen, Sweden just likes opsec more then others for some reason and when it comes to Cv90 and Archer acording to Ukraine it has been Sweden that has insisted on media silence.
Yep, correct-a-mundo and Sweden did mention they would provide their fighter once they were in NATO. Hungry/ Putler's bum buddy Oban delayed that from being finalised. Sweden now has Article 5 protection so is prepared to release a few of their precious fighters. Sweden just has to ramp up production to get enough for themselves and Ukraine plus all the orders that will come in once they have been tested in combat and proved themselves.
If F-16 + Amraam can force Russian fighters/bombers away from the grunts on the ground it does have a big effect. Not war changing alone, but a big effect nevertheless. Drones have also changed tank warfare hugely.
If Ukraine wants to retain their Air Force, they need the F-16s and possibly other jets they can get long time support for. Which for their current air fleet they likely can't. Simple as that. If they feel they can do more with these replacements, more power to them. Ukrainian tactics suprised positively multiple times already and their Air Force seems very competent.
There is already a consensus on that the F16 will not change the war, but with its radar and sensors it still gives the Ukrainians a weapon platform they did not have before.
I appreciate your videos a lot - but I hope your angle on this is a bit off. I hope the f 16s are going to make a big difference. Ukraine has (refering to a meeting of german airforce generals that was leaked ) only a single digit number of Su 24 - they need platforms for stand off weapons desperately - and if it's only 12 or 14 planes - even if it was only 4 - in percentage it matters allready - if these guys continue to work on the situation in crimea they could help bring down the kerch bridge. That might make a huge difference - at least if Ukraine managed to refresh their offensive ground forces and challenge the land bridge. At the moment European armies discuss to field (more) troops in Ukraine - maybe we see NATO troups securing the belarus border or even enforcing air security (from shaheeds and kalibrs). Then these F16 would have a safe haven to be maintained - and hopefully to fly in an environment were friend/foe detection works (looking at you reaper 'pilots') Reason for hope Nr. 3: The experience and capability of the Ukrainians has always been underestimated - again refering to the WebEx with password 1234 ... they do enormous things with the patriots for instance obviously harming their SU 34s by quickly shifting the systems and in the beginning military experts though it cant be done to give them patriots.
US in Korea: everyone help please, must defeat communism. US in Vietnam: Australia, NZ and South Korea help please. US cold war: everyone must help to defeat communism. US in Afghanistan and Iraq: come help us Bois. US on Ukraine: you can all fight your own fights, nothing to do with us?
More like "US on Ukraine (2013/2014): Let's install an Anti-Russian regime in Ukraine and use it to fight against Russia". "US on Ukraine (2024): Well i guess that did not work out as planned, time to leave."
@@USN1985dos You also get the prime cut of trade so you get what you give. Which is fair, don't begrudge American trade and culture all around the world. Just stinks how you've slunk away from your commitments on this one.
Might be worth noting that all MBT's have shown weakness to Drones and Artillery of 155mm or 152mm. According to what ive heard from diffrent sides including Ukrainian , Swedish, German, British and American fighters/Volunters and military strategists and former active Generals and so on. The best performing one is so far STRV122 (Swedish heavily modified Leo2A5+ design built in sweden with modifications on carriage, Armour computers and drivetrain) Second is British Challenger 2 Third is Regular German Leo 2A6 Fourth is American Abrams Ma1-A1 Fifth is Danish/German Leo1A5 Sixth is German Leo 2A4 Under there is the USSR designs which all seem to dislike. Every tank except STRV122 have had huge issues with the Mud and losing tracks due to it. The main complains are STRV122: Gun is of the shorter version which was changed when the Leo2A6 came. Leo2A4/´2A6: Losing tracks and missing Armour compared to STRV122. Leo1A5 : Less armour then all the rest and Dropping tracks in the mud, And the 105MM Gun has less firepower than the rest plus it stoves its ammo in the front. Challenger 2: Ammo in the cabin and some issues with the floor armour. Abrams: Filters Clogging all the time due to mud, The cleaning system cant handle the mud. Tracks clogging due to mud and some of the abrams arriving in poor condition with electrical wires beeing broken and needing rewiring. The Ukrainian troops are according to Swedish and British Tank officers who have trained with them highly skilled and on par or better than the best we have in the west due to them actually having real battle experience from actual full scale war. the issue is not Experience nor is it proffesionalism from the Ukrainian Military, the issue is that we have given them almost nothing to fight with. And that includes all of the west
You cannot expect Ukraine to use weatern doctrine when western doctrine operates on the understanding that they will have some sort of substantial air support
Air support really isn't calculated into armor attacks. The aircraft typically hit targets far from the front lines. Ukrainian drones & HIMARS can easily handle this role. It takes more than a year to properly train a tank crew. It takes months more to train them on combined arms attacks like crossing a minefield. Ukraine hasn't taken the time to conduct this training. They're pretty cocky, typically saying they learn quickly, and don't need to train. Well, you see the result.
Some doctrine is rooted deep in fundamental military realities that simply don't change. When you violate the Law of Concentration if force, you suffer. Parceling out ones strongest forces to hold and extended line negates the power of those forces while risking thir loss anyway. It applies at all scales You don't send a lone tank into battle for the same reason you don't send a lone soldier. A lone unit of anything becomes an immediate target, and has no peers to support it. A tank platoon may be able to eliminate a position that one will fall too. If one tank in a platoon is knocked out the others have a chance to recover it, just as a squad may rescue a comrade. Without support, what would be a wound will be a kill.
@@donwyoming1936 easy enough to say these things, but the last total war western forces where involved in was 90 years ago. When I see western forces successfully cross that defensive line holding Crimea then I will admit you are right
@@donwyoming1936 Well it was only the Ka-52s ruining their day during the demining that put the kibosh on the counter offensive. That, and the fact that didn't 500 tanks and APCs to burn. Ukrainians have excelled in every other aspect, becoming the premier operator of Patriot within 2 months of receiving the system, their naval drones, what ever they're doing to fk up the Su-34s and A50s. They've earned their bragging rights.
I think it is more than just good feels and propaganda although I agree that it won't change the war much for a long while. It does the following things though. 1. As you guys said it sets up long term cooperation and shows a large commitment. 2. It allows to maintain current capabilities that have kept Russian aircraft out of Ukraine with casualties from accidents and fighting. 3. Likely a minor buff in all ordinance. HARM missiles are currently used but to my understanding they don't have full capabilities. Plus replacing export variants of former Soviet missiles with western likely is an improvement. 4. While not the preferred jets for the mission they are available which is most important. 5. This program should provide lessons learned if Gripen C from Czechia or Mirage 2000-9 become available from France or UAE. And obviously F-16 from many nations. It was a big step in commiting to Ukraine. With no electronic warfare commitments these will never leave Ukraine controlled airspace, but I do believe these will help bleed Russia over time. It sucks that so many will die for this war, but I do think these jets will help make it harder for Russia in the long term as long as they don't do some Iron Eagle shit trying to take out the Kersch Bridge.
The Ukrainians have proven to be quite innovative with the weapons systems they are given. I know the Vipers aren’t wonder weapons, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we get some wild headlines in the coming months because of them.
It is more important than you guys think. 1. They can and are showing that they can handle the training in shortened format. 2. They learn to maintain, teach new teachers 3. This opens the door to giving fighters. Next is supplying large numbers of SAAB from Sweden once the nato papers are 100% done. Training is already happening on the JAS platform. Biggest issue there is, will the swedes want to finally show the world what their EW systems can actually do? Not even western forces know this
@@Wannes_ If you have the money, they can make them. 100 or more will take time and money, but it is possible and frankly it will take Ukraine time to absorb large numbers. In the long run they probably need a fleet of 300. AFAIK Sweden has a renewal of their current fleet in the pipeline and if there are buyers for the current fleet this can be accelerated
@@wathaet1386 Yeah, which means there is NO supply of significant numbers of Gripen anytime soon unless Sweden gives up a lot of its own capabilities, which is doubtful. Ukraine needs equipment NOW What they could get in 5 years or so may no longer be relevant by then ... The only fighter that is available in quantity, and is a realistic option at the same time, is the F-16
The day Ukraine first got invaded 10 years ago, Western nations should have started to train Ukrainian pilots on the F-16 and Ukraine should have 300 Abram tanks right now, not "37" !!! The democrat party and not just "criminal Joe" is "compromised", right BIG GUY !!
There is a lot of history to look at to see how well a capable fighter pilot can transition from and old jet to a new jet. One example can be found in all the F-4 combat veterans from Vietnam transitioning to the F-16 and F-15, especially in the Air Guard & Reserve. I recall a Navy A-4 pilot transitioning to the F-4 (Air Guard) and he did very well. He then transitioned to the F-16 and only then had a lot of questions about how radar works in the jet. He did very well in the F-16. Both the Washington Air Guard and the North Dakota Air Guard (NODAK) went from F-106s to F-15s and most of the pilots there stayed for the transition. Take a look at all these examples if you want a true picture of the problems of transitioning to a modern jet. In the 1980s the new guys coming out of college had a definite edge on the old veterans in the time it took to master the HOTAS systems, but the old geezers were better warfighters on the whole, in my opinion, of course.
The Ukrainians have a very credible aeronautical industry that produced the Antonov..so they have a good grasp of aircraft production and maintenance..there are some very bright aircraft engineers / maintenance personnel who given a chance will become quiet confident with the F16. In WW2 the polish pilots credited themselves very well flying "spitfires" during the "Battle of Britain" after a couple of weeks training because like the Ukrainians have motivation..their country has been invaded...they will surprise.
Not anymore. They're all "deleted"... or living the refugee life abroad. Turns out kleptocrats are ineffective fascists. The institutional industrial knowledge base is just gone.
I agree, I expect the Ukraine AF to use this carefully as a means to push back enemy air coverage. Also as a better launch platform for western made ordinance. I expect that we'll see lost and damaged F16s - possibly most happening on the ground. But this conflict is long term. If there's a ceasefire, it just ramps back up in a year or 2 unless someone is convinced its a bad idea.
We should have, in the opening phases of this conflict, recruited active-duty pilots from all of the service branches and equipped them with front-line F-16s, along with logistics, ordnance and service support and sent them into the conflict as The American Volunteer Group..... Previously known as "The Flying Tigers"
First comment I'm writing here (from Germany). I think you Americans are too jaded, because every war you fought after the civil war, you get to go home from. No matter if you win or lose, you get to go home. There is no concept in your emotional engagement in struggle, that reflects German soldiers in Stalingrad or Berlin or their Soviet counterparts. Or for that matter Ukrainians now falling back under superior Russian use of materiel. Still, if you do not have a country left and face oppression after the war is done, the reserve of stamina fighting in desperate odds is completely different. To the common Ukrainian soldier, no matter if they like Selenskij or not, there is the stark choice of being oppressed afterwards with a future trajectory back to the USSR or having some way of joining the EU and becoming a western nation. It's maybe like the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese army: They get to go home when the Russians limit the aim of their conquest or become more tired of their suffering than they do. Remember: Russia is authoritarian and enforces very strict news control as well as suppressing demonstrations. The true disaffection with the state of affairs will only ever be known, when the next batch of conscritnicks go home and their families are fed up. Not saying that all is well or that Ukraine has a chance of regaining Crimea (I feel they don't). But don't count on them laying down arms, because they grow tired of war. It's eastern Europe and the capacity to endure suffering is probably unparalleled in the world. Thanks for you contributions and discussions and I would hope the US would not drop an ally like a hot potato due to domestic politics. Sometimes it's horrendously difficult for your allies to interact with the US political system, as you have four centers of gravity in foreign policy and anyone one of them can make or break policy: The White House, The Secretary of State, The House of Representatives and the Senate. And all of them can promise and make foreign policy, whilst three of them have de facto veto power to shut down any alliance or course of action for their own proprietary reason with no sense of responsibility to the interests of the US or those of a long or short term ally.
USA has been providing military protection in Europe for decades now while European "allies" downsized their military, but as soon as USA stops giving aid to Ukraine (which is not in NATO or a US ally) for a few months, Europe all of a sudden is quick to turn its back on USA while publicly saying it can't rely or trust America. Let's not forget Europe's lack of support in the Red Sea. Instead of EU joining USA & UK operation, EU has their own operation only escorting European ships. Why is USA the only one that is not allowed to lookout for itself? USA needs to realize that everything it does worldwide is a lose/lose situation. If USA tries to help other countries, it quickly gets labeled invaders, imperialist, colonizers, exploiting others natural resources, warmongers yet when SHTF around the world and the US decides to mind it's own business and stay out of it, what happens? The US gets shamed, smeared, called weak, a superpower in decline but at the end of the day no matter what USA does, countries around the world will keep asking for help, not because we get along, are allies, share the same values, but its only because countries either want humanitarian aid or military protection. How many times has USA helped others around the world to only have them go talk shit about USA later on just because US won't endlessly supply aid.
My thoughts on the lone Abrams as an infantryman… We continually criticize Ukrainian TTP‘s saying, “that’s not how you’re supposed to use an Abrams, that’s not how you’re supposed to use a Bradley…. “ Here’s the thing, though: Americans only know how to fight when they’re already winning. Our entire doctrine is based on the fragile assumption that the sky is completely ours. Take the 1st armored division. Place them in a mine field 20 km deep. Take away their air support. Take away their artillery and fires support. Take away their ammo. Add an enemy with overwhelming air and fires support and infantry divisions that outnumber our forces three to one. Our armored formations will be absolutely, absolutely wrecked in the next ground war. Even our Air Force is a mile wide, and 1 inch deep. The moment we lose a single F 35, there’s no damn way our commanders would have the balls to continue risking their careers, pilots and airframes. Congress would have an investigation over the downed F35 and the pentagon would be leaving the AO faster than we left Afghanistan. So while the Americans criticize the Ukrainian tactics, the Ukrainians look back at the Americans, like, “really dude? Y’all would have surrendered years ago.”
It's literally what has happened in EVERY conflict the US has been in, bar Iraq - The difference in Iraq was that the US never engaged on their own. In EVERY conflict the US has sent troops unilaterally, after some time, you have families and politicians at home crying and wanting to pull out immediately, and the US has more or less always ended up retreating in shame.
Right. I wouldn't dare rely on the US for security. It's a death wish. You get invaded for being a friend of the US and the US abandons you at your darkest hour. @@eidodk
Guys, as Ukrainian, i dont get where your pessimism is comming from. Of course, F16 alone will not win the war for us, but if we don't get them, eventually we will lose it. Same thing could have been said about HIMARS, Bradleys or other western systems. If you just want to remain negative, that is up too you of course. But if you realy want us to succeed, maybe you should start talking about how many jets Ukraine will get from western countries. Or how many is needed to change the course of the war. We would not have survived, if in February 2022 we just said "Ok, russians have ten times more tanks and jets, and artillery, we got no chance".
These guys are not pessimistic, but realistic as former fighter pilots who know western fighters and tactics. Getting F16s now will make little difference in this war - too little, too late for Ukraine. It takes a year to train a pilot to use an F16 as a weapons platform. Best of luck Ukraine...
@@jimkekoa2756Beeing a former rocket jockey, is not the same as being strategic expert. There is many who know a bit about military aviation. But you are right. It will take time. Western support is constantly atleast 6 months behind in support decitions. Only loosers are going to say its not possible. Unfortunatly, US seems to be more and more out of the game. Also get the impression that only US know how to fight an air war? This F-16 is a european effort. Still many in US seems to moan about it!?
The USA could give them more HIMARS, Barrel Artillery, tanks and APC´s and Ammunition. Thats what the Ukrainian army really needs. The Americans have it and had no problems build up a useless Afghan army or the new Iraqi army but even though Europe's freedom is threatened, half of Americans are babbling about the Mexicans and the border fence. When America got attacked and envoked NATO Article 5, europe came to aid. Hundreds of our soldiers died for a war in a faraway desert. hundreds upon hundreds of European civilians have died in the last 20 years in countless terrorist attacks as a revenge for this support we gave the united states. I fear for the Baltic states because they will be next if Ukraine falls and a certain man will again be president in the USA.
This is EXACTLY the thing! Where the Fuck is the US in this.. Bogged down in domestic politics.. A fucking joke.. this is the VERY fucking thing you have been spending you budget on for the past 60 years and when it finally happens, you chicken out.. WTF..
Hey Mover and guys, can you describe what it actually so different between flying a western jet like the F-16 vs. a Soviet jet like the Mig-29. I get that they’re different planes and have different performance, but what is fundamentally different in the approach of the pilots themselves? I hope that question makes sense.
The F-16 has full digital control while the MiG-29 is still mechanically linked. When flying a MiG-29 if you speed up or slow down, or change altitude, your wings provide different lift so your CoL moves in relation to the CoG so you need to keep re-trimming to stay level. The F-16 is multirole with modernized cockpits while the MiG-29 is still a fighter that happens to let you drop bombs and fire rockets. The F-16 is made to look for enemy aircraft and fight them, the MiG-29 is meant to be flown by a pilot listening to ground controllers telling him where the enemy will be, and then when close the pilot will turn on his radar or IRST to shoot missiles at the enemy.
the russian guided bombs have been a huge part of their recent success. A SEAD/Dead effort on the point of a new counteroffensive could be the missing link-localair superiority at the point of attack
Getting new modern airforce takes time. Even more during war times. But Ukraine has no other choise.Simple as that. Should they just sit and, meh. dosent matter? F-16 brings a whole new pack of possibilitys with modern/more advanced weapons that is hard, or impossible to adapt to old mig or su platforms. Gripen would be a better choise. We all agree on that. But Sweden is not going to supply them until Nato member. It Is now close, but F-16 program has started and must be done first before anything else. What F-16 will do. Is to make russian army and airforce have to think twise on what they can do, and operate. That is a strategic up for the Ukrainians. Both on ground and in air. I recommend ppl to watch various interviews with Justin Bronk. Who is actually a real world strategic analyst on this matter. (and a brilliant unbiased one) No one has been sucsessful sitting on their hands, during any war in history. Just get on with it, and make it happen! Writing this while Gripen and Blackhawks is flying past over my head, now and then. Slava Ukraine!
@@menninkainen8830There is quite a few airframes that could be made ready. Gripens short turnaround/effectivness, makes up a bit for fewer airframes. But for a country thats in a war. There will always be to few. If US setepped up with a f-16 programe too. The possibility for a fairly large Ukraininan airforce is there. But looks like it wont happen. And one cant live on hope in a war. Finns did awsome during the winter war. Ukraininans are living true the same thing now. So its up to us other to suppert them with all we can. now!
Most EU countries with F16s came from the F-104 That's also quite a step UP in technology Then again, today's Viper isn't the one we bought back in the late 70s with 'winders and dumb bombs ...
You guys seem very negative.... What should ukraine do? they are running out of planes...and F16s are there in abundance. I think you underestimate a country at war. They have sunk the Russian fleet, they have inflicted very heavy losses on Russia, they are using western equipment and doing it well......What would you do??? J.Kauling from Denmark
When young American starts his training in modern fighter he can hope to get skills that will never be used in fight or fight with quite equal adversary. He or she can expect career of fun aviating and then perhaps civilian piloting. These Ukrainians know that they will be fighting soon and in fight risk is always high. Brave people! Happy hunting!
Oh wow, look at those cool FIGHTING FALCON patches! Mover, do you still have those patches with the FIGHTING FALCON? You should wear those all the time! 😋
Hi guys! Have a question: pilot who’s flying B737, before An26,Yak 52, A320, with more than 10000 hours, 40 years old, doesn’t have chance to fly fighter jet?and at that moment still staying in reserve and military qualification is a pilot as well! Coz in Ukraine is a big deal, many time I tried to get a chance but now way, big drama !but they are saying as a soldier welcome 😂 As i know in USA age limit 39 to become as a pilot with zero experience! I appreciate to get your opinion about that! Thanks
The IAF lost one of the most advanced F16s due to a Pilot's tactical error in judgement to a SA-5 - so u are accurate that the pilots make a big difference
80% of the country is not under war like conditions.. Place an airstrip 100 miles away from the frontline, and it'll be protected enough to never see a missile landing.
I agree with the team here. It will act as a huge moral boost for Ukraine and a huge moral buster for Russian troops. It's frightening to here those engines roaring above. But right now cheap drones can do a far better job.
Day to day maintenance isn't going to be all that alien Anything beyond that, I expect to get pulled out as a LRU and go back to the existing repair infrastructure in Europe for diagnosis and repair
4:20 but still western production really didn't increase a lot to help Ukraine in the long run, after the stored things run lower, discouraging giving more to Ukraine.
It's one thing to be retrained for a new type of aircraft and other weapons systems, another thing is that they do it in "record" time, they haven't had as much time as a regular F-16 pilot - important factors to keep in mind as well .
Also, I dont think these men understand the gravity of being in contested or drone infested airspace. If youre Ukraine, the last thing you want to do nowadays is bunch up your armor, because as the Russians show time and time again with their failed mechanized assaults, once youre spotted by a myriad of drones, your mechanized assault becomes like a dinner bell for FPVs, artillery, ATGMs, etc. Maybe in a air superiority environment can you rely soly on that sort of armored tactic, but it youre Ukraine, better to lose one tank than a dozen.
People aren't that stupid. They know some F-16's are gonna be lost. The guys on the ground should be getting told that the F-16's will help but that they very well might not make a big difference. Or are you telling me that soldiers don't get taught what to expect and how to deal with upcoming situations. If so then that is poorly managed militaries.
USAFE Commander, General Hecker, said the F-16s were for the post war Ukrainian Air Force. It would take 4-5 years to properly train their pilots and maintenance personnel. From having been involved helping allies field both F-15s & F-16s, it takes about 5 years for them to improve their airfields, build facilities, set up supply lines for 100k parts, acquire thousands of pieces of support equipment, train the maintainers and train those pilots. Ukraine sent us 32 brand new recruits, who had to be taught how to fly by France & the UK, to be F-16 pilots. I can only locate 14 of them a year later. It never ceases to amaze me people think you can learn to fly an F-16 faster than you can get a driver's license. Ukraine's pilots weren't that great to begin with, and their best pilots are dead. Dealing with 24 year olds with 2 years of flying fighters. And brand new recruits in F-16s.
@DDtch6669 yea but the soviets never put a man on the moon. The Americans did. Then they developed the 16 in the 70s a whole decade after they beat the Soviets in space
The Viper is an amazing platform. Yet it's not suitable for this kind of fight. The Viper, as good as it is it must have tremendous support both on the ground and in the air to be effective. Russia has big eye support over 60% of Ukraine. This fact alone makes the F16 an easy target. So is NATo going to put up air support? Also without gas the F16 has such a limited range to use it effectively they will have to cross Ukraine above 25k as slow as possible to have enough gas to get back. Again, making it an exalent target. Will NATO fly tanker over Ukraine?
What worries me is all the Ukraine pilots will be rookies at the beginning and also the mechanics. Inexperienced Japanese and German pilots got chewed up in WW2 .
@@CWLemoine if the US coms into a peer war. China or another, will your runways never get hit then ? I know all the late wars this wasn’t a a big issue but when a peer adversary coms then it will be an issue correct ? (Sorry about the bad English, hope it make sense)
Typically, no. We have the ability to project airpower better than anyone else in the world. Ukraine cannot. They take off and are immediately in the war zone.
I'm pleased to hear Mover saying that it's not going to have an immediate change (I think Gonky said the same a few days ago). I recall when the Leopard was introduced into Ukraine. All the NAFO bots went wild - until a few months later when they were burning wrecks.
Far worse for the Soviet era tanks. Since it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has lost about 2,600 main battle tanks and 4,900 other armored vehicles, the UK Ministry of Defence said on 29 January 2024. Oleksiy Danilov, Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, said on Ukrainian television In August 2023 that “Russian mining is insane. On average, there are 3-4-5 mines per square meter”. Leopard 2 is a great MBT, but in old-fashioned trench warfare with that kind of mine density, (add also the drones and artillery), it will be difficult for any MBT, even the Leopard and Abrams. The mix of old and this particular new tech has never been used before.
@@keepingcalm6469 Yes, I believe so. At the end of the summer counteroffensive, AFU preserved their Leopard 2 for later, I understand. According to Ukrainska Pravda on 29 August 2023 (quote): “Out of the 71 Leopard 2 tanks given to Ukraine initially, with 5 tanks permanently out of action and as many as 10 at depots for repair, its brigades still have over 50 active Leopards”. According to Forbes, all losses of Leopard 2 tanks occurred within an area of 25 sq.m./65 km2, anchored to Mala Tokmachka in the north and Robotyne in the south.
I'm wondering about who's gonna do the aerial refueling...F-16 has short legs. You can mount external fuel tanks or ordnance but not both. One takeoff, no landing - that's what's in store.
They're not supposed to do sorties in Russian airspace. that's the whole point. Ukraine is 850 by 520 miles across, which means pretty much no matter where you station these airplanes they'll be able to reach occupied territory. The occupied territory is not more than 50 miles wide anywhere along the border.
I really don't see how a dated F-16 MLU with old PESA is going to be any more than a nuisance to Russia's air force and air defense. I also doubt the US/NATO will give Ukraine the AIM-120D which will make it more difficult for Russia. Also missiles like HARM aren't going to provide any decent SEAD. Agree F-16 is more a stepping stone, but atm they'll lack the number of pilots, maintenance and logistics to be of much effect. It's more likely hope than any tangible change to the war.
@@minthouse6338 It's true they need planes if they want to keep fighting. I think it's pointless to keep fighting as this war is unwinnable for Ukraine and they should negotiate and the F-16s demonstrate they will never get enough aid to turn the tide of the war.
They need to form a line of defense, mines, barriers, trenches, barb wire etc and hold it. There ain't no way they got the man power or weapons to retake the territory that Russia already took. It was a miracle to retain 80% of your country against a force like that. Don't turn a miracle into a disaster by continuing this notion you can get Crimea back...
They will do the same thing as they did with the tanks they won't stick to the training and stick to the tactics that work for that machine and will end up straying from the tactics that work and end up losing them like the tanks.
the US lost 9 and damaged 14 more Abrams tanks in the Iraq conflict. Considering the US created air superiority within the first 24 hours of the conflict, that should have never happened, but it did. It's war - it's completely unpredictable. It happens. By the way - the destroyed Abrams tanks in Iraq was ALL destroyed by friendly fire, which arguably is worse.
"The F16 hasnt seen a contested environment in recent past" Really ? Try telling that to Israeli pilots where they handle one of the most contested environments out there for the past decade.
@@CWLemoine hundreds of Sams launched at you on any given Sunday isnt a contested Airspace ? Or what u are saying is that only if there is a credible aircraft in the other country - then the airspace is "contested" ?
@@CWLemoine Syrian AA and Iranian backed forces have been firing off countless SAMs every time Israel launched attacks against Hezbolla arming shipments from Iran via Syrian territory since the Syrian Civil War started and Israel noticed that under that cover Hezbolla was receiving advanced anti air weapons. IAF pilots were quoted on more than one occasion that they encountered dozens of AA missiles per night and thousands over the course of the past decade. Israeli cities were hit several times over the years by SAM 5s presumably aimed at IAF aircraft - due to its long range - many times these missiles struck in the heart of Israel. During one of these incidents as I mentioned an Israeli I model (block 50 I believe) was shot down as I mentioned due to what the IAF claimed was a "tactical error" by the pilot - this was all before the October 7th atrocities - following the October 7th atrocities perpetrated by Hamas - Hezbolla joined the War and Israeli AF are striking in Lebanon under threat with a Hermes 450 UAV shot down just last week by Hezbolla SAMs
If I remember the translation, the guy speaking Ukrainian was saying the change in electronics and sensors is like going from an early smart phone directly to an iPhone 15 Pro without the steps in the middle. Its a lot to take in.
Nah. They are getting F-16 from 80s. Pretty much the same technological level as their Mig-29s. No ESA radars, nothing fancy
Denmark has made a 10 year commitment to Ukraine with finacial and weapons support. Besides F16 Denmark has donated 100 Leopard MBT, its entire artillery with brand new Ceasar 8x8 155mm howitzer and has just paid Sweden to produce 36 new CV9035 MK4 infanteri vehicles and much more
Respect
Now lets think Denmark gave nothing. Really sad. Now lets think about all what Denmark gave. Really happy. Denmark is better than happy pills!
Now lets think you were not on pills ?
God save King Frederick and our Mary. From Australia
Denmark has to donate ukraineans. Coz Ukraine is running out of those.
The abrams was destroyed because they lack artillery rounds and other means of infantry support. It was rushed to cover infantry from getting surrounded. They dont want to lose the tanks thus way, but sometimes there is no other way for them
so you're saying they cant even manage a platoon of infantry but they are going to be able to run a squadron of some of the most advanced fighter jets ever made.
@@jonnie2badYeah they are so bad, they even made the second strongest army in the world look like idiots.
@@jonnie2bad no i am not saying that. Are you on copium? I am saying that these guys (as much as i like them) are looking at this conflict from the viewpoint of US army which is 1000% better positiom than UA army. UA doesnt always have the luxury the US army has, so they have to "patch holes" sometimes. Dont pretend like the US forces have never ever messed something up. The difference is this war is pretty much streamed online, so every mess up is on display
@jonnie2bad neither side in this war masses troops or equipment. That's why you see nothing but squad level skirmishes on video despite the high casualties in the war. It's a death by a thousand cuts.
If either side masses troops or equipment, they're immediately destroyed by artillery. A platoon is a huge target.
Always excuses.
F-16s may not tip the scale by itself. But each small weight added builds towards the scale tipping.
Yup ... but the scale is not moving in the direction you wish for
@@gdiwolverinemale4th Thanks to Moscow Mike Johnson. Not so much to the meatwaves.
Putin's supporters have to come to terms that the Russian army gets weaker, the Black Sea fleet is destroyed, and Russia is down to its last A-50, and meanwhile Ukraine gained Javelins and Patriots the first year, main battle tanks the second year, and now air-superiority fighters.
if you're suggesting that each weapons system that NATO has supplied combined will change the tide of the war, you're wrong. None of the weapons supplied has made a significant impact.
@@Annou7la Gilligan's Island "For a three hour tour" vs Putin's Russia "for a two day war"
source: lyricsondemand.com/tvthemes/gilligansislandlyrics.html
Regarding the "incorrect" tactical use of the Abrams, have you seen the countless tanks and armoured vehicles being turned into burning wrecks from being swarmed by drones, hammered by artillery (guided by drones) and various anti-tank weapons not to mention extensive minefields and other fortifications/obsticles making freedom of movement for large formations almost impossible? This isn't Desert Storm where large tank formations could roll through the desert, nor is this the kind of European war envisioned in many Cold War scenarios with NATO tanks rolling across Western Europe to meet Soviet tanks doing the same from the East (of which many of these tanks including the Abrams where designed for). This is a WW1 like trench warfare quagmire which funny enough tanks where originally designed to combat.
I'll leave Ukranians to decide what is the best tactics for the tanks they are using considering they are the one's experiencing first how to and how not to fight in this kind of warfare. We in the West can hardly point out what they are doing wrong with the equipment they have been given especially considering we have had zero experience in the kind of conflict this has become. It's already been reported that Ukraine has had to abandon some of the NATO tactics they were taught because quite frankly they were outdated ideas from a coalition of armies which at most has played war games and fought against insurgents.
Spot on.
Most "NATO tactics" don't have anything to do with insurgents. In fact, counter-insurgency caught the US with its pants down and a lot of stuff had to be learned on the fly. The manuals weren't re-written for fighting the Taliban. They're still a manual on how to fight the Reds.
At the same time they have limited numbers and up to 3 times heavier than anything they ever used before. But its also tougher and more capable than anything they have used before. Often times the Ukrainians are stuck with forces in bad way and two Bradley's or even one Abrams can turn a battle. Which at the same time brings in Russian attention on those assets immediately. So like the F-16's they have to use and risk losing them if Western weapons are to be useful in war. Its hard for Westerners to put themselves in Ukrainians position. Since its been nearly a century since Americans have ever been truly been the underdog in a fight.
I think the number of western tanks given is too limited. The frontline is very long, and the Ukrainian seems to have spread out the western tanks to strengthen the frontline. Even if they are significantly better than the Russian tanks, the numbers are important. War is very expensive and even if the values given for the provided western material seems huge, it is only small fractions of the US military budgets or the BNP numbers for the European countries (except for the Baltic states that have given all they can provide). I am an EU citizen and I think that we should provide more material, faster. Even older tanks, like Leopard 1, and similar, will make a difference. And perhaps other types of vechicles like mine clearing equipment and Bradleys or CV90s could have even more effect.
Even the best Ukrainian military bloggers admit they have no idea how to use armor. Last year, Kiev said their officers need substantially more western training as their performance in battle is pitiful.
Both the Russians & Ukrainians have no idea what to do with armor. Their best troops died early in the war. They're just poorly trained conscripts, with little to no training, battling it out like two angry 3 year olds.
Sweden is very quiet about the Ukranians training in Sweden, but that was the same when it came to CV90 and Archer. Very little info was released untill the Cv90 and Archer was already in Ukraine. So if any jet is likely to be a Surprise that it's in Ukraine it's the Gripen, Sweden just likes opsec more then others for some reason and when it comes to Cv90 and Archer acording to Ukraine it has been Sweden that has insisted on media silence.
That's probably because it was only 2 Ukrainian pilots who flew the Gripen a few times. About the extent of the training having been done.
Yep, correct-a-mundo and Sweden did mention they would provide their fighter once they were in NATO. Hungry/ Putler's bum buddy Oban delayed that from being finalised. Sweden now has Article 5 protection so is prepared to release a few of their precious fighters. Sweden just has to ramp up production to get enough for themselves and Ukraine plus all the orders that will come in once they have been tested in combat and proved themselves.
If F-16 + Amraam can force Russian fighters/bombers away from the grunts on the ground it does have a big effect. Not war changing alone, but a big effect nevertheless.
Drones have also changed tank warfare hugely.
Yeah western tanks had already shown massive success on the ground. So will western planes.
If Ukraine wants to retain their Air Force, they need the F-16s and possibly other jets they can get long time support for. Which for their current air fleet they likely can't.
Simple as that.
If they feel they can do more with these replacements, more power to them. Ukrainian tactics suprised positively multiple times already and their Air Force seems very competent.
2:01 This guys name is literally J.DAM, i reckon he know a thing or two about dropping guided munitions from aircraft.
Truth in advertising !
There is already a consensus on that the F16 will not change the war, but with its radar and sensors it still gives the Ukrainians a weapon platform they did not have before.
"war is a psychological game" isa ( eyes roll ), welcome to the party.
I appreciate your videos a lot - but I hope your angle on this is a bit off.
I hope the f 16s are going to make a big difference. Ukraine has (refering to a meeting of german airforce generals that was leaked ) only a single digit number of Su 24 - they need platforms for stand off weapons desperately - and if it's only 12 or 14 planes - even if it was only 4 - in percentage it matters allready - if these guys continue to work on the situation in crimea they could help bring down the kerch bridge. That might make a huge difference - at least if Ukraine managed to refresh their offensive ground forces and challenge the land bridge.
At the moment European armies discuss to field (more) troops in Ukraine - maybe we see NATO troups securing the belarus border or even enforcing air security (from shaheeds and kalibrs). Then these F16 would have a safe haven to be maintained - and hopefully to fly in an environment were friend/foe detection works (looking at you reaper 'pilots')
Reason for hope Nr. 3: The experience and capability of the Ukrainians has always been underestimated - again refering to the WebEx with password 1234 ... they do enormous things with the patriots for instance obviously harming their SU 34s by quickly shifting the systems and in the beginning military experts though it cant be done to give them patriots.
The era of the modern military is over... RIP...
All hail the Age of the Drone. Hail!
Boost for SEAD operations and hopefully some additional long range weapon options.
US in Korea: everyone help please, must defeat communism.
US in Vietnam: Australia, NZ and South Korea help please.
US cold war: everyone must help to defeat communism.
US in Afghanistan and Iraq: come help us Bois.
US on Ukraine: you can all fight your own fights, nothing to do with us?
We like a coalition. We don't need a coalition. We always do the heavy lifting anyway.
@@USN1985dosThe US likes its vassal states.
More like "US on Ukraine (2013/2014): Let's install an Anti-Russian regime in Ukraine and use it to fight against Russia". "US on Ukraine (2024): Well i guess that did not work out as planned, time to leave."
@@USN1985dos maybe the US should do some more lifting. It got a draw at best and run out of town in Afghanistan and Vietnam 😬
@@USN1985dos You also get the prime cut of trade so you get what you give. Which is fair, don't begrudge American trade and culture all around the world. Just stinks how you've slunk away from your commitments on this one.
Might be worth noting that all MBT's have shown weakness to Drones and Artillery of 155mm or 152mm.
According to what ive heard from diffrent sides including Ukrainian , Swedish, German, British and American fighters/Volunters and military strategists and former active Generals and so on.
The best performing one is so far STRV122 (Swedish heavily modified Leo2A5+ design built in sweden with modifications on carriage, Armour computers and drivetrain)
Second is British Challenger 2
Third is Regular German Leo 2A6
Fourth is American Abrams Ma1-A1
Fifth is Danish/German Leo1A5
Sixth is German Leo 2A4
Under there is the USSR designs which all seem to dislike.
Every tank except STRV122 have had huge issues with the Mud and losing tracks due to it.
The main complains are
STRV122: Gun is of the shorter version which was changed when the Leo2A6 came.
Leo2A4/´2A6: Losing tracks and missing Armour compared to STRV122.
Leo1A5 : Less armour then all the rest and Dropping tracks in the mud, And the 105MM Gun has less firepower than the rest plus it stoves its ammo in the front.
Challenger 2: Ammo in the cabin and some issues with the floor armour.
Abrams: Filters Clogging all the time due to mud, The cleaning system cant handle the mud.
Tracks clogging due to mud and some of the abrams arriving in poor condition with electrical wires beeing broken and needing rewiring.
The Ukrainian troops are according to Swedish and British Tank officers who have trained with them highly skilled and on par or better than the best we have in the west due to them actually having real battle experience from actual full scale war.
the issue is not Experience nor is it proffesionalism from the Ukrainian Military, the issue is that we have given them almost nothing to fight with.
And that includes all of the west
You cannot expect Ukraine to use weatern doctrine when western doctrine operates on the understanding that they will have some sort of substantial air support
Air support really isn't calculated into armor attacks. The aircraft typically hit targets far from the front lines. Ukrainian drones & HIMARS can easily handle this role.
It takes more than a year to properly train a tank crew. It takes months more to train them on combined arms attacks like crossing a minefield. Ukraine hasn't taken the time to conduct this training. They're pretty cocky, typically saying they learn quickly, and don't need to train. Well, you see the result.
Some doctrine is rooted deep in fundamental military realities that simply don't change.
When you violate the Law of Concentration if force, you suffer. Parceling out ones strongest forces to hold and extended line negates the power of those forces while risking thir loss anyway.
It applies at all scales
You don't send a lone tank into battle for the same reason you don't send a lone soldier.
A lone unit of anything becomes an immediate target, and has no peers to support it.
A tank platoon may be able to eliminate a position that one will fall too. If one tank in a platoon is knocked out the others have a chance to recover it, just as a squad may rescue a comrade. Without support, what would be a wound will be a kill.
@@donwyoming1936 easy enough to say these things, but the last total war western forces where involved in was 90 years ago. When I see western forces successfully cross that defensive line holding Crimea then I will admit you are right
@@donwyoming1936 Well it was only the Ka-52s ruining their day during the demining that put the kibosh on the counter offensive. That, and the fact that didn't 500 tanks and APCs to burn. Ukrainians have excelled in every other aspect, becoming the premier operator of Patriot within 2 months of receiving the system, their naval drones, what ever they're doing to fk up the Su-34s and A50s. They've earned their bragging rights.
I think it is more than just good feels and propaganda although I agree that it won't change the war much for a long while. It does the following things though.
1. As you guys said it sets up long term cooperation and shows a large commitment.
2. It allows to maintain current capabilities that have kept Russian aircraft out of Ukraine with casualties from accidents and fighting.
3. Likely a minor buff in all ordinance. HARM missiles are currently used but to my understanding they don't have full capabilities. Plus replacing export variants of former Soviet missiles with western likely is an improvement.
4. While not the preferred jets for the mission they are available which is most important.
5. This program should provide lessons learned if Gripen C from Czechia or Mirage 2000-9 become available from France or UAE. And obviously F-16 from many nations.
It was a big step in commiting to Ukraine. With no electronic warfare commitments these will never leave Ukraine controlled airspace, but I do believe these will help bleed Russia over time. It sucks that so many will die for this war, but I do think these jets will help make it harder for Russia in the long term as long as they don't do some Iron Eagle shit trying to take out the Kersch Bridge.
The Ukrainians have proven to be quite innovative with the weapons systems they are given. I know the Vipers aren’t wonder weapons, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we get some wild headlines in the coming months because of them.
Oh there will be wild headlines. None of them will be true, though. Just more Ukrainian propaganda like "9 Su-34's shot down" in a few weeks, lol
The US started the war in Ukraine in 2014. As a Dane I am ashamed we follow US hegemony blindly.
Ditto from Norway
Denmark are doing a GREAT job.
It is more important than you guys think.
1. They can and are showing that they can handle the training in shortened format.
2. They learn to maintain, teach new teachers
3. This opens the door to giving fighters. Next is supplying large numbers of SAAB from Sweden once the nato papers are 100% done. Training is already happening on the JAS platform.
Biggest issue there is, will the swedes want to finally show the world what their EW systems can actually do? Not even western forces know this
There is no such thing as large numbers of Gripen ...
@@Wannes_ If you have the money, they can make them. 100 or more will take time and money, but it is possible and frankly it will take Ukraine time to absorb large numbers. In the long run they probably need a fleet of 300. AFAIK Sweden has a renewal of their current fleet in the pipeline and if there are buyers for the current fleet this can be accelerated
@@wathaet1386 Production capability is limited, and not something you scale up in a couple of days
@@Wannes_ Thank you mr. obvious
@@wathaet1386 Yeah, which means there is NO supply of significant numbers of Gripen anytime soon unless Sweden gives up a lot of its own capabilities, which is doubtful.
Ukraine needs equipment NOW
What they could get in 5 years or so may no longer be relevant by then ...
The only fighter that is available in quantity, and is a realistic option at the same time, is the F-16
The day Ukraine first got invaded 10 years ago, Western nations should have started to train Ukrainian pilots on the F-16 and Ukraine should have 300 Abram tanks right now, not "37" !!! The democrat party and not just "criminal Joe" is "compromised", right BIG GUY !!
There is a lot of history to look at to see how well a capable fighter pilot can transition from and old jet to a new jet. One example can be found in all the F-4 combat veterans from Vietnam transitioning to the F-16 and F-15, especially in the Air Guard & Reserve. I recall a Navy A-4 pilot transitioning to the F-4 (Air Guard) and he did very well. He then transitioned to the F-16 and only then had a lot of questions about how radar works in the jet. He did very well in the F-16. Both the Washington Air Guard and the North Dakota Air Guard (NODAK) went from F-106s to F-15s and most of the pilots there stayed for the transition. Take a look at all these examples if you want a true picture of the problems of transitioning to a modern jet. In the 1980s the new guys coming out of college had a definite edge on the old veterans in the time it took to master the HOTAS systems, but the old geezers were better warfighters on the whole, in my opinion, of course.
There it is! The "Fighting Falcon" patch!
The Ukrainians have a very credible aeronautical industry that produced the Antonov..so they have a good grasp of aircraft production and maintenance..there are some very bright aircraft engineers / maintenance personnel who given a chance will become quiet confident with the F16. In WW2 the polish pilots credited themselves very well flying "spitfires" during the "Battle of Britain" after a couple of weeks training because like the Ukrainians have motivation..their country has been invaded...they will surprise.
Well, Hurricanes, the Poles were given Hurricanes to get their revenge on the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain. Your comment is spot on though.
Not anymore. They're all "deleted"... or living the refugee life abroad. Turns out kleptocrats are ineffective fascists. The institutional industrial knowledge base is just gone.
I agree, I expect the Ukraine AF to use this carefully as a means to push back enemy air coverage. Also as a better launch platform for western made ordinance. I expect that we'll see lost and damaged F16s - possibly most happening on the ground. But this conflict is long term. If there's a ceasefire, it just ramps back up in a year or 2 unless someone is convinced its a bad idea.
We should have, in the opening phases of this conflict, recruited active-duty pilots from all of the service branches and equipped them with front-line F-16s, along with logistics, ordnance and service support and sent them into the conflict as The American Volunteer Group..... Previously known as "The Flying Tigers"
Maintainers are going to be just as crucial as the pilots.
First comment I'm writing here (from Germany). I think you Americans are too jaded, because every war you fought after the civil war, you get to go home from. No matter if you win or lose, you get to go home. There is no concept in your emotional engagement in struggle, that reflects German soldiers in Stalingrad or Berlin or their Soviet counterparts. Or for that matter Ukrainians now falling back under superior Russian use of materiel. Still, if you do not have a country left and face oppression after the war is done, the reserve of stamina fighting in desperate odds is completely different.
To the common Ukrainian soldier, no matter if they like Selenskij or not, there is the stark choice of being oppressed afterwards with a future trajectory back to the USSR or having some way of joining the EU and becoming a western nation. It's maybe like the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese army: They get to go home when the Russians limit the aim of their conquest or become more tired of their suffering than they do.
Remember: Russia is authoritarian and enforces very strict news control as well as suppressing demonstrations. The true disaffection with the state of affairs will only ever be known, when the next batch of conscritnicks go home and their families are fed up.
Not saying that all is well or that Ukraine has a chance of regaining Crimea (I feel they don't). But don't count on them laying down arms, because they grow tired of war. It's eastern Europe and the capacity to endure suffering is probably unparalleled in the world.
Thanks for you contributions and discussions and I would hope the US would not drop an ally like a hot potato due to domestic politics. Sometimes it's horrendously difficult for your allies to interact with the US political system, as you have four centers of gravity in foreign policy and anyone one of them can make or break policy: The White House, The Secretary of State, The House of Representatives and the Senate. And all of them can promise and make foreign policy, whilst three of them have de facto veto power to shut down any alliance or course of action for their own proprietary reason with no sense of responsibility to the interests of the US or those of a long or short term ally.
good comment
Ukraine isn't our ally.
USA has been providing military protection in Europe for decades now while European "allies" downsized their military, but as soon as USA stops giving aid to Ukraine (which is not in NATO or a US ally) for a few months, Europe all of a sudden is quick to turn its back on USA while publicly saying it can't rely or trust America. Let's not forget Europe's lack of support in the Red Sea. Instead of EU joining USA & UK operation, EU has their own operation only escorting European ships. Why is USA the only one that is not allowed to lookout for itself?
USA needs to realize that everything it does worldwide is a lose/lose situation. If USA tries to help other countries, it quickly gets labeled invaders, imperialist, colonizers, exploiting others natural resources, warmongers yet when SHTF around the world and the US decides to mind it's own business and stay out of it, what happens? The US gets shamed, smeared, called weak, a superpower in decline but at the end of the day no matter what USA does, countries around the world will keep asking for help, not because we get along, are allies, share the same values, but its only because countries either want humanitarian aid or military protection. How many times has USA helped others around the world to only have them go talk shit about USA later on just because US won't endlessly supply aid.
My thoughts on the lone Abrams as an infantryman…
We continually criticize Ukrainian TTP‘s saying, “that’s not how you’re supposed to use an Abrams, that’s not how you’re supposed to use a Bradley…. “
Here’s the thing, though: Americans only know how to fight when they’re already winning. Our entire doctrine is based on the fragile assumption that the sky is completely ours.
Take the 1st armored division. Place them in a mine field 20 km deep. Take away their air support. Take away their artillery and fires support. Take away their ammo. Add an enemy with overwhelming air and fires support and infantry divisions that outnumber our forces three to one.
Our armored formations will be absolutely, absolutely wrecked in the next ground war. Even our Air Force is a mile wide, and 1 inch deep. The moment we lose a single F 35, there’s no damn way our commanders would have the balls to continue risking their careers, pilots and airframes.
Congress would have an investigation over the downed F35 and the pentagon would be leaving the AO faster than we left Afghanistan.
So while the Americans criticize the Ukrainian tactics, the Ukrainians look back at the Americans, like, “really dude? Y’all would have surrendered years ago.”
It's literally what has happened in EVERY conflict the US has been in, bar Iraq - The difference in Iraq was that the US never engaged on their own. In EVERY conflict the US has sent troops unilaterally, after some time, you have families and politicians at home crying and wanting to pull out immediately, and the US has more or less always ended up retreating in shame.
Right. I wouldn't dare rely on the US for security. It's a death wish. You get invaded for being a friend of the US and the US abandons you at your darkest hour. @@eidodk
Guys, as Ukrainian, i dont get where your pessimism is comming from. Of course, F16 alone will not win the war for us, but if we don't get them, eventually we will lose it.
Same thing could have been said about HIMARS, Bradleys or other western systems.
If you just want to remain negative, that is up too you of course. But if you realy want us to succeed, maybe you should start talking about how many jets Ukraine will get from western countries. Or how many is needed to change the course of the war. We would not have survived, if in February 2022 we just said "Ok, russians have ten times more tanks and jets, and artillery, we got no chance".
Agreed!
These guys are not pessimistic, but realistic as former fighter pilots who know western fighters and tactics. Getting F16s now will make little difference in this war - too little, too late for Ukraine. It takes a year to train a pilot to use an F16 as a weapons platform. Best of luck Ukraine...
@@jimkekoa2756Beeing a former rocket jockey, is not the same as being strategic expert. There is many who know a bit about military aviation. But you are right. It will take time. Western support is constantly atleast 6 months behind in support decitions. Only loosers are going to say its not possible. Unfortunatly, US seems to be more and more out of the game. Also get the impression that only US know how to fight an air war? This F-16 is a european effort. Still many in US seems to moan about it!?
Here the F-16 guys are wearing F-35 patches and no sign of the F-35 being here yet (Belgium)
Some great insight, one of your better videos recently mover.
The USA could give them more HIMARS, Barrel Artillery, tanks and APC´s and Ammunition. Thats what the Ukrainian army really needs. The Americans have it and had no problems build up a useless Afghan army or the new Iraqi army but even though Europe's freedom is threatened, half of Americans are babbling about the Mexicans and the border fence. When America got attacked and envoked NATO Article 5, europe came to aid. Hundreds of our soldiers died for a war in a faraway desert. hundreds upon hundreds of European civilians have died in the last 20 years in countless terrorist attacks as a revenge for this support we gave the united states. I fear for the Baltic states because they will be next if Ukraine falls and a certain man will again be president in the USA.
This is EXACTLY the thing! Where the Fuck is the US in this.. Bogged down in domestic politics.. A fucking joke.. this is the VERY fucking thing you have been spending you budget on for the past 60 years and when it finally happens, you chicken out.. WTF..
Hey Mover and guys, can you describe what it actually so different between flying a western jet like the F-16 vs. a Soviet jet like the Mig-29. I get that they’re different planes and have different performance, but what is fundamentally different in the approach of the pilots themselves? I hope that question makes sense.
The F-16 has full digital control while the MiG-29 is still mechanically linked. When flying a MiG-29 if you speed up or slow down, or change altitude, your wings provide different lift so your CoL moves in relation to the CoG so you need to keep re-trimming to stay level.
The F-16 is multirole with modernized cockpits while the MiG-29 is still a fighter that happens to let you drop bombs and fire rockets.
The F-16 is made to look for enemy aircraft and fight them, the MiG-29 is meant to be flown by a pilot listening to ground controllers telling him where the enemy will be, and then when close the pilot will turn on his radar or IRST to shoot missiles at the enemy.
"Moonfish". I can only wonder how Danish and Norwegian pilots have shitted their pants when a pilot called "Torsk".
Moonfish translated in to Danish is Månefisk and not Torsk
C'm on man. What expectations ? Everyone knows F16 alone can't change anything, but it's will help a lot for air defense & ground support.
the russian guided bombs have been a huge part of their recent success. A SEAD/Dead effort on the point of a new counteroffensive could be the missing link-localair superiority at the point of attack
Getting new modern airforce takes time. Even more during war times. But Ukraine has no other choise.Simple as that. Should they just sit and, meh. dosent matter? F-16 brings a whole new pack of possibilitys with modern/more advanced weapons that is hard, or impossible to adapt to old mig or su platforms. Gripen would be a better choise. We all agree on that. But Sweden is not going to supply them until Nato member. It Is now close, but F-16 program has started and must be done first before anything else.
What F-16 will do. Is to make russian army and airforce have to think twise on what they can do, and operate. That is a strategic up for the Ukrainians. Both on ground and in air.
I recommend ppl to watch various interviews with Justin Bronk. Who is actually a real world strategic analyst on this matter. (and a brilliant unbiased one)
No one has been sucsessful sitting on their hands, during any war in history. Just get on with it, and make it happen!
Writing this while Gripen and Blackhawks is flying past over my head, now and then.
Slava Ukraine!
Even if Sweden would provide some Gripens numbers would be too limited on their own. There are not that many around.
@@menninkainen8830There is quite a few airframes that could be made ready. Gripens short turnaround/effectivness, makes up a bit for fewer airframes. But for a country thats in a war. There will always be to few. If US setepped up with a f-16 programe too. The possibility for a fairly large Ukraininan airforce is there. But looks like it wont happen. And one cant live on hope in a war. Finns did awsome during the winter war. Ukraininans are living true the same thing now. So its up to us other to suppert them with all we can. now!
Most EU countries with F16s came from the F-104
That's also quite a step UP in technology
Then again, today's Viper isn't the one we bought back in the late 70s with 'winders and dumb bombs ...
Well said there at the end Wombat. ❤
You guys seem very negative.... What should ukraine do? they are running out of planes...and F16s are there in abundance. I think you underestimate a country at war. They have sunk the Russian fleet, they have inflicted very heavy losses on Russia, they are using western equipment and doing it well......What would you do???
J.Kauling from Denmark
When young American starts his training in modern fighter he can hope to get skills that will never be used in fight or fight with quite equal adversary. He or she can expect career of fun aviating and then perhaps civilian piloting. These Ukrainians know that they will be fighting soon and in fight risk is always high. Brave people! Happy hunting!
Oh wow, look at those cool FIGHTING FALCON patches! Mover, do you still have those patches with the FIGHTING FALCON? You should wear those all the time! 😋
Hi guys!
Have a question: pilot who’s flying B737, before An26,Yak 52, A320, with more than 10000 hours, 40 years old, doesn’t have chance to fly fighter jet?and at that moment still staying in reserve and military qualification is a pilot as well!
Coz in Ukraine is a big deal, many time I tried to get a chance but now way, big drama !but they are saying as a soldier welcome 😂
As i know in USA age limit 39 to become as a pilot with zero experience!
I appreciate to get your opinion about that! Thanks
Wombat, ever the voice of reason, well said Sir.
The Abrams piece is complicated. I'll have to do something up on that.
Good reality check on the use, morale, and leadership issues.
“It’s easy to sit behind a desk…”
The IAF lost one of the most advanced F16s due to a Pilot's tactical error in judgement to a SA-5 - so u are accurate that the pilots make a big difference
Landing areas is a great point. When the Ukrainian infrastructure is able to construct suitable landing areas they need to be heavily protected.
80% of the country is not under war like conditions.. Place an airstrip 100 miles away from the frontline, and it'll be protected enough to never see a missile landing.
Like it. 13 Aircraft Carriers. Place an international airport of warplanes off any countries coast in 72 hours.@@eidodk
@@scottleppard288 And that has WHAT to do with the situation in Ukraine ?
Absolutely, nothing. My avenue worked, you have no idea what you're talking about and I got a response, checkmate@@eidodk
I agree with the team here. It will act as a huge moral boost for Ukraine and a huge moral buster for Russian troops. It's frightening to here those engines roaring above. But right now cheap drones can do a far better job.
Save Ukraine!!
Why?
@@ryan976david
Why/when do you think a country should help another country, in general?
Russia is soon history, thanks litle coward Putin
Day to day maintenance isn't going to be all that alien
Anything beyond that, I expect to get pulled out as a LRU and go back to the existing repair infrastructure in Europe for diagnosis and repair
A fulcrum pilot will not be ready for combat with a f16 in a few months, However nobody have been using a face mask in denmark in the last 2.5 years
The mask is to hide there identity
Step 1 is what it is.
4:20 but still western production really didn't increase a lot to help Ukraine in the long run, after the stored things run lower, discouraging giving more to Ukraine.
It's one thing to be retrained for a new type of aircraft and other weapons systems, another thing is that they do it in "record" time, they haven't had as much time as a regular F-16 pilot - important factors to keep in mind as well .
It would be a good time for those old CRV-7 rockets from Canada to show up.
I think the best use of the platform will be SEAD
Probably better of with the JAS 39 Gripen imo
The F-16s you have laying around are better than the Gripens that don't exist.
Better off with both. Gripen has only been produced in limited numbers and they can't have like most of them.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Australia never had F-16s. So it would be better to say the F-16s we never had are equal to the Gripens that don't exist
@@fryaduck Title says Denmark, I must have missed where Australia is mentioned.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Comprehension is not part of your raison d'etre
Also, I dont think these men understand the gravity of being in contested or drone infested airspace. If youre Ukraine, the last thing you want to do nowadays is bunch up your armor, because as the Russians show time and time again with their failed mechanized assaults, once youre spotted by a myriad of drones, your mechanized assault becomes like a dinner bell for FPVs, artillery, ATGMs, etc. Maybe in a air superiority environment can you rely soly on that sort of armored tactic, but it youre Ukraine, better to lose one tank than a dozen.
Hyeah at the end of the day? It is just another peice of hardware, not a Wunderwaffen
People aren't that stupid. They know some F-16's are gonna be lost. The guys on the ground should be getting told that the F-16's will help but that they very well might not make a big difference. Or are you telling me that soldiers don't get taught what to expect and how to deal with upcoming situations. If so then that is poorly managed militaries.
USAFE Commander, General Hecker, said the F-16s were for the post war Ukrainian Air Force. It would take 4-5 years to properly train their pilots and maintenance personnel.
From having been involved helping allies field both F-15s & F-16s, it takes about 5 years for them to improve their airfields, build facilities, set up supply lines for 100k parts, acquire thousands of pieces of support equipment, train the maintainers and train those pilots.
Ukraine sent us 32 brand new recruits, who had to be taught how to fly by France & the UK, to be F-16 pilots. I can only locate 14 of them a year later.
It never ceases to amaze me people think you can learn to fly an F-16 faster than you can get a driver's license. Ukraine's pilots weren't that great to begin with, and their best pilots are dead. Dealing with 24 year olds with 2 years of flying fighters. And brand new recruits in F-16s.
RIP moon Fish.
Is Wombat called Wombat for the reasons - plural - I hope he's not called Wombat?
I’m guessing the F16’s will probably be bare bones with some advanced avionics. Don’t want the Russians to find one and reverse engineer them.
They couldn’t even if Lockheed showed them
They're old generation F-16s - don't matter if the Russians have one.
@DDtch6669 yea but the soviets never put a man on the moon. The Americans did. Then they developed the 16 in the 70s a whole decade after they beat the Soviets in space
The Viper is an amazing platform. Yet it's not suitable for this kind of fight. The Viper, as good as it is it must have tremendous support both on the ground and in the air to be effective. Russia has big eye support over 60% of Ukraine. This fact alone makes the F16 an easy target. So is NATo going to put up air support? Also without gas the F16 has such a limited range to use it effectively they will have to cross Ukraine above 25k as slow as possible to have enough gas to get back. Again, making it an exalent target. Will NATO fly tanker over Ukraine?
I don’t understand how anyone thinks Ukraine can win or even just control Russian advances without air support.
If they are stupid enough to base these jets in Poland or Romania this war will get very interesting.
I didn't know the United Kingdom are giving F-16s to the Ukraine.
Saab would be a better option, but there's no availability
_Yay !_
Since Russian planes fall out of the sky on their own already I think this is going to be more successful than we think
What worries me is all the Ukraine pilots will be rookies at the beginning and also the mechanics. Inexperienced Japanese and German pilots got chewed up in WW2 .
Thanks!
The Ukrainians and the first 6 f16 are ready In 2 quarter of 2024, 6 months delayed.
why always the ... the F-16 dont work 4 them bz the intake.. well woud you also have same problem ? cold war turns hot.. US or UA same issue.
Yes, and that's why we don't operate them off roads.
@@CWLemoine if the US coms into a peer war. China or another, will your runways never get hit then ? I know all the late wars this wasn’t a a big issue but when a peer adversary coms then it will be an issue correct ? (Sorry about the bad English, hope it make sense)
Typically, no. We have the ability to project airpower better than anyone else in the world. Ukraine cannot. They take off and are immediately in the war zone.
@@Kaalund1989 USA has specific units that prepare/repair runways. Check out USAF PRIME BEEF. They were in country 2 weeks after 9/11.
i think ive seen those over my house since i only live a few miles from skydskrup wich is the base where f16 hold and i some time see the f16 in pair
RIP F-16 kill ratio
why Ukrainian refused Australia F18 ?
Australia sold the flyable ones to Canada what’s left are good for spare parts would take a fortune to get them back in the air .
How is the glorious Ukraine going to pay for all this training?
Does anyone know if any former Western F-16 pilots or maintainers are volunteering to serve with the Ukrainians?
The West must stop procrastinating !
A general stated,, all I have is this shitty tank.....his counter part was heard to say .....I wish I had a shitty tank
Thanks blue
I'm pleased to hear Mover saying that it's not going to have an immediate change (I think Gonky said the same a few days ago). I recall when the Leopard was introduced into Ukraine. All the NAFO bots went wild - until a few months later when they were burning wrecks.
Far worse for the Soviet era tanks. Since it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has lost about 2,600 main battle tanks and 4,900 other armored vehicles, the UK Ministry of Defence said on 29 January 2024.
Oleksiy Danilov, Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, said on Ukrainian television In August 2023 that “Russian mining is insane. On average, there are 3-4-5 mines per square meter”.
Leopard 2 is a great MBT, but in old-fashioned trench warfare with that kind of mine density, (add also the drones and artillery), it will be difficult for any MBT, even the Leopard and Abrams.
The mix of old and this particular new tech has never been used before.
"A loss of a Leopard is a tragedy. A loss of a thousand Soviet tanks is a statistic." - people who whine about cartoon dogs online
I don't really find any OSI sources on how many leos have been completely lost and burnt - but it seems like they are mostly intact.
@@keepingcalm6469 Yes, I believe so. At the end of the summer counteroffensive, AFU preserved their Leopard 2 for later, I understand. According to Ukrainska Pravda on 29 August 2023 (quote): “Out of the 71 Leopard 2 tanks given to Ukraine initially, with 5 tanks permanently out of action and as many as 10 at depots for repair, its brigades still have over 50 active Leopards”.
According to Forbes, all losses of Leopard 2 tanks occurred within an area of 25 sq.m./65 km2, anchored to Mala Tokmachka in the north and Robotyne in the south.
Will the jets be stationed in Ukraine? If no, then start to worry abit
I'm wondering about who's gonna do the aerial refueling...F-16 has short legs. You can mount external fuel tanks or ordnance but not both. One takeoff, no landing - that's what's in store.
They're not supposed to do sorties in Russian airspace. that's the whole point. Ukraine is 850 by 520 miles across, which means pretty much no matter where you station these airplanes they'll be able to reach occupied territory. The occupied territory is not more than 50 miles wide anywhere along the border.
too easy for s-400
I really don't see how a dated F-16 MLU with old PESA is going to be any more than a nuisance to Russia's air force and air defense. I also doubt the US/NATO will give Ukraine the AIM-120D which will make it more difficult for Russia. Also missiles like HARM aren't going to provide any decent SEAD. Agree F-16 is more a stepping stone, but atm they'll lack the number of pilots, maintenance and logistics to be of much effect. It's more likely hope than any tangible change to the war.
It's a numbers thing. They need planes no matter what they are. Same as the Israelis back in 1949 with P-51s, Me 109s, Spitfires, B-17s and C-47s.
@@minthouse6338 It's true they need planes if they want to keep fighting. I think it's pointless to keep fighting as this war is unwinnable for Ukraine and they should negotiate and the F-16s demonstrate they will never get enough aid to turn the tide of the war.
No way Ukraine is getting -120D. Canada just got the AESA radars to fully use the AIM-120Ds the bought in 2017 on 36 of their CF-18 fleet.
@@hoghogwild Yeh thought so, without the AIM-120D Ukrainian F-16s are certainly outranged in BVR.
Who flew the Mig 21s back in Vietnam? The Russians. Guess who will fly F-16’s in Ukraine 😉
Who?
The Vietnamese flew the mig 21 they had way more aces then the Americans .
If they actually train Ukrainians to fly the F16 they will be the ones flying I doubt any mercenary needs money that bad to fly one way trips
С400-500 все равно какой самолет сбивать
They need to form a line of defense, mines, barriers, trenches, barb wire etc and hold it. There ain't no way they got the man power or weapons to retake the territory that Russia already took. It was a miracle to retain 80% of your country against a force like that. Don't turn a miracle into a disaster by continuing this notion you can get Crimea back...
They're gonna run out of ground troops first
They will do the same thing as they did with the tanks they won't stick to the training and stick to the tactics that work for that machine and will end up straying from the tactics that work and end up losing them like the tanks.
the US lost 9 and damaged 14 more Abrams tanks in the Iraq conflict. Considering the US created air superiority within the first 24 hours of the conflict, that should have never happened, but it did. It's war - it's completely unpredictable. It happens. By the way - the destroyed Abrams tanks in Iraq was ALL destroyed by friendly fire, which arguably is worse.
"The F16 hasnt seen a contested environment in recent past" Really ? Try telling that to Israeli pilots where they handle one of the most contested environments out there for the past decade.
I don’t think you understand what that means.
He’s means contested airspace but couldn’t help to include a snarky response
@@CWLemoine hundreds of Sams launched at you on any given Sunday isnt a contested Airspace ? Or what u are saying is that only if there is a credible aircraft in the other country - then the airspace is "contested" ?
@@yruas4497 we were specifically talking about air to air in this context, but who's been launching "hundreds of SAMS" at the Israelis?
@@CWLemoine Syrian AA and Iranian backed forces have been firing off countless SAMs every time Israel launched attacks against Hezbolla arming shipments from Iran via Syrian territory since the Syrian Civil War started and Israel noticed that under that cover Hezbolla was receiving advanced anti air weapons. IAF pilots were quoted on more than one occasion that they encountered dozens of AA missiles per night and thousands over the course of the past decade. Israeli cities were hit several times over the years by SAM 5s presumably aimed at IAF aircraft - due to its long range - many times these missiles struck in the heart of Israel. During one of these incidents as I mentioned an Israeli I model (block 50 I believe) was shot down as I mentioned due to what the IAF claimed was a "tactical error" by the pilot - this was all before the October 7th atrocities - following the October 7th atrocities perpetrated by Hamas - Hezbolla joined the War and Israeli AF are striking in Lebanon under threat with a Hermes 450 UAV shot down just last week by Hezbolla SAMs
Unfortunately the russian defences will shoot down most of the F16s.
Sure they will. Do you know how many air defenses Russians lost in this past couple of months?
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD do you know how many russian armies lost in 1942? I hope you understand that bit of history.
Then why are UA planes still flying?
Sure they’ll make pretty fireballs in the sky.