Kiev Is Burning

[Rob Veenendaal]

1 hour ago, crazyinsane105 said:

And again…2027 is the earliest these aircraft can actually be useful. By then the war will probably be over or the intensity will have significantly decreased 

I think there is a difference between peacetime training with all the bells and whistles and emergency wartime training. I will not be surprised when we see Ukrainian F16's in the sky in may next year. How many will be the big question and I doubt anyone can give serious numbers on that. They might end up with more planes than pilots.

Zelensky mentioning 42 Jets from the Dutch is an error. It seems our prime minister made that error and was soon corrected. As mentioned above, we currently have a total of 42, of which 18 are not in use and could go to Ukraine. Not a clue how many F16 can be arranged via the Danes.

[Rob Veenendaal]

Can't help, but wonder how long it will take for the Russians to blame the crash of Loena-25 on Ukraine. 😉

[crazyinsane105]

17 minutes ago, Rob Veenendaal said:

I think there is a difference between peacetime training with all the bells and whistles and emergency wartime training. I will not be surprised when we see Ukrainian F16's in the sky in may next year. How many will be the big question and I doubt anyone can give serious numbers on that. They might end up with more planes than pilots.

Zelensky mentioning 42 Jets from the Dutch is an error. It seems our prime minister made that error and was soon corrected. As mentioned above, we currently have a total of 42, of which 18 are not in use and could go to Ukraine. Not a clue how many F16 can be arranged via the Danes.

You really should read the article I posted well back in the thread. The NATO general was not mistaking this as a difference between peacetime vs wartime. He was adamantly clear that the current Ukrainian pilots need years of experience to be able to utilize F-16s effectively. And training isn’t starting till 2024 anyways. 

[crazyinsane105]

For those who haven’t read the article, here is a snippit, taken from a former F-16 pilot:

“For a pilot with around 500 hours experience in a Western fighter, but that has never previously flown the F-16 — someone transitioning from the Hornet for example — without any breaks, working weekends, etc, they need 69 days to learn everything to safely employ the Viper in air-to-air and air-to-ground roles,” commented an experienced F-16 instructor.

“That’s assuming they speak good English because that’s the language we teach in. Those 69 days include six flights learning to fly the jet and land it. About 15 flights of air-to-air, but if they’ve done a lot of this before you might get that down to 10. The between six and nine air-to-surface missions, which would include a basic ability to employ laser-guided bombs [LGBs] and GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions [JDAMs]. That would give them a basic, wingman-level understanding, and that’s assuming they are already familiar with the complex weapons such as the AIM-120 AMRAAM[Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile].”

“They would also need to take in 210 hours of academics and 10-20 simulator events. You can’t do that fast — even doing two sims a day means 10 days straight. You can’t do that kind of thing fast. So, those 69 days would mean the pilot could potentially employ the jet safely in a tactical training environment. Flying in combat is a whole different story.”

“Going into combat against a Su-35, even a Su-27 in contested airspace — now you’re talking about years of experience. You can’t do that with a brand-new guy who has seen everything once! You can have all the capabilities of the jet, but if the pilot doesn’t know how to use it correctly, then that’s useless. So for a pilot coming from a MiG-29, having to learn a brand-new PVI [pilot-vehicle interface] where everything looks different, use weapons that they’ve only ever read about, to give them three-months training then toss them into combat — that’s a tall order!"

 

“The MiG-29 to a Block 50 or Mid-Life Upgrade Viper isn’t a big step in performance, but it’s a huge leap in technology — the weapons and avionics. Even after 69 days of intense training, that’s only a wingman qual [qualification], so who is going to lead the mission? Do you just send them off as a rogue single-ship to try and shoot down anything with more than one vertical tail? To be super effective, you at least need a four-ship, and to lead that needs at least a year of intensive training — then you can crush the opposition.”

“The answer initially would have to be based on building a new syllabus based on Ukraine’s specific needs and the threat scenario, and to then take that into combat would need anywhere between six and 12 months of training. It would still be risky, but that might outweigh the rewards.”

And these would be current Ukrainians who have years of experience, and those that can pass the English requirements are very small in number. For fresh pilots…we are still looking at years. 

[urbanoid]

If the training started around the time when they began receiving HIMARS, at least some Ukr F-16 pilots could be already flying.

[sunday]

54 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

If the training started around the time when they began receiving HIMARS, at least some Ukr F-16 pilots could be already flying.

That would have been understood as defeatist at the time, probably.

[Rob Veenendaal]

48 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

You really should read the article I posted well back in the thread. The NATO general was not mistaking this as a difference between peacetime vs wartime. He was adamantly clear that the current Ukrainian pilots need years of experience to be able to utilize F-16s effectively. And training isn’t starting till 2024 anyways. 

I have read the article. It is probably correct when saying it takes 4 years at minimum to reach top level. That said, I bet Zelensky and his generals will only read the 69 days training part and those guys will be sent up as soon as they can fly. Not long after that first Russian claims will follow that they took down the invincible F-16. The most expensive lesson...

Training will start in a few months, after they have been taught specific English.

We have already seen quite a few Leopards taken out. Have you seen in those videos effective combat use for those tanks? Please note that I specialize in the technical matters regarding WWII Tiger tanks and thus know zip regarding modern day tank tactics. However, it seems to me that slowly driving a single tank into a minefield is not about tactics. That tank commander may have had training in how to use his tank, but when his commander says he has to go in there on a suicide mission, then he has to go. Expensive lessons for the Ukrainians, but they are learning.

So back to the F-16 question when they will be effective in combat? We will see. May be the Ukrainians will find a tactic that works for new pilots. I certainly hope so.

[seahawk]

The kill marks will look beautiful on the Russian Air Force jets.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, crazyinsane105 said:

For those who haven’t read the article, here is a snippit, taken from a former F-16 pilot:

“For a pilot with around 500 hours experience in a Western fighter, but that has never previously flown the F-16 — someone transitioning from the Hornet for example — without any breaks, working weekends, etc, they need 69 days to learn everything to safely employ the Viper in air-to-air and air-to-ground roles,” commented an experienced F-16 instructor.

“That’s assuming they speak good English because that’s the language we teach in. Those 69 days include six flights learning to fly the jet and land it. About 15 flights of air-to-air, but if they’ve done a lot of this before you might get that down to 10. The between six and nine air-to-surface missions, which would include a basic ability to employ laser-guided bombs [LGBs] and GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions [JDAMs]. That would give them a basic, wingman-level understanding, and that’s assuming they are already familiar with the complex weapons such as the AIM-120 AMRAAM[Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile].”

“They would also need to take in 210 hours of academics and 10-20 simulator events. You can’t do that fast — even doing two sims a day means 10 days straight. You can’t do that kind of thing fast. So, those 69 days would mean the pilot could potentially employ the jet safely in a tactical training environment. Flying in combat is a whole different story.”

“Going into combat against a Su-35, even a Su-27 in contested airspace — now you’re talking about years of experience. You can’t do that with a brand-new guy who has seen everything once! You can have all the capabilities of the jet, but if the pilot doesn’t know how to use it correctly, then that’s useless. So for a pilot coming from a MiG-29, having to learn a brand-new PVI [pilot-vehicle interface] where everything looks different, use weapons that they’ve only ever read about, to give them three-months training then toss them into combat — that’s a tall order!"

 

“The MiG-29 to a Block 50 or Mid-Life Upgrade Viper isn’t a big step in performance, but it’s a huge leap in technology — the weapons and avionics. Even after 69 days of intense training, that’s only a wingman qual [qualification], so who is going to lead the mission? Do you just send them off as a rogue single-ship to try and shoot down anything with more than one vertical tail? To be super effective, you at least need a four-ship, and to lead that needs at least a year of intensive training — then you can crush the opposition.”

“The answer initially would have to be based on building a new syllabus based on Ukraine’s specific needs and the threat scenario, and to then take that into combat would need anywhere between six and 12 months of training. It would still be risky, but that might outweigh the rewards.”

And these would be current Ukrainians who have years of experience, and those that can pass the English requirements are very small in number. For fresh pilots…we are still looking at years. 

The problem is, some of them clearly have already flown the F16, at red flag some years ago. And they already have a starter package in DCS. It's not quite the culture shock that is being claimed.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Rob Veenendaal said:

Can't help, but wonder how long it will take for the Russians to blame the crash of Loena-25 on Ukraine. 😉

Pro-Ukrainian Luna Tic's.

[Rob Veenendaal]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Pro-Ukrainian Luna Tic's.

😁🤣

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Russia isn’t losing the command of the air due to a few dozen aircraft. Not even the Ukrainians think this is possible.

And again…2027 is the earliest these aircraft can actually be useful. By then the war will probably be over or the intensity will have significantly decreased 

They don't need to lose command of the air. They just need to lose it over a section of front.

Look at it like this. The Luftwaffe claimed they had overall air superiority over the Eastern Front, almost till the end of the war. They probably did. But if they couldn't enforce it over the places the Soviets tried to break through, how much good did it do them?

[sunday]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/08/18/bill-kristol-neoconservatives-launch-2-million-ad-campaign-to-boost-gop-support-for-ukraine/

Quote

Longwell said one of the most “alarming trends” recently is the “real drop-off in support for Ukraine.”

A CNN poll found that a majority of Americans, or 55 percent, believe Congress should not send more aid to Ukraine.

 

[crazyinsane105]

1 hour ago, Rob Veenendaal said:

I have read the article. It is probably correct when saying it takes 4 years at minimum to reach top level. That said, I bet Zelensky and his generals will only read the 69 days training part and those guys will be sent up as soon as they can fly. Not long after that first Russian claims will follow that they took down the invincible F-16. The most expensive lesson...

Training will start in a few months, after they have been taught specific English.

We have already seen quite a few Leopards taken out. Have you seen in those videos effective combat use for those tanks? Please note that I specialize in the technical matters regarding WWII Tiger tanks and thus know zip regarding modern day tank tactics. However, it seems to me that slowly driving a single tank into a minefield is not about tactics. That tank commander may have had training in how to use his tank, but when his commander says he has to go in there on a suicide mission, then he has to go. Expensive lessons for the Ukrainians, but they are learning.

So back to the F-16 question when they will be effective in combat? We will see. May be the Ukrainians will find a tactic that works for new pilots. I certainly hope so.

It would be an utter waste of lives and aircraft to send pilots into one of the most contested airspaces, in recent history I may add, with the bare minimum training. The most they can be used for is cruise missile interdiction, which is quite useful given that Ukrainian AD is running on fumes at this point. But beyond that...on the front line? Forget it. They will be against an enemy that has significant quantities of SAMs, aircraft that carry BVR's which  clearly outranges them, backed by AWAC support. There isn't much they can do against those odds, they have too few aircraft and too much technological disadvantage

Edited August 20, 2023 by crazyinsane105

[crazyinsane105]

59 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The problem is, some of them clearly have already flown the F16, at red flag some years ago. And they already have a starter package in DCS. It's not quite the culture shock that is being claimed.

Except, how many of those pilots are still alive? Many of Ukraine's elite pilots have been killed. A rather large number of those who have signed up for the F-16 trainings are brand new pilots, not veterans, which makes it obvious that Ukraine does not have large numbers of qualified individuals who can quickly sit in an F-16 and learn how to utilize it.

Also, doesn't seem like NATO thinks DCS is a substitute for real life experience. Otherwise this would have been taken into consideration on the timeline, but since it hasn't...well...that is telling.

Edited August 20, 2023 by crazyinsane105

[RETAC21]

Scratch one Tu-22M

 

[crazyinsane105]

4 minutes ago, sunday said:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/08/18/bill-kristol-neoconservatives-launch-2-million-ad-campaign-to-boost-gop-support-for-ukraine/

 

Just adding to it:

 

Overall, 55% say the US Congress should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine vs. 45% who say Congress should authorize such funding. And 51% say that the US has already done enough to help Ukraine while 48% say it should do more. A poll conducted in the early days of the Russian invasion in late February 2022 found 62% who felt the US should have been doing more.

Partisan divisions have widened since that poll, too, with most Democrats and Republicans now on opposing sides of questions on the US role in Ukraine.

US and Western officials fear Putin unlikely to change course in Ukraine before 2024 election

A majority, but not all (68%) of those who say the US should do more to support Ukraine favor additional funding, as do 23% of those who say the US has already done enough.

When asked specifically about types of assistance the US could provide to Ukraine, there is broader support for help with intelligence gathering (63%) and military training (53%) than for providing weapons (43%), alongside very slim backing for US military forces to participate in combat operations (17%).

Most Americans who say the US should be doing more to support Ukraine are in favor of providing assistance in intelligence gathering (75%), military training (68%) and weapons (60%), while among those who say the US has already done enough, only intelligence gathering earns majority support (52%).

A majority of Americans do express concern that Russia’s war in Ukraine will threaten US national security (56%), but that’s down significantly February 2022 (72% were worried about threats to US security then).

A bigger worry across partisan lines in the new poll is that the war will continue without a resolution for a long time. Nearly 8 in 10 are worried about that, including 82% of Democrats, 75% of independents and 73% of Republicans. Nearly two-thirds overall are concerned that the war in Ukraine will lead to increased threats to democracy elsewhere (65%) or lead to Russian attacks elsewhere (64%), and about 6 in 10 are worried it could lead to a broader war in Europe (59%).

[crazyinsane105]

3 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Scratch one Tu-22M

 

Tried searching for this, and while there has been an attack on that specific airbase, I don't think the photo is from this specific attack. So far, I've come across a video that shows smoke from a distance, along with claims that two Tu-22s were damaged, that is it.

 

 

[Wouter2]

11 hours ago, ex2cav said:

In the end I think Nato goaded Russia into a conflict. This is a God Send for the military-industrial complex. The Ruskies went for it. However, it is just a war. Politically, Ukraine was only moderately stable and has been stated here before, seemed to be persecuting the ethnic Russians in the years running up to the latest conflict.

Likewise, I think Nato is using Ukraine. The Ukrainian people are the ones getting screwed. While the west talks tough, we are profoundly content to let the Ukies do the dying and let their infrastructure be bombed. We will finance just enough to keep them in the fight. A heavily armed and effective Ukraine could also be seen as de-stabilizing for the west. I forget what gov't official said of the Iran-Iraq War: "It's too bad they both can't lose".  

When the war is over, whatever that looks like, their country will be wrecked. They might also be governed by hard heads that won't care about anything else but payback-- with someone else writing the checks. There won't be a Marshall Plan for Ukraine. Western interests will buy up whatever of value and export the $$---see Africa. 

I feel for the Ukrainians as they think $$$ will be coming their way after the war. Yeah just like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. The money was rotated, mostly, through western businesses (I am thinking Afghanistan here). The $$$ prop up ended with South Korea.

 

Nato goaded Russia into a conflict? Hardly, it's not like Stoltenberg or Biden or Macron or Scholz were holding a gun to Putin's head. To the contrary, especially the latter two tried to stop the war from happening and both were ignored/humiliated by a Putin who had already decided to go for war when he met them at his looooong table. Between Prigrozin's recent statements regarding the build-up to the war (where he admitted the shelling on Donetsk wasn't near as bad as Russians claimed and was just a pretext, as well as the nazi thing)  and Putin's own statements and speeches right before the war, it seems the Russians want absolutely to be in control of (or outright annex) Ukraine or at least most parts of it (the partly or ex Hungarian and Polish parts as possible exceptions).

From a Western European perspective, I see 3 main reasons why (for example) the German government went from neutral with even somewhat of a pro-russian bias to the situation now:

-Putin's speech about how Ukraine has no right to exist and must be part of Russia as it has always been

-Putin's statement that all NATO forces must be retreated to the pre-1997 lines (which would technically even mean Poland would have to dissolve its - NATO -army or leave NATO, right into the loving arms of mother Russia which of course loves Poles)

-Putin's performance at his security council just before the war, where even some of his own advisors seemed to be afraid of him and to be bullied by him, live on camera.

All in all, it leaves little to the imagination what Russian goals are and what they want to with both Eastern and Western Europe.

Goaded by NATO? By that standard, hasn't the US been goaded into invasions of at least Cuba and Venezuela? But that's right, they didn't invade (bay of pigs aside) so apparently it's their own choice and not that of the Soviet Union/China/Russia/the Hutu's...

As for UKR post-war (the part not under Russian rule, obviously), we don't know what would happen but West-Germany, Japan, South-Korea and more recently Poland are all countries where being part of the 'Western' bloc didn't hurt in the end. The EU no doubt has interests in an improving Ukraine.

1 hour ago, Rob Veenendaal said:

We have already seen quite a few Leopards taken out. Have you seen in those videos effective combat use for those tanks?

I've seen reports/claims that recently, Leopard 2s have been employed to snipe russian vehicles from a (relatively) great distance, around the Robotyne area and targeting Russian supply trucks and reinforcements. If true, I guess that is playing to the tank's strenghts. This may have prompted the Russians to take more risks with their Ka52s recently, as the Leopards are harder to spot at distance when they are operating from cover.

As for the F16s, I think this video may be informative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgHud7Z5vaE

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by Wouter2

[RETAC21]

15 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Tried searching for this, and while there has been an attack on that specific airbase, I don't think the photo is from this specific attack. So far, I've come across a video that shows smoke from a distance, along with claims that two Tu-22s were damaged, that is it.

 

 

Pretty sure they are the same attack, here's another pic:

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

29 minutes ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Except, how many of those pilots are still alive? Many of Ukraine's elite pilots have been killed. A rather large number of those who have signed up for the F-16 trainings are brand new pilots, not veterans, which makes it obvious that Ukraine does not have large numbers of qualified individuals who can quickly sit in an F-16 and learn how to utilize it.

Also, doesn't seem like NATO thinks DCS is a substitute for real life experience. Otherwise this would have been taken into consideration on the timeline, but since it hasn't...well...that is telling.

Let's put it this way, it's a superb cockpit and systems trainer. Both the USAF and the French airforce use it for that, and it works well. It's not adequate to replace flying training obviously. But it does I believe offer a real chance to cut down on classroom time.

 

 

[crazyinsane105]

28 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Pretty sure they are the same attack, here's another pic:

 

Yeah, other outlets have actually  picked up on this.

Number of Tu-22M3s aren't even that high to begin with, so that sucks for the Russians.

[crazyinsane105]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Let's put it this way, it's a superb cockpit and systems trainer. Both the USAF and the French airforce use it for that, and it works well. It's not adequate to replace flying training obviously. But it does I believe offer a real chance to cut down on classroom time.

 

 

Which I also believe, this has been taken into account by NATO trainers, and they are still insisting several years (at least) of training. 
 

I find it rather unlikely that the best trainers on this planet will have not thought of simulations and DCS when coming up with a realistic timeline on when Ukraine can actually utilize F-16s effectively 

Edited August 20, 2023 by crazyinsane105

[Rob Veenendaal]

Just on Dutch news:
Ukraine will get 19 F-16 jets from Denmark. 6 will be delivered around year change. Eight will be delivered somewhere in 2024 and 5 in 2025.

[TrustMe]

23 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Let's put it this way, it's a superb cockpit and systems trainer. Both the USAF and the French airforce use it for that, and it works well. It's not adequate to replace flying training obviously. But it does I believe offer a real chance to cut down on classroom time.

 

 

You could use DCS for limited tactical training I guess. But you would need a full size similtator for full cockpit conversions.