I hope the idiots who kept cutting the forces down are happy with them selves it could seriously bite us in the arse

@pantherowow77

Жыл бұрын

Nothing will bite you. You have all of Europe as a protective buffer from Russia and behind you in the Atlantic is America.

@TheBooban

Жыл бұрын

Really can’t do anything about that if you have no money.

@adoatero5129

Жыл бұрын

UK isn't the only country that has done that. I'm not an expert, but at least Sweden and Germany are in the same club (and probably went even further in their cuts).

@danielbailey5849

Жыл бұрын

@@TheBoobansorry but that a lie if there can raise money for Ukraine military and put billions money after the war and raise our tax up then is money for own military budge

@Mr.mysterious76

Жыл бұрын

@@TheBooban They can afford it

Everything has been less funded in the UK for the past 10 years or so. Where TF is the money going?

@luciussander8217

Жыл бұрын

Ever hear of Covid and how much that cost the UK Government? That's where.

@danielbailey5849

Жыл бұрын

To the rich and to France stop people cross the borders and give money other countries who not our allies

@soundfx68

Жыл бұрын

@@luciussander8217 Ever heard of Michelle Mone?

@BroadHobbyProjects

Жыл бұрын

@@luciussander8217 Printed over £500 billion for that cold project.

@zhufortheimpaler4041

Жыл бұрын

the UK army has been underfunded since the 1980´s

Actually! All the US Navy’s old F-18 A/Bs as well as C/Ds what are currently being written off as the F-35C comes online are perfect! Absolutely ideal for Ukraine! With their reinforces undercarriages, short-take off and landing capability, phenomenal Air-to-Ground capability, massive array of varied stand-off missile carrying capacity. That’s the one! As well as the Gripen. Let’s just hope they don’t have so many flight hours on their fuselages that they just come apart in the air on their own. Lol.

@phillcom3

Жыл бұрын

They are replacing the oldest airframe first trust me they are not a good idea to send for actual warfare. They'd be breaking up midair or not able to send either way

@chrisburke624

Жыл бұрын

The F-15C fleet enters the chat...

@PavolFilek

Жыл бұрын

UK and USA knows, that will be destryed soon. so they can not compete with AMch 9 missiles, which are made in CHina and Russia.

@chrisburke624

Жыл бұрын

@@PavolFilek 🤣 I'm sorry did you say Mach 9 missiles? In terms of short to medium range AA missiles, those aren't a thing. That would actually be counter productive for a missile to go that fast if the missile was intended to be fired from one aircraft at another. It would leave hardly any time for maneuverability, and if the target aircraft evaded even once, the missile would be too far away to reacquire The F-35 is hands down the next chapter in air combat. If the USAF had a way of replacing the system architecture on the F-22, then I'd argue THAT would make for one hell of a jet What the F-35 can do in the air is simply unmatched in terms of EW & engaging other aircraft using EW as part of that... There is a reason why EVERY single country has chosen the F-35 after being given the classified briefings on its true capabilities

@PavolFilek

Жыл бұрын

@@chrisburke624 Sent to UA and U will see how they will go to hell one after another. F-35 will be replaced soon, because everybody know that there are situacions., that F-35 has bugs in code, becoause code was not check properly and all branches of code was not checked with invariants.

Indeed the Gripen is the best option operationally, but the f-16 is the most common and available world wide. Plenty of spare parts and munitions etc… for it around the world.

@petesjk

Жыл бұрын

But nobody wants to let go of their F-16s. Demand for F-16 is so high, Ukraine is even competing with adversarial combat training contractors for old used planes.

@WorshipinIdols

Жыл бұрын

@@petesjk no way! If Biden willed it, and if he had the balls to commit to it, we in the US have literally many hundreds of fully functioning F-16s recently taken off of military service as F-35s come one line and over a thousand that are not fully functional that have been written-off of some years ago that are being cannabolized for parts or just standing out in the sun in Arizona.

@pogo1140

Жыл бұрын

@@petesjk Build new one, the F-16 block 60 is in production and the plant can triple it's shifts and increase its production to cope with the Ukrainians rate of loss while increasing it's numbers back to 120+ fighters which is what it had before the invasion

@appstratum9747

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely correct on both counts. Great comment and summary. 👍

@thersawilliamson7804

Жыл бұрын

I hope that Ukraine will continue to get all the weapons it needs to help it kick out the Russian occupiers

Send Princess Anne with a cavalry unit. No loss of funding for the Royal’s spiffy uniforms.

Are there any Tornado GRs around anywhere? seems like it would be a perfect option for Ukraine, one of the best low level strike aircraft ever built.

@markosborne4310

Жыл бұрын

The Germans have a few but they are seriously worn out

@mikeycraig8970

Жыл бұрын

Good point, I don't think they were retired that long ago either so we must have them knocking about still?

@Ianmundo

Жыл бұрын

once an weapon is removed from service, the UK armed forces usually dismantle or sell them off quickly. Storing a fleet like the Tornados isn’t cheap, and getting them flying again for Ukraine would likely be useless as there is no spares inventory

@Retrosicotte

Жыл бұрын

Poor choice. Very high maintenance, very well used airframes, very few around still working.

@tams805

Жыл бұрын

@@Ianmundo Also, it's one thing to have an IFV, SPG, or tank breakdown. An aircraft... yeah, not a good idea.

Thank You so much

The UK doesn't need to supply just RAF fighters, Austrian tranche1 typhoons ? Buy them off them and then supply a bigger number that way.

There may be thousands of F-16s, but nobody wants to let go of their planes, because they’re using them. Just like RAF is using all their Typhoons all the time, everyone is using their F-16s, even the old ones.

@pogo1140

Жыл бұрын

The US can always just use the authorized aid funds for 2023 to purchase 64 new build F-16 block 70's, there are a number being built, the US can re-direct them and tell their customer that their aircraft will be delayed. LM can go to 3 shifts and build 12 F-16's a month. This means that as many as 8 F-16 Block 70's can be built for Ukraine. As I see it the US can build them 96 aircraft for the next two years and then slow down to 36 planes a year if the war is still going.

@RussTillling

Жыл бұрын

Using them in case of what? In case ruzzah starts a war? Donate & train on them now and start ordering replaments!

@petesjk

Жыл бұрын

@@RussTillling Unfortunately, the USAF F-16s are worn out, and because the F-35 replacement program is behind schedule. Since the F-35 program is 10 years behind schedule and over budget, the USAF has to spend a few billion to extend the life of F-16s 10 years. The program includes frame inspection and reinforcement. These are not planes you can send to Ukraine. Lockheed-Martin, in order to focus on F-35, shut down the F-16 production line in Texas and moved it to South Carolina. The line in SC only restarted a few months ago, and is still in beginner slow start mode. The F-35 line is also in limbo, because nobody really wants the version on the production line, and they want to wait for the next upgrade version that’s about a year away. Even the USAF reduced orders this year and next year to wait for the better version. European F-16s didn’t get used as much as USAF planes, so Biden seems to be trying to get those countries to donate their planes.

@petesjk

Жыл бұрын

@@pogo1140 The problem is many of those countries need those new F-16s to replace old MiGs, including some that are currently donating MiG “parts” to Ukraine. They can’t be left with zero net planes for a few years. The other thing you have to consider, giving away planes means pilots in the donor countries are not flying. If they’re not flying, their skills degrade, and they become a human resource dead weight. This leads to degradation in force readiness, and discontent among the ranks. Older pilots will take early retirement, younger pilots will just quit, and newly graduated pilots that want training will not even get trained, because there are no planes to train for or train on. Imagine this period lasting 5 years or more. You think it can’t happen? It’s happening now, in the UK and to a smaller extent in the USA. Imagine if you’re Slovakia where you only have a few dozen MiG-29. If you place an order today for new F-16s, you will get it in 2028-2029. You won’t get your full order then, either, maybe a dozen that year, then a dozen the next. Do you see the logistics issues here if you are an Air Force trying to maintain your pilots? It’s not as simple as just giving planes.

@petesjk

Жыл бұрын

@@pogo1140 There’s a ton of availability on the Super Hornet production line, today. No waiting in line.

Gripens are the best choice. I can see the UK donating a fighter jet to "unlock" the Gripens. In the same way that the Leopard tanks were "unlocked" by the UK donating Challengers. There should be stronger international pressure on the Swedish government about the Gripens, IMO. 🛫✈🛬

@alexlee6074

Жыл бұрын

There's not many gripens though, whereas there's loads of F16's

@nian60

Жыл бұрын

@@alexlee6074 Why not both? Several different tanks are being sent. Most bigger countries have more than 1 type of fighter jet.

@alexlee6074

Жыл бұрын

@Ni An 🇺🇦 Sending loads of completely different tanks if purely a PR move for Challengers anyway. There's 100's of F16's possibly avaliable and about 16 typhoons do what's worth training crews for?

@johanselander7708

Жыл бұрын

I agree, we should at least be able to send 12 of them, minimum should be to train 12 pilots and crew for maintanens here in Sweden, right now or preferably already have done so for several month. 🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪🇺🇦💙💛

@TheBooban

Жыл бұрын

There are hundreds of Gripens. And Sweden probably only has something like 10 pilots.

Respect

GRIPEN IS THE BEST OPTION

@JT.Pilgrim

Жыл бұрын

It’s so obvious. I would be surprised if that’s not the direction they go.

@Noah-ez2xd

Жыл бұрын

You both realize there aren’t many Gripens available right? I don’t think they’ve had many customers.

@TheBooban

Жыл бұрын

@@Noah-ez2xd Sweden has almost 200 of them and not enough pilots. They just ordered them to keep the production line open. They should be happy to give 24 or so away before they rot from lack of use.

@Retrosicotte

Жыл бұрын

There aren't enough of them to supply fully, and a very small supply chain. Plus, they aren't integrated for HARM, which is a primary munition in this war.

@HitomiNee

Жыл бұрын

good choice, able to take off from a variety of runways and service roads. But difficult to replace if theyre shot down, supply chain and parts for an aircraft thats not widely produced or fielded by other countries.

Im not to clued up on these things but the tornadoes were only retired 2-3 years ago and thats more than a capable platform

It's beyond belief we could even consider letting Ukraine have warplanes when we simply don't have enough for our own country to defend itself

@theaverageitaliandon998

Жыл бұрын

It’s crazy to think we’re thinking about donating Jets when the UK economy is shattered and we literally just sent a shipment of tanks over.

@andersonlangosh6386

Жыл бұрын

It's beyond belief that you're thinking about protecting UK that is not even close to any kind of war while Ukraine is getting destroyed for 12 straight months. It's also beyond belief that you don't understand the fact that if Ukraine falls without our help then Putin will go further West. And then we will need not to send these jets but to send our army.

@anhconroy6172

Жыл бұрын

How do you know how many planes we have? Are you a military expert?

@furtivedig

Жыл бұрын

aircraft that was originally designed to fight the Russians. Considering the fighting it would be done by someone else, I can't see a better fit for an old Typhoon, or any western jet.

@wadopotato33

Жыл бұрын

@@theaverageitaliandon998 Well, if you have learned lessons from WW2, then you might as well spend the money and make the sacrifice now because Putin believes in spheres of influence and after a hald dozen countries it is obvious he won't stop until he is stopped. You would spend a lot more later. There is a reason we celebrate Churchill and Chamberlain is a historical footnote. Appeasement doesn't work with some individuals. Helping Ukraine now saves money in the long run.

I agree, F16 or Gripen , but I don't know how many extra Gripen's there are and could they afford to lose a few etc..

Are these politicos just stupid? Ukraine does NOT need the current British Jets, it needs the Mig 29s in Poland as it already flies these and knows how to maintain them. Poland wants F16s from the US it is not rocket science to see how to fix this. A pity that the Harriers were scrapped, they would be ideally suited to operating where runways were damaged or from woodland areas affording cover.

Tornados should be the only option. The typhoons are currently in service and we cant risk the russians getting hold of any technology that is a part of the aircraft

@user-fh2cw9mi5y

Жыл бұрын

No Tornado’s unless you bring them out of Museums, our glorious leaders decided that RTP was the better option and anyway a Tonka is a sitting duck if you don’t have air superiority.

@John_Hemingway

Жыл бұрын

Tornado GRs would really suit the Ukrainians, probably the best low level strike aircraft ever built

@kimjongun7148

Жыл бұрын

No point. Only the German ones left. I doubt they want to keep supplying Ukraine with spares.

@EvidensInsania

Жыл бұрын

Well the other option is we send them nothing and avoid escalating a war that has nothing to do with us even further.

@muttleyjones2

Жыл бұрын

But you will risk getting involved in another World War?

I have followed Mr. Bagwell for a while now and he is always sober in his analysis. Free the Falcons

Legacy Hornets CF-18 send the whole lot?

Do we not have any panavia tornados laying around was in service.until 2019 so not that old in regards to service use ?

Top gun

The discussion is what the UK could provide in the way of fighter jets - do try and stay on script?!

That's why we should still have had our harriers and tornados in storage for a rainy day

@frank-ko6de

Жыл бұрын

Being pragmatic or realistic is not a British trait. Delusion seems to be all you have, unfortunately.👍👍👍😊😊😊

@furtivedig

Жыл бұрын

Or even better, just bought more Typhoons. This is true of Germany and Italy as well.

You can also get older gen f16 much cheaper $8.5m to $12m per unit compared to the typhoon $124m per unit.

A very big shame we got rid of the harrier the Navy would have a use for them

I totally agree with the opinion of Greg Bagwell 👍

Tom Cruise in RAF spotted 02:24

Hoping someone here knows, what happened to all of our tornados that we stopped using in 2019? Are they parked somewhere or have they been destroyed?

@zhufortheimpaler4041

Жыл бұрын

scrapped and spare parts sold to germany and italy

@disposabull

Жыл бұрын

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 So the RAF is down to Typhoons and a few carrier based F-35's? How is our military this run down?

@zhufortheimpaler4041

Жыл бұрын

@@disposabull well, the same way, germany´s army is this run down. conservative parties cut financing over the last 3+ decades

@jamiegray6931

Жыл бұрын

​@@disposabull A govt that continues to put defence on the bottom rung whilst also wanting to act strong on the international stage.

@disposabull

Жыл бұрын

@@jamiegray6931 Pretend to be strong, issue lots of threats? Sounds like we are turning into Russia...

What about tornados F surely there’s still some kicking about in a warehouse

There's talk of first tranch being upgraded to a newer standard

@furtivedig

Жыл бұрын

Really? Where did you hear about this?

Just saw a David Owen interview, former Foreign Secretary. " Give our planes to Poland who in turn would hand their Migs to Ukraine". Good plan me thinks.

@limedickandrew6016

Жыл бұрын

I think many people are behind the times on this subject. Poland has already handed over virtually all the Migs it had. They've all been shot down.

@ThePierre58

Жыл бұрын

@@limedickandrew6016 regards to Vladimir old boy.

@pogo1140

Жыл бұрын

@@limedickandrew6016 Ukraine has about 40-60 MiG-29's, Su-24, -25 and -27's. They had about 120 in March 2022.

@johnnyenglish583

Жыл бұрын

​@@limedickandrew6016 That's not true. Poland has given SOME of its MiGs, but definitely not all of them. Just check out the flight rosters and air policing missions, or just have a look at current photos from Poland. The problem with the MiG-29 is that there is no production capability (in the West and Ukraine) to equip it with modern air-to-air missiles. It's an outdated plane.

If an "expert" was listen to in total during all conflicts, we would not get anything accomplished

@Dave_Sisson

Жыл бұрын

The man is a recently retired Air Marshall, so I suspect he knows a lot more than you or me.

@omniyambot9876

Жыл бұрын

@@Dave_Sisson exactly. these commenters expect they are the experts😂

F-16's all the way. There's many more, greater capability in the supply chain, more countries can donate, more countries can be used to train Ukrainian pilots and they have the ability to be upgraded with all the latest and greatest kit. The Fighting Falcon among few others has really proven to be an outstanding platform that has allowed defence forces to hold back threats.

@robertstark8527

Жыл бұрын

I don’t know why we don’t buy off the shelf F16’s as a stop gap until Tempest comes into service!

@iSaturnUK

Жыл бұрын

@@robertstark8527 because the typhoon is a great aircraft?

@tomsaunders9944

Жыл бұрын

@@robertstark8527 Why would you need to create a stop gap for fighter jet production. Are we fighting the Russians?

@VicariousAdventurer

Жыл бұрын

Much rather have a Typhoons than Falcon

@nisarullah2969

Жыл бұрын

I think you forgot the S 400. And SU 35.

God help the Ukrainian logistics guys with servicing and securing parts + ammunition for all these advanced systems of varying nationality

@danielbailey5849

Жыл бұрын

No thanks , we should look after own country before another country who biggest corruption and hide billions of money in the government building

@Cyan_Nightingale

Жыл бұрын

Which is why F16 is better. It's less complicated than Euorfighter Typhoon and available in large number.. including its components

@thersawilliamson7804

Жыл бұрын

I hope that Ukraine will continue to get all the weapons it needs to help it kick out the Russian occupiers

@rafomic4210

Жыл бұрын

@@thersawilliamson7804 i Hope that one day someone Kick your Ass hahaha

@wadopotato33

Жыл бұрын

They have help. The US is a master at logistics.

The UK doesn't have enough fighters to give to Ukraine

Good commentator. Send Polish Mig 29s until F16 trained.

@johnnyenglish583

Жыл бұрын

Poland sent about two dozen of its MiG29s in the spring of 2022 and I doubt it they can get rid of the remaining ones, unless the deliveries of Poland's F-35s are made within a few months (which won't happen).

Forgot about them

We have absolutely nothing spare, even considering this is an absolute joke.

send it

Its simple . The Typhoon is an very good air superiority plane , but a very bad Air to ground , and the F16 is an bon multirol . the F16 in a first time should be better for Ukraine . The jets , atm are not very important . For now the ground to air systemes and tanks are most important.

What about Tornado's?

You don't need Typoons against the Russian airforce, Spitfires should suffice! 🤣

@burtlangoustine1

Жыл бұрын

...or even Cesnas with grenade launchers.

I think that flyers who enjoy each countries planes should fly those they feel attuned to. Thank you to all who respond.

Good comment. The best option starting in March would have been phased out F-16s from Norway and the NL to Poland, Slovakia and Romania (2 of them operate them already). France: Get your Rafale twoseaters to Croatia and thus dozens of MiG 29s, Su 25s and MiG 21s that can fire NATO standard GBUs etc. to Ukraine; Ukraine even upgrades MiG 21s, so for point defense interceptors of cruise missiles away from the line of contact and Shaheds they are good enough. It still looks politically like David against Goliath, and converted to drones with some Hydra 70 mm etc. aiming at Crimean airfields they still unmask radar sites that can be taken out by MiG 29s with HARM. Then take all left military cargo and former pilots and civilian pilots and get a fast jet physical with centrifuge etc. Take them in classes of 40 and send them to Cold Lake, Alberta, and set up the regular Ukrainian fast jet pipeline: T38 sim and fast jet conversion, done quite cheaply. Get the Spanish F-5s and put in the Leonardo Grifon radar, AIM-120 capable, and finally they get a dirt cheap rough field capable almost expandible, easy to maintain (same as the T-38 almost) Mach 1.6 fighter with four legacy AMRAAM. They might even pose a challenge to the MiG-31 with R37 occasionally with the right tactics, because on the first attack the Russians won't know about fire and forget capability yet. And all of a sudden Su34, Su 25 and Su 24 won't approach the line of contact anymore , more cruise missiles and Shaheds get picked off more easily, stand off jamming Mi-8 at 10 k feet get cold feet or blown out of the sky etc. Thailand is phasing them out - worth a try. Brasil won't sell despite phasing them out for more Gripen as well. Probably the same for obvious reasons with Taiwan and SK. BUT - they break the ice, are easy to maintain, the cheap available (quickly) alternative to the perfect Gripen, dispersed, very short ground roll etc. Get the remaining 30 or 40 AMX International from Italy and you have an actually quite large tactical fleet and training line for maintainers and pilots. That's all planning and execution with the right choice as a substitution anyway: Legacy Hornets. Plenty available, including spares, phased out for Super Hornets in Kuweit (do they still owe a favour? They got M84 as well... 125mm Yugo T72 basically...), Canada and Finland shall roll over to the F-35 anyway, Spain is buying more Typhoons anyhow currently, so phasing them in gradually to keep 200 (!) old fighters in active duty for Ukraine becomes a reality. MiG29 and Su 25 will run out of AAM and PGMs anyway quickly, spares as well. Plus the war attrition. Su 27 are without fire and forget, just like the MiG 29, so having four or even five types will be only transitorily anyway. F-16s are indeed the biggest pool, but the first days of the war showed that dispersing them is a fundamental necessity. And the F-18 has a much more sturdy gear, plain and simple. With FOD a second engine is handy as well, though it adds cost. And with 10 AMRAAM plus two AIM-9 it's also the right platform to cull out massed cruise missile attacks that we currently see on a weekly basis. That can take quite a load of the legacy IADS Ukraine fights with. All tranche 1 Typhoons from the RAF, Luftwaffe and Italy would indeed be a good bunch of interceptors, but bound to a pristine runway environment in comparison to all other (save the MiG 21s) above mentioned platforms. Final thought, in this logic phased out AV-8Bs would even be quite useful. Maintainers have low salaries with reservists in a few years. That's the ultimate dispersal - for the possible next war. But bitchy to operate. Legacy Hornets in the long run offer the biggest upside for a one type fleet after the rest is attrited or sans missiles.

I think Hornets are another option to build up numbers. The USA, Canada, Spain, and Finland have some spare Hornets that are getting phased out. They are not as good as Super Hornets and have a lot of hours on the airframes but there are still many serviceable fighters available that could be of some use to Ukraine.

@Walterwaltraud

Жыл бұрын

Especially since some of those are getting replaced with the F-35...

@thenibblershow5305

11 ай бұрын

Way to expensive. No

Uk should just give Ukraine all of its military equipment as well are new f 35 jets then it will stop Ukraine keep asking for them from UK then uk can start over again with it military equipment then uk would have the best military equipment but then uk as only got a week worth of weapons lol and we got no air defences too apart from jets very sad.

Look, UK is not wasting Ukrainian fast jet pilots time training them in UK for an aircraft that UK does not possess. There are no F-16 simulators in RAF use because we don't fly F-16s. The Dutch and the Poles do not want our old Typhoons. Ben Wallace and the PM are current in what we have available in storage NOW. Air Marshall Greg Bagwell is an ex-Tornado jockey, so maybe he knows more than he is letting on. 🙂 Slava Ukraini

@Retrosicotte

Жыл бұрын

Except yes they are training them for ANY jet. You don't only train on the end jet to learn to fly. NATO flying is 90% agnostic to the platform. Process, tactics, kill-chain, joint sensor pickup, all sorts.

Send these first . Clean house. They need all they can get. F15 later.

A whole bunch of poorer countries use the British-made BAe HAWK (trainer) as a PRIMARY all-purpose Combat Jet, but they buy them in combat configurations. We don't need the Red Arrows on a daily basis; those jets could be retrofitted for a ground attack role. With a light 250Kg JDAM & aiming pod, missile mounts & 20mm Cannon, these Jets would be a cheap & viable option for Ukraine. As we still make them, spares & supplies aren't an issue & if we send a dozen to Ukraine, our present combat effectiveness won't be affected & we can then build new Hawks for the RAF.

@tingbase84

Жыл бұрын

Terrible idea. Did you not watch the video, the planes are needed for air to air. Pretty sure hawks can only do air to ground

@856mil

Жыл бұрын

@@tingbase84 I said that some 3rd world countries had purchased the BAe Hawk in combat configurations as a PRIMARY combat jet. IE "All Purpose Jet" AKA ONLY JET! I checked the Hawk history & BAe has already made them in a variety of combat configurations (inc. Air to Air combat). If UK Hawks were retrofitted with ONLY missile mounts & relevant avionics, they could serve in both Air to Ground AND Air to Air roles. As Russia no longer dares to send manned aircraft near Ukraine, I see actual Air to Air combat as unlikely & due to the efficacy of Man Portable SAMs, I don't believe Ukraine would care to keep their jets in contested airspace too long. I envisioned the Hawk role as "HIT & RUN" Ground attack, 100 - 200 km behind the front lines. Hawks used in Ground Attack would obviously require (Hawks) with ASRAAM & HARM flying "Topcover". Sending our latest TYPHOON (with Ground Attack capability) would be seen as provocative & contentious but as the Hawks are ONLY "Trainer" jets adapted to a limited role, they could be seen as an easier option. A compromise... We already have the manufacturing & supply capabilities to supply Hawks & we can easily spare a Dozen or so. If we did this, Ukraine would find them most useful & it is 1 small step towards NATO supplying FULLY FLEDGED COMBAT JETS. Does this make more sense?

@furtivedig

Жыл бұрын

@@856mil there is a whole argument that can be made about the misuse of the word 'escalation'. If the UK or anyone sends enough weapons to Ukraine to support and win the war, Russia will see the resolve. What good can it come from provoking a Nato country when they can't even win the war at hand. It won't be good for them. It is not an escalation if it doesn't cause one, and the Russians know it as the West has known it since the start of the cold war. The most dangerous thing is to half ass everything at this point. Edit: Tranche 1 Typhoons have very limited ground attack capabilities. It primarily an air superiority/interceptor aircraft.

@856mil

Жыл бұрын

@@furtivedig I AGREE with ALL the points you make re "Escalation" BUT others don't & sometimes you have to factor in these opinions. The big issues regarding supplying modern MilTech to Ukraine are Inventory, Training & Logistics. We could've retrofitted BAe HAWK, trained the pilots & had the kit in Ukraine MONTHS ago. If Ukraine is a drowning man, we are arguing about which brand of Life Jacket might be best but what he really needs is something that floats! I also agree with your TYPHOON comment. The Eurofighter was a collaborative project; GB wanted a Fighter/Bomber to replace Tornado but the others wanted a pure Fighter & so a Fighter is what GB got" However, the LATEST incarnation of the RAF Typhoon has Fighter/Bomber capability (courtesy BAe) & can carry JDAM, Paveway, etc. AND STORM SHADOW. I don't want to see our expensive Typhoons shot down but I would lend Ukraine a few & GIVE them a bunch of STORM SHADOW so they can hit targets at range without risking Typhoon. I want Typhoon returned when they've finished with it...🤣

I also think that our military support can’t be stopped in anyways. Now Ukraine has the last phase of war. If we help them to get their victory, the worldly economy will level up. We also interested in stopping Russian terror

@jeraldkozey6095

Жыл бұрын

I agree, it's obvious that russia will not be able to win if we deliver everything that Ukraine needs. This war must be stopped and the only way to do that is to defeat russian army.

Tornados and Harriers are the best choice, if they can be taken out of sleep. Multiple countries have them sitting around

@wadopotato33

Жыл бұрын

Tornadoes and Harriers are dated and would not be terribly effective in a modern battlefield. Russian air defenses would have a field day with planes that have RCS the size of barns. The F-16's that would be sent are fairly small RCS and still wouldn't go anywhere near Russian frontlines. F-16's rumoured to be going to Ukraine have been upgraded to MLU standards which means fairly new radar and electronics.

@brunol-p_g8800

Жыл бұрын

@@wadopotato33 the F-16 is of the same generation if not older than both the Tornado and the Harrier, and it’s RCS is similar

It is ironic I find that for years, the Typhoon has been talked up as an awesome platform, even the tranche 1s. Now we are being told that it is not suitable for the very role it was designed for. The comments of its clapped out, the tranche 1 worn is worn out even after it has only used 45% of airframe hours. It can't be upgraded? It's true the Airforce has a frontline fleet of 7 Sqns and should at least have 10. Meanwhile, the F16 and Grippen by many commentators are the aircraft of choice. So the RAF has the wrong combat aircraft in service?

@zhufortheimpaler4041

Жыл бұрын

no, the point is, that Typhoon is a very sophisticated system, that requires high levels of high quality maintenance, wich would not be availible in ukraine, due to contractors and ground crews from NATO will not operate on ukrainian military airports. There are systems wich require substantially lower levels of maintenance in use than a typhoon or are already in use in ukraine. For example MiG-29´s, Su-27´s etc from former easten block partners or other sources. You need 8-12 months of conversion training when you cross over from one platform to another, especcially if you change over from a former sovjet fighter to a modern NATO fighter, before you are combat ready. thats why the fighter debate for NATO fighters is completely ludicrous. similarly ludricous as the demands, that germany should gift ukraine one of their super modern top of the line hydrogen fuelcell attack submarines... those cant even enter the black sea due to the montreaux convention. and ukraine does not even have a uboat crew that could to a conversion training.

@zulu5282

Жыл бұрын

@Zhufor TheImpaler I understand that. Reports from commentators that the fleet is knacked and can't operate from silky smooth runways is susceptible to fod (what aircraft isn't ). You can upgrade F16 but not tranche 1s. This sort of talk puts the Typhoon in a bad light.

@zhufortheimpaler4041

Жыл бұрын

@@zulu5282 absolutely. The Typhoon is one of the best and most capable fighters on the market currently. But that comes at a high price in the "tail" behind the typhoons teeth and claws. and thats massive logistics and support. an F-16 can be very capable, but was, from the start, designed as a cheap multirole aircraft to fill the fleet with an aircraft that is "average" in most parameters (still very good compared to other contemporary models). Its single engine, lower maintenance, has wider tollerances and can do alot of jobs very well, but most not exceptional. And there are alot of avialible around NATO. In the long run it would be sensible to upgrade the ukrainian airforce with Typhoons and other high end NATO equipment. But one has to keep in mind, that ukraine will be basicly a NATO colony for the next few decades.

@knoxyish

Жыл бұрын

yes .

@jureeratpholseela7508

Жыл бұрын

Yes. We all saw ow poorly it did in Libya. Totally useless in air to ground they did not bother sending them. And that was confirmed by the Swiss report Typhoon the the worst of 4 selected planes. That said it is still one of the best in Air superiority but might be too complex to maintain in the situation that is Ukraine Grippen is a single engine and less "fragile" than the Typhoon yet no numbers to send hence the F-16;F-18.A-10 suggested planes largely available . Too much diversity in small number in Europe to propose a good alternative, same dilemma for tanks leaving the only long term viable choice for munition / training/ maintenance Abrams or Leopard 2 . The Ukrainian need standardization in large number to be more efficient in this moment, Tonado/Grippen/Typhoon/Rafale/Mirage2000/ Challenger2/Ariete/Leclerc all would be suitable but only in large number. Giving 5 of those 1 of this 20 of that , is just BS geopolitics and a nightmare in logistics and training. Scale of nearly what ever 21st century equipment would do just fine.

Are these the same experts that said Ukraine would crumble by the end of 2022?

don't think we have any spare to send

Gripens or Rafaels ?

@kimjongun7148

Жыл бұрын

F16s the best. Not enough of either. And if one gets shot down, you do not want the Russians taking the tech.

@muttleyjones2

Жыл бұрын

Why don't YOU go and fight in a foreign country for what you believe in. Don't make decisions for the rest of us.

@Retrosicotte

Жыл бұрын

Not enough of either.

Let's send a Vulcan :)

Give them some Spitfires!

Although, I really do like the Typhoon in an over-priced, unreliable, poor Air-to-Ground capability sort of why. Why on earth did the UK design and buy an Air-Superiority only fighter jet anyway? Talk about not thinking ahead [and yes I know the later tranches have strike capability).

@zhufortheimpaler4041

Жыл бұрын

ironicly the Typhoon is better in ground attack roles than the F-35 that was designed for it, as the typhoon can carry a larger payload than the F-35 and has a greater operational range and speed....

@burtlangoustine1

Жыл бұрын

Research what role the Lightning did. Typhoon was designed and is used for similar role.

@WorshipinIdols

Жыл бұрын

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 the range is only slightly longer unless drop tanks are used… (fyi- Israel is designing their own custom fitted drop tanks of 600-gallons a piece for their F-35 because they bought them under the condition that they could customize them their way, as well as being removed from Lockheed-martins centralized maintenance network as a condition of the purchase. They remain the only F-35s with an aftermarket ECW suite, as well as drop tanks plus whatever we don’t know about). …and I have the feeling drop tanks are coming. Other wise I don’t see why on earth a Typhoon with its targeting pod would be better then an F-35 operating in “beast mode” when stealth is no longer an issue. Think about it. Also the “greater payload” is only in stealth mode, and even then only slightly.

@WorshipinIdols

Жыл бұрын

@@burtlangoustine1 um… no! The Typhoon was designed as a pure air-superiority fight (later amended as an all-purpose fighter-bomber). The F-35 was always meant to be a strike/attack aircraft first. And engage in air-to-air combat second.

@burtlangoustine1

Жыл бұрын

@@WorshipinIdols OMG no! Research the English Electric Lighting from the 50's/60's I didnt mean the f35 lightning...👍🤣

im pretty sure someone mentioned Tornados the other day and said Canada could not join training as Britain, USA, and Australia where in training for NATO. So guessing Canada have Tornados.

@finndoessims3214

Жыл бұрын

Canada has F18s. No Tornados as far as I know.

The euro fighter is by far the best 4th gen plane but the f16 is designed to be used for cheaper nations. And I highly doubt that that the Americans will send two hundred of them which will be needed to make a difference

@freddiejohames8332

Жыл бұрын

@Phillip Banes ye it was. It’s the budget version of the f15. Anything the f16 can do in modern combat the f15 can do better

Just like the Challenger2 tanks, the real impact in providing UK aircraft to Ukraine is as an an ice-breaker that breaks the taboo on providing NATO aircraft to Ukraine. Other aircraft such as the F-16 can then follow, just as the Leopard2 and M1 Abrams followed the Challengers. Britain has provided leadership, and it can do so once again with aircraft.

@appstratum9747

Жыл бұрын

Fair comment. More than likely completely on the mark.

@Lost-In-Blank

Жыл бұрын

Bingo, very well put!

The aid to Ukraine must increase every day, otherwise this war will drag on and last for years.

Unfortunately given them our jets isn't good we don't have enough ourselves, maybe the Americans can pull some old planes fr9m there vegas aircraft stocks they have an abundance of old unused jets just sitting there.

@snakeshift9172

Жыл бұрын

You're welcome. Uncle Sam to the rescue again.

@frank-ko6de

Жыл бұрын

That could be a good idea except that the planes could be physical compromised or even degraded from being in the elements for so long. But, you could always test their structural integrity and see if they're serviceable.👍👍👍💪💪💪💪

@pogo1140

Жыл бұрын

@@frank-ko6de They would need to be rebuilt, fortunately LM has a program to do just that while upgrading the jet to block 70 standard. Though for the Ukrainian jets, I would ask for a diverter less intake be used.

@danielbailey5849

Жыл бұрын

If we give fighter jets baby zelensky will be back demands for something , we need say no to him now and start demanding both leaders to talk

@anhconroy6172

Жыл бұрын

Are you a military specialist? How do you know how many planes we have and what we need to send and what we don't?

To stop tanks and small infantry detachments . . . Apache Long Bow - there must be enough of those sitting, unused on dusty storage facilities in Arizona or with the ANG . . . and the tranche 1 Tiffies, Grippens or F16 operating from runways cleaned of FOD in Western Ukraine to keep the opposition at arms length and deliver the occasional LGB or JDAM. Historically, what aircraft is best suited to the situation . . I.e. just operating behind the front lines, providing "cab-rank" support to the front line from improvised woodland clearings . . . Sharkey Ward's favourite . . The Harrier - an aircraft that was desigined for tactical support and was reasonably good at dogfighting if it got into local trouble. . . Not some BVR or medium level flak magnet bomber. And who do we know that's still got Harriers or a version of operational . . Err . . Err.. . US Marines .

@richarddietzen3137

Жыл бұрын

I hope the US is planning to introduce trained Ukrainian personnel and air assets at the same time hostilities flare in the spring. They’ll be needed to optimize the combined arms defense and assault with air cover for armor and infantry.

What about the tornado’s? Arn’t they due to leave soon anyway? Germany still uses them but I think very soon (maybe next year) they are getting rid of them. Regardless, I think the UK will be mainly training, maybe using polish ex Soviet planes

@zhufortheimpaler4041

Жыл бұрын

germany is getting its Tornado Replacements (F-35) from 2027 onwards. till then the tornado fulfills several critical roles in the german airforce like nuclear sharing, recon, ecr, fighter bomber etc. and already spare part situation for Tornado is not sustainable till 2027

@frank-ko6de

Жыл бұрын

The tornadoes were phased out for the typhoons, I think.

@zhufortheimpaler4041

Жыл бұрын

@@frank-ko6de only partially. certain roles as ECR, Recon and nuclear sharing are still done by Tornado, even though ECR and Recon are taken over by Typhoon in the future. The F-35´s germany buys are explicit for the nuclear sharing role (carrying US B-61 nukes)

@appstratum9747

Жыл бұрын

@@frank-ko6de Yup - for the RAF, at least. All scrapped off, pretty much. Or broken for spares.

What about attack helicopters? Give Ukraine Apache's! Lots more of those about and they're perfect to support the land battle. Amazes me no one is taking about that, yet it makes much more sense than fast jets.

@asterixdogmatix1073

Жыл бұрын

You need air superiority and Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) first, otherwise the choppers won't last long.

@danielbailey5849

Жыл бұрын

We have oready give attack helicopters, apache getting upgraded and don’t have a lot of them out self , we should stop send any out military stuff to Ukrainian start think about own defence and strength and security

Asymmetrics. In the military world, it refers to the ability to kill platform X with platform Y because X doesn't have the weapons system or sensor reach to shoot back with. Tanks are killed by attack helicopters which are killed by aircraft with LDSD BVR weapons systems which are shot down by long range SAMs which prevent the aircraft from climbing to a height and speed where it can get a kinematic edge sufficient to shoot a ranged missile against another ranged air target. Russia operates it's fighters within a Bastion of heavy SAM which effectively prevent the mid/high level attack, even as the monster R-37M Very Long Range Air To Air Missile and it's MiG-31 Foxhound as well as Su-35S Flanker parent fighters provide look down, shoot down capability to engage any low level threat which tries to sneak up on the SAMs, from below the radar horizon. The Typhoon has no ARM capacity as the RAF retired the ALARM decades ago, without replacement. The closest you come to an anti-radar capability is the Storm Shadow ALCM. Which is subsonic, takes upwards of an hour to reach full range and requires preplanned attacks on TEL and EPAR vehicles which can displace and set up again, every 20 minutes, if need be. What is more, Tranche 1 Typhoons do not have the ECRS-2 radar but rather the old CAPTOR-M which is to say a Mechanically scanned radar system whose limited detection range and lack of 2-way datalink make it incompatible with the Meteor ramjet LRM. Which is unfortunate because the Typhoon with Meteor is the only jet /other than the Raptor/ which might be able to deal with the MiG-31 and Su-35 plus the Axehead LRM which have all but driven the Ukrainians from the skies. The F-16CM or AM, without APG-83 and AIM-120D3, is not even able to sit at that table, although the former variant at least brings intelligent TOO launched AARGM-E capability with GPS geolocation and full range known HTS launch options . F-16s will not win on their own against Russian fighters, Typhoons, without the latest kit will be slaughtered by SAMs. And nobody proposes selling the F-35 to Ukraine. Stop lying to the British people. Stop escalating this madness. Stop pushing us towards war with a nuclear Peer state. Accept the L in your globalist win/loss column and take a seat at a table to help talk this thing down and work out a long term neutrality pact solution along the lines of Finland or Austria. Bozo The Clown continued this war, last spring, when Zelensky had worked out a backroom deal with the Russians in Ankara. The British owe it to Ukraine to help them achieve some kind of dignity in defeat after the mass slaughter of their people which has resulted from continuing this war. Just. Stop.

@johnnyenglish583

Жыл бұрын

Wow, we have another Chamberlain here. "I bring you peace for our time". The West isn't escalating anything. Neither is Ukraine. By definition, Russia escalated by bombing residential districts and hospitals, and invading an independent country. Every passing month is making the Russian economy suffer more. At the moment, even Russia-based media have started to admit it. Compare Russian-language articles from 6 months ago, 3 months ago and now. If even the state media are saying the situation is "worrying", it is definitely very serious. The Russian planes aren't a significant threat. They're as afraid of Ukrainian AA. They've been conspicuous through their absence. They only serve as glorified taxi cabs for missiles. They dare not cross over to Ukraine. There is zero CAS for the Russian troops. Every single time they try CAS, it ends in slaughter, like the recent attempt near Vuhledar, where they lost 3 state-of-the-art Ka-52's in the span of a few hours. Deescalation is possible at any point. All that is needed is for Russia to comply with its own pledges and the international law. Russia guaranteed Ukraine's borders, after all. Asking the West to "deescalate" at a this point is just stupid defeatism. The ball is in Russia's court, it can deescalate at any point, as long as it gives back the lands it's robbed Ukraine of (and, yes, this includes Crimea, as per international treaties Russia is party to; historically, Russia has less rights to own Crimea than Britain to own India) and pays damages.

@wadopotato33

Жыл бұрын

Dignity in defeat? Russian wanted the whole country. They failed miserably. They are also currently in a stalemated war, far from having acheived even their desired terriotorial gains in Eastern Ukraine. Their economy is in shambles, their partners are other countries ran by dictators, they have had two more countries join NATO due to their agression. Russia already lost, big time. Dignity in defeat? Maybe for Russia. This war has ended any idea that Russia is a dominant world power. All the countries around Russia have won also because of Ukraine. Russia no longer has the capacity to threaten Poland for example. You have seriously incorrect ideas. Russia can't be a world power when it makes less money than Canada. The last ones to wise up to this are the Russians who still sees themselves in a Soviet-era mirror. They will be lucky to hold onto enough power to have even regional influence. Poland will be as rich as Russia in a few decades. If you think I am wrong, look at a few charts. In any case, the countries around Russia are tired of being pushed around and they are not going to take it any more. Ukraine has inspired an entire region to tell Russia to suck it. Russia is over as an Empire. You have to have money to build an Empire.

@xyz-hj6ul

Жыл бұрын

@@wadopotato33 >> Dignity in defeat? Russian wanted the whole country. They failed miserably. They are also currently in a stalemated war, far from having acheived even their desired terriotorial gains in Eastern Ukraine. Their economy is in shambles, their partners are other countries ran by dictators, they have had two more countries join NATO due to their aggression. >> Russia sat on Kiev's doorstep with a 40km/25mi long column and Ukraine did nothing. Like a fool, Putin turned around a force which had bled, heavily, to travel 250km from Chernihiv to the Capital, rather than secure his MSRs, force build a siege army and begin shelling Kiev's vital infrastructure. Which would have begun to immediately starve the 1.5 million inhabitants and provided a way to break Zelensky's arm, from being twisted so high. Having been lied to about Minsk II and knowing that the only way the West ever stops using proxies is when said standin is flat backed with a boot on their chest and a spear at their throat, he then foolishly turned around and went back north. Russia threw away victory. Russia did not want Ukraine. >> Russia already lost, big time. >> And the Ukrainians have lost north of 300,000 dead and 10 million refugees, who are flooding Poland and making it very hard for everyone in Eastern Europe to stay economically viable while they shoot themselve in the foot by cutting off gas and oil from the one cheap source they had, only to buy it all back again, through a secondary distributor in India, for three times the price. The west is going to lose the USD as GRC. When that happens, it will be our economies which collapse. Russia's economy gained 2% last year and will likely gain 10% this year. She is providing charity to the Global South via shiploads of oil and fertilizer after the West does what it always does: weaponized it's currency to jump ahead in queue as they damn near starved. The majority of the planet's population is not on our side because they have hated our guts for throwing our weight around on a hollow currency whose power lies solely in it's abuse as a petrodollar means of offsetting our MASSIVE debt by cranking up exchange rates and forcing treasuries purchase. And Russia, who knows what a budget is, is benefiting from this, enormously. Because they understand what it means when 12% of the global population consumes 23% of it's daily energy production while the rest of the planet's 7 billion don't even get half of what they need. >> Dignity in defeat? Maybe for Russia. >> Thanks to Biden's stupidity in disavowing the no first use policy, Russia is all in. She will not lose Eastern Ukraine. And she will completely denude the entire country of it's fighting aged males. When Russia begins to advance to the Dnieper, because the West's outrageously moronic escalatory policies just keep extending the one fall of shot standoff needed to protect the Russian speaking ethnies from casual caveman slaughter

@xyz-hj6ul

Жыл бұрын

You are wrong in every area. Poland will die first in any NATO:Russia war, which is the only way the West can save Ukraine, via active intervention via our airpower. Russia will likely use Iskander or Kh-102, with low yield, focused, ER warheads to take out the four primary fighter MOBs in Poland . And do similarly to those in Romania, as one last warning. Which will cost us several hundred planes and probably north of 5,000 casualties. She will further make it clear that NATO Europe will survive, intact, if they simply do nothing. While the American Eastern Seaboard will be subject to a sixty missile SS-18/SS-27 strike, the first Western bomb, of any kind, which touches a Russian soldier, civilian, soil or warning system. Given the tremendous egos which drive the soulless evil being enacted in WDC, that will likely be the end of modern civilization if not ELE humanity, on earth. Russia did not want this war. They were _happy_ doing business with the West, getting rich and raising up their country. Happy people do not indulge in such demented acts as war. Not so our elites, who could see, twenty, thirty, fifty years out, where this led. And were so desperate to hang onto their power, as they destroyed the very societies which had given it to them, that they would begin a fools game of pushing an army onto a non-enemy's front doorstep and then claim their response was the aggression. Putin recognizes that MAGA has failed, The Swamp and The City are in full control of the two leading bad actors behind the Wests continuing iniquities and now will do what he must in a chicken game to try and force the submission psychology. It will not be Russia. Because Russia has a legacy of 1941-45 memories that make clear what happens if you lose, even for a little while. The West has chosen it's own racial, cultural, and economic demise and now will pull the rest of the planet down with them, in their suicide. Don't expect me or anyone SANE to cheer this process on. Ukraine started this war with ~40 million people. The U.S. has 360 million. Ukraine sat still, for eight years, failing to buy two fighter wings of three squadrons each and a mechanized division of at least four brigades, after watching the West stand by and do nothing while they got their heads handed to them, in the first Donbas war. Where they went in with six brigades and came out with one. With a GDB of 120 billion annually, and Russian troops STILL SITTING ON THEIR DIRT, they did nothing. This is unforgivable. They are not NATO members and despite the Budapest Accords, have no direct obligation, from us, to ensure their territorial defense. Further, they are the abusive husband who beat their wives in the form of the Russo speaking ethnies in the East for DECADES as the latter tried only to make a living and pay their taxes. Gradually stripping them of their right to speak their own language, educate their kids in their own history, have a voice in the press and political parties in the Rada. When they complained, the Kiev regime used nationalist Brown Shirt like death squads to ride herd on the Russian speakers, beating, raping, murdering and 'disappearing' people, only to have them turn up, with their hearts cut out, the agonized expression on the corpses' face making it clear that this happened while they were still alive. This ended with the outright slaughters at Maidan and Odessa, where Russians, trying to form a referendum to present before the parliament as an attempt to redress their multiple grievances, were grabbed at their headquarters in Odessa and, locked in, as the building was set alight and they were BURNED ALIVE, as national Ukrainian television showcased the event, amidst cheering from the onlookers. The Ukrainians are not evil people. The Ukrainian regime is. And we are backing that kind of evil which makes _US THE BADDIES_. Americans want our troops out of the world's troubles. We want them to defend our borders and eject our unwanted, illegal, colonizers. Or to disband. So we at least don't have to pay for their utter failure to defend America's shores from threats foreign and domestic. If the only way to regain political control over a failed state America is for the Russians to win, humiliating our military industrial culture, on some far flung battlefield, then so be it. We cannot afford a permanent war state in which we have a third of our population as a permanent welfare class as massive entitlement commitments and are spending 50% of our discretionary budget on the twisted stupidity of Keynesian Economics . With nothing left to push civilian developments as innovation continues to drive all genuine economic growth and we are exclusively inviting third world populations with

Don’t have them then

Typhoon better than a F-16 in a one on one fight?? Dream on chap.

UK does not have sufficient airframes end of.

Typhoons are far better than the f16 in BVR and dogfights but in the long run, the cost efficiency and maintenance costs for the f16s would be much better.. not to mention that there are 1000s in the world and therefore have alot of parts available for them. The f16 is the best mass production fighter for the job

@rafomic4210

Жыл бұрын

Whats dogfight and BVR

@furtivedig

Жыл бұрын

@@rafomic4210 dogfight is the so called knife fight in the phone booth, BVR is beyond visual range engagement (>30km or there about)

@rafomic4210

Жыл бұрын

@@furtivedig OK thanks

@rafomic4210

Жыл бұрын

@@furtivedig BVR stands for what ?

@furtivedig

Жыл бұрын

@@rafomic4210 as stated above, Beyond Visual Range

I completely agree with this analysis.

Out of the 30% serviceability we currently have (and those are pretty much CAP over the North Sea stopping Russian Bears ironically), which ones and who is going to train, operate and fly them?

@Lost-In-Blank

Жыл бұрын

There are other countries that can take a turn doing combat air patrol over the North Sea for the UK. That will be trivial to arrange. Probably what you want to be lobbying for is the accelerated acquisition of F-35s to replace the Typhoons being send, so that the UK can resume protecting the part of the North Sea it has traditionally defended. (Don't want to the Yanks, French and Germany to start thinking of it as theirs.)

Giving them *anything* is still better than what they have at the moment - the airforce is almost non-existent as far as I know. Gripens would be an excellent fit - can use short and rough runways. Old saying - "beggars can't be choosers" and that's where Ukraine is at the moment. They need ANYTHING they can get.

@pogo1140

Жыл бұрын

They are in the same boat as Israel was

@furtivedig

Жыл бұрын

@@pogo1140 the Israeli don't seem to sympathise with the Ukrainians the slightest. Denying them even SAM systems to protect their civilians and infrastructure. They are too busy bombing the poor and abused.

This comment section already is so.... odd

@nian60

Жыл бұрын

It's full of orc trolls and bots.

Agreed, it would be better to get Gripen C/Ds from Sweden to deliver to Ukraine. Why you will ask, because it was designed to be serviced and turned around on the side of the road by one flight engineer and a support of conscripts. It can take off and land on any 800meter straight road.

@holderplace1224

Жыл бұрын

Not many Gripens around. No one got 50 or 100 to spare.

@user-zh9kc7tw4n

Жыл бұрын

@@holderplace1224 Saab made 250 and the SAF do not use more than 60 so there should be 100 or more in storage

@Walterwaltraud

Жыл бұрын

@@user-zh9kc7tw4n Check your numbers, completely false.

@user-zh9kc7tw4n

Жыл бұрын

@@phillipbanes5484 no it can not take off in less as the wing is smaller in area it also has a higher take off and land speed, and it requires more technicians to service

@user-zh9kc7tw4n

Жыл бұрын

@@phillipbanes5484 since you seem to know so much where do you get your information that state it can? All of this is official information

Yeah cause we need the eurofighters

The JAS-39 would for obvious reasons be the best fighter for Ukraine.

No-one's mention F18's...Heavy weapon load, lots of them and more robust undercarriage..ideal for the Ukraine airfields...(Just an opinion)...

Let's just EFING build new ones!! Why are we still in this weird state of mind - only talking about what we have, admitting we don't have enough, and yet we still do nothing about it.... Wtf??

Gripens, 100%

@johnnyenglish583

Жыл бұрын

Too few of them, I'm afraid. Ukraine probably needs at least a hundred modern fighter jets. There just isn't enough Gripens lying around. Unfortunately, the F/A18 or F16 seems to be the only viable option if you look at supply chains, maintenance etc.

Thanks to assistance, Ukraine can defend itself against the Russian occupiers, but it is very difficult to go on the offensive. The Ukrainians must liberate all of their territory, and we must help by providing tanks and other weapons.

@valeryferry1658

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely true. More weapons = earlier winning. Ukraine has been suffering from Russian invasion for 9 years. They deserve on a normal live

@jeraldkozey6095

Жыл бұрын

This is true. Only by deoccupying all its territories Ukraine will be able to stop this stupid war and push russians far enough from their borders to ensure peace coming back to Europe. We need to help in achieving that.

@erinwalker1842

Жыл бұрын

Russia continues to destroy the civilian population of Ukraine, the world must respond to this as soon as possible, because there is no other choice!

They are just lumps of metal at the end of the day, human life is what matters, freedom, democracy and standing up agasinst genocidal tyrants matters. These aircraft were designed and build to combat threats from countries such as Russia. it's that simple, war time training is usually "on the job training", we need to make it happen.

@EvidensInsania

Жыл бұрын

Actually they were built to defend our nation. Russia is no threat to us and Ukraine is no ally. Plus there isn't any of the freedom and democracy you're so keen on in Ukraine.

@muttleyjones2

Жыл бұрын

Then will you be going to fight in Ukraine? No I didn't think so.

I heard someone say we should sell Typhoons to Poland so they could then pass on their MiGs to Ukraine, since the Ukrainians already know how to fly them.

@johnnyenglish583

Жыл бұрын

I don't think this is right. Poland has F-16s and it's buying F-35s. I doubt it they would want yet another system. Even Britain doesn't have that many different aircraft versions, and Poland is less affluent than Britain. If, however, other F-16 users chipped in and donated F-16s, then Poland could easily give their MiG-29s. The problem is, the MiG-29 is outclassed by modern Russian aircraft, and there is no production capability in Ukraine and the West to supply it with modern Soviet-legacy air-to-air missiles. At the end of the day, the F-16 or F-18 for Ukraine would be the best option.

F-16's might be better tactically, but not politically.

Speaks a lot of sense 👍

The F-16s have no weaknesses against the current Russian configuration and being multi-roll can perform any mission needed. If Ukraine can put together the pilots and the ground support, the Falcon can do any task assigned to it. Ukraine pilots have and are being trained on the Falcon so I do not see any practical obstacles. It has the AIM-120 AMRAAM to knock down the bombers over Belarus, launch HARM radar killers, stand-off tank busting with the Maverick and many GPS munitions. In the Gulf war it made more sorties than any other aircraft.

Jets are pointless, it takes years to train on them, to provide personnel to maintain them and to keep them running, we don’t have enough of them anyway.

Send the planes, any planes …period. Any extra air superiority will be welcome.

@erinwalker1842

Жыл бұрын

The sooner Ukraine receives tanks and aircraft, the less Ukraine and the whole of Europe will suffer.

F16s

What Ukraine needs is strictly a multirole aircraft, something like a F/A-18, F-15Cs (if theyre still lying around), or old F-16s as mentioned in the video. I personally think Canadian F-18s should be sent due to their age, not to mention F-35s will start to trickle in and replace the older 18 frames.

@kamraam1464

Жыл бұрын

The F-15C has no air-to-ground capability whatsoever...

@snakeshift9172

Жыл бұрын

@@kamraam1464 Thank you. He's thinking of F-15E's...

@wadopotato33

Жыл бұрын

The age is exactly why they should not be sent. As flight hours get high on an air frame the amount of time they spend on the ground being worked on increases, the costs skyrocket and the airplane becomes prone to accidents. Canadian F-18 are super high hour air frames. They are no longer cost-effective or safe. Why in the name of all that is holy would you pass on those problems to the Ukranians? Canada has not maintained their Air Force and those planes are not air-worthy. And yet, Canada has said it will not meet its' mandate to spend 2% of their GDP on their military (which they promised to do as a member of NATO). Steer clear of the Canadian planes.

@thenibblershow5305

11 ай бұрын

​@@snakeshift9172money thrown

Ukraine needs easy-to-learn jets. But the most important thing is that they are needed TODAY. If the Ukrainian Air Force gains an advantage in the air, then the Russians on their Su24 and Su 25 will be afraid to fly up to the borders of Ukraine

@Ashley-Paucek

Жыл бұрын

I agree ... no matter what planes it is important to quickly send them to the front

@erinwalker1842

Жыл бұрын

Tanks and aircraft are exactly what Ukraine needs to defend not only its territory, but the whole of Europe.

wouldnt it make more sense to give the Ukrainians something they are already familiar with? send them Migs or Sukhoi's... it would take them a few months to be combat ready on a new platform, as well as every part of the support and logistics being different. probably be 6 months before they would be combat ready... they need something NOW.

The typhoon is faster, can fly higher, and carry more. The F16 is lighter and has a better fuel economy, is easier to fly, and has a better avionics suite. F16s is the way to go

@Ashley-Paucek

Жыл бұрын

it is important that the planes go to Ukraine faster

Please don t worry that the Typhoon is may be not the best Fighter Jet in your opinion, because the most important element is the will of the pilot to win. And the wil to win by Ukraine pilots is amazing. Sent them, now!

@KanyeTheGayFish69

Жыл бұрын

It’s not that simple. They’ve been flying analogue Soviet mig-29’s an su-27’s for decades. Pretty much everything aside from the control yoke and throttles are different in modern western aircraft. It’s like learning a new language, and in this case, a simpler cheaper fighter like the f-16 and gripen would do better.

@limedickandrew6016

Жыл бұрын

I don't think Ukraine has many pilots left. Would probably have to train up a whole new batch, and that would take years.

@phillcom3

Жыл бұрын

The most important is the one that there. Same with photography the best camera you can ever have in any situation is the one in ur hand that's working. So send something. Anything. We need to stop that force spreading east

@fabik805

Жыл бұрын

@@limedickandrew6016 nah only a hand full of Ukrainian pilots died. Since they are so scarce their deaths are widely publizised. But most of them can eject when they are hit, so very few pilot losses.

@limedickandrew6016

Жыл бұрын

@@fabik805 Nevertheless Fabik, how long can Ukraine go without training up brand new pilots? Every branch of military needs new recruits from scratch, especially in war. In WWII, how many RAF pilots in 1945 were at the Battle of Britain? There is going to be a steady loss due to death and serious injury - even if it's just 2-3 a month, that will add up over time. Russia claimed to have downed 26 Ukrainian aircraft in January alone. Don't know how accurate that is, but if it is as they claim then maybe 3-4 were killed? Some will get killed, they're not all going to survive. Or captured. I don't know. Imagine if that happened every month. And, you know, people just get old. Eventually Ukraine is going to have to train up new pilots. They can't rely on the pilots they had on the eve of the invasion forever. Conversion training can maybe take 3-6 months. But training from scratch takes 2-3 years.

IN Forces News we trust

I think the US / A10 is the best plane to send to Ucraine

@anthonyjohnwoods1863

Жыл бұрын

It needs fighter support.!

@khel9505

Жыл бұрын

Not ideal in this war tho.

Once again it's the UK having to be the first to give tanks and now jets before the other countries find the bottle to donate there's.

@johnnyenglish583

Жыл бұрын

what are you talking about? Poland donated several hundred tanks before anybody else lifted a finger. Poland also donated about two dozen MiG-29s and a huge amount of other equipment, including state-of-the-art SPGs. Nearly all of Ukraine's equipment is repaired in Poland (and Czech Republic, too). And in fact, if Poland hadn't said they would give their Leopards to Ukraine even without Germany's consent", Germany would still be dithering about whether they're ready to finally do something or whether they prefer to wait a bit longer, watching Ukraine bleed.

Severely underfunded?

Wouldn't A10 be a good choice against russian armour?

@Noah-ez2xd

Жыл бұрын

In a contested airspace without having already SEAD it would be shot down easily.

@gregbarnes4083

Жыл бұрын

A-10 is a good ground pounder but is incredibly vulnerable in contested airspace, with russian fighters and ground based SAMs in operation you'll be losing more airframes than ground kills

@kimjongun7148

Жыл бұрын

You need air superiority first

@MrSatyre1

Жыл бұрын

​@Noah Considering the enormous evidence how poorly Russian AD and crews perform both in occupied Ukraine and Russia behind the lines, AD is probably nowhere near a concern as it would have been had Russia proven itself to be a peer adversary.

@TheBooban

Жыл бұрын

@@MrSatyre1 yet still not that bad because the Ukrainian air force also have not been able to do much. All aircraft are easy to be picked off when not used properly with other technologies.