So why doesn't he show the actual launcher intact then? I mean Ukrainians are typically pretty quick to debunk dubious Russian claims with actual evidence.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
Gripen is probably the most PR driven platform ever. There's nothing about the Gripen that makes it more rugged. They claim it can take off from roads, but so can any lightweight fighter jet. See the Mig-29s taking off in the Ukraine.
It has had a shockingly poor safety record in Sweden and in the few countries that were bribed into taking them.
The only real options for a lightweight fighter the Ukraine has is the F-16, the F-35 and the Mirage 2000.
The F-35 is too expensive and unreliable, the Mirage is out of production so spare parts could be a problem. Plus the French aren't as keen on helping the Ukrainians. Second hand F-16s are the only thing the Americans can realistically offer right now.
Ukrainian aircrafts wanting to do Air to air need to go near Russian border and are sitting duck from R33 and R37 from Mig-31 staying well outside Ukraine border. Russian fighters patrolling arround the borders will have range and kinetic advantage on any aircraft pulling in altitude for interception.
Patriot and s-300 near the front borders would be way more efficient anyway. Russian aircrafts are still sitting duck if entering Ukraine, it's why they are using glide bombs. F-16 will not give much beside the capacity of tossing jdam without modifications that are jammed wildly by the Russian forces...
Ukraine is more or less a no fly zone.. only aircrafts in action are in low altitude or exploding.
one thing you will need to understand is how a war is fought has nothing to do with how the belligerents want to approach it. in WWI both sides of the western front also wanted to fight maneuver warfare, but was eventually bogged down in the trenches for a myriad of reasons.
Oy vey where to begin with the whole possibility of European F-16's being given to Ukraine...
If Ukraine were getting blk 50/52 WITH Aim-120c7's, HARM Targeting System, AN/ALQ-131(V) EW pod, Maverick Missiles, and anti-ship capability then I'd be impressed because these Vipers would be able to conduct CAS and interdiction at the frontlines at high-ish altitude but it seems they are getting old F-16C's and these Vipers have Euro systems so I don't know if they'll have ability to link with Patriot batteries. They'll be armed with aim-120c5's which are outranged by a lot with what the Russians flankers are armed with not to mention the F-16c radar is way outdated. When Pakistani blk 52 Vipers took a shot at IAF MKI's they were armed with c5's and came way short and those Vipers had AWACS and EW aircraft for support.
I don't get Ukraine's fascination with getting F-16's what they should be asking for are USMC F-18C's that were just retired with plenty of hours still left in the airframe. Those Hornets carry GaN AESA and are aim-120D and all the air to ground weapons capable. Or even the USN F-18E's which are just as capable as USMC F-18C's. These would be more dangerous than blk 52 Vipers which Ukraine isn't even getting. It really has become silly how Ukraine wants F-16's which really won't make a difference especially the ones they are likely to get.
Remind us again, what Russian official has made this a red line?
Give us a source rather than unfounded claims. Nato being too scared to escalate a proxy war isn't anyone's fault but Nato's, wasting Ukrainian lives and time when they could have gone all in to begin with.
Except the Ukrainians have engaged in maneuver warfare in Kharkiv, whereas the Russians have stuck to attritional grinding because they are incapable of conducting combined arms offensives. The comparison to WWI is not relevant either, considering it was pretty much impossible to conduct maneuver warfare whereas no such limitations exist in Ukraine.
lol? by that logic russia also conducted maneuver warfare at the start of the war. germans did as well at the start of WWI, and for much of it on the eastern front. like i said, maneuver or positional warfare does not happen because one side says "okay i feel like maneuvering today", it is the result of various factors on the battlefield. i dont see the ukrainians maneuvering anywhere ever since kharkov counteroffensive. let me know when they do it again.
They don't need to show anything, neither does Russia need to provide proof for any claims they make. Cheap PR means nothing, we should appreciate the fact that we are even getting any footage of this conflict at all.
Proving internet pundits right or wrong is completely irrelevant to the conflict, if anything they are just leading internet osinters to draw wild conclusions based on a few combat footage. We're not seeing the hundreds/thousands of videos where nothing happended or when an AT round failed to penetrate.
On the topic of F-16s, I think that simply having them perform the normal CAP role that they fill in western airforces will be a huge help. Since the US has essentially a endless stockpile of A2A missiles F-16s in numbers could completely stop shaheds and Cruise missiles from being effective.
its true that neither side should spend any time trying to fight online posters. but ukraine seems to have been doing a lot of that.
i believe that f-16 would be more of a game changer than any other weapon delivered to ukraine thus far, if they can be delivered in sufficient numbers (lets say over 20). the risk here of course is that when they inevitably suffer losses it further discredits western weapons.