The F-16s are more of a medium and long-term security play. As their MiGs continue to age they need replacing and there are diminished sourcing options for Soviet and Russian aircraft.

They can launch the JDAM glide bombs but I'm not sure they can launch the SCALP/Storm Shadow.

The Ukes have been using Su-24s for the ALCM strikes with MiG-29s and Su-27s flying cover and launching HARMS and radar decoys.

One would think that the West trained and equipped them to perform effective SEAD/DEAD missions. If my memory serves the F-16 acted as a "Wild Weasel" at some point.

In reply to nortex97

nortex97 said:

---

We will respectfully just have to see, I guess, as the French (LeMond) report on the trainees for the F-16's in SW France from Ukraine do not reflect your assessments as to experience, and I still don't grasp why the platform would provide any advantages in this role, especially in the quantities initially to be fielded in an initial operational capability/capacity (1 squadron).

Interesting interview/discussion of the status of the front/strategic outlook with Ukraine's intel commander;

"General Skibitsky says he does not see a way for Ukraine to win the war on the battlefield alone. Even if it were able to push Russian forces back to the borders—an increasingly distant prospect—it wouldn’t end the war. Such wars can only end with treaties, he says. Right now,… https://t.co/I5kWMkF6Q1 pic.twitter.com/huehMJQUdU

— Rob Lee (@RALee85) May 2, 2024

---

Unfortunately it certainly appears that way. I want more than anything else in this war for Ukraine to push them all the way back to pre '14 levels and regain Crimea…. But it just doesn't look plausible. Putin (and therefore Russia) appears willing to wreck their entire economy and country for this war, and Ukraine just doesn't have the resources to keep up, even with our support. Every day, week, and month that passes allows Russia to build more shells, drones, etc.

In reply to SoTXAg09

SoTXAg09 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

We will respectfully just have to see, I guess, as the French (LeMond) report on the trainees for the F-16's in SW France from Ukraine do not reflect your assessments as to experience, and I still don't grasp why the platform would provide any advantages in this role, especially in the quantities initially to be fielded in an initial operational capability/capacity (1 squadron).

Interesting interview/discussion of the status of the front/strategic outlook with Ukraine's intel commander;

"General Skibitsky says he does not see a way for Ukraine to win the war on the battlefield alone. Even if it were able to push Russian forces back to the borders—an increasingly distant prospect—it wouldn’t end the war. Such wars can only end with treaties, he says. Right now,… https://t.co/I5kWMkF6Q1 pic.twitter.com/huehMJQUdU

— Rob Lee (@RALee85) May 2, 2024

---

Unfortunately it certainly appears that way. I want more than anything else in this war for Ukraine to push them all the way back to pre '14 levels and regain Crimea…. But it just doesn't look plausible. Putin (and therefore Russia) appears willing to wreck their entire economy and country for this war, and Ukraine just doesn't have the resources to keep up, even with our support. Every day, week, and month that passes allows Russia to build more shells, drones, etc.

---

The 2024 campaign season is critical for Russia's success on the battlefield because it will have reached peak war production this year. After that, its materiel advantages significantly erode.

Ensuring Ukraine weathers 2024 is why this latest US aid package is so important and why Russia is so infuriated that it passed.

2024

In reply to SoTXAg09

SoTXAg09 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

We will respectfully just have to see, I guess, as the French (LeMond) report on the trainees for the F-16's in SW France from Ukraine do not reflect your assessments as to experience, and I still don't grasp why the platform would provide any advantages in this role, especially in the quantities initially to be fielded in an initial operational capability/capacity (1 squadron).

Interesting interview/discussion of the status of the front/strategic outlook with Ukraine's intel commander;

"General Skibitsky says he does not see a way for Ukraine to win the war on the battlefield alone. Even if it were able to push Russian forces back to the borders—an increasingly distant prospect—it wouldn’t end the war. Such wars can only end with treaties, he says. Right now,… https://t.co/I5kWMkF6Q1 pic.twitter.com/huehMJQUdU

— Rob Lee (@RALee85) May 2, 2024

---

Unfortunately it certainly appears that way. I want more than anything else in this war for Ukraine to push them all the way back to pre '14 levels and regain Crimea…. But it just doesn't look plausible. Putin (and therefore Russia) appears willing to wreck their entire economy and country for this war, and Ukraine just doesn't have the resources to keep up, even with our support. Every day, week, and month that passes allows Russia to build more shells, drones, etc.

---

Ukraine will need to exponentially raise the economic cost of this war for Russia in order to regain lands in a settlement that they cannot recover on the battlefield.

The refineries are likely just the beginning of that effort.

Siap. Atacams kill >100 Russian soldiers at once.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/05/02/hundreds-of-russian-troops-gathered-out-in-the-open-they-didnt-know-the-ukrainians-had-aimed-four-atacms-rockets-at-them/?sh=752047721a2e

ATACMS production is increased to the point that the pentagon "is no longer worried about depleting its own stocks by sending them to Ukraine"

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2024/05/production-surge-eases-pentagon-worries-about-sending-long-range-missiles-to-ukraine-00155846

In reply to GAC06

GAC06 said:

---

ATACMS production is increased to the point that the pentagon "is no longer worried about depleting its own stocks by sending them to Ukraine"

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2024/05/production-surge-eases-pentagon-worries-about-sending-long-range-missiles-to-ukraine-00155846

---

This helps free up ATACMS, too.

PrSM

In reply to 74OA

74OA said:

---

This helps free up ATACMS, too. PrSM

---

Nice to hear PrSM production is maybe ahead of schedule. Wild ass guess but the number of ATACMS freed up for Ukraine is probably a few hundred based on PrSM production of 110 for FY24 LINK.... or maybe up to dozens/month mentioned in your link.

Quote:

---

According to Defense Department budget documents, the PrSM will cost $1.2 billion, with 110 to be procured in fiscal year 2024 and 190 in FY-25.

---

This is the world Putin (and Xi) would give us all.

TERROR

In reply to benchmark

benchmark said:

---

74OA said:

---

This helps free up ATACMS, too. PrSM

---

Nice to hear PrSM production is maybe ahead of schedule. Wild ass guess but the number of ATACMS freed up for Ukraine is probably a few hundred based on PrSM production of 110 for FY24 [url=https://insidedefense.com/insider/lockheed-gets-contract-build-early-capability-prsm][LINK][/url] .... or maybe up to dozens/month mentioned in your link.

Quote:

---

According to Defense Department budget documents, the PrSM will cost $1.2 billion, with 110 to be procured in fiscal year 2024 and 190 in FY-25.

---

---

PrSM production is in addition to increased ATACMS production. It is the total of those two which will increasingly free up ATACMS for Ukraine.

In reply to 74OA

74OA said:

---

This is the world Putin (and Xi) would give us all.

TERROR

---

Sure be nice if putin reaped what he sowed.

Time for russia to be broken up.

In reply to 74OA

74OA said:

---

PrSM production is in addition to increased ATACMS production. It is the total of those two which will increasingly free up ATACMS for Ukraine.

---

Good point. I thought the US procurement of ATACMS had stopped. Good read on the topic from November ... On ATACMS for Ukraine, don't settle for a job half done

Quote:

---

Moreover, ATACMS remains in full-rate production at Lockheed Martin. The company makes "about 500 per year," a spokesman told The Washington Post in July. Currently, 209 missiles are planned for sales to foreign countries in fiscal year 2024. Washington could ask one or more of those countries to delay receipt so the missiles can either go directly to Ukraine or backfill US donations. Better yet, Congress could appropriate funding this year to procure more ATACMS for Ukraine.

---

In reply to JFABNRGR

JFABNRGR said:

---

74OA said:

---

This is the world Putin (and Xi) would give us all.

TERROR

---

Sure be nice if putin reaped what he sowed.

Time for russia to be broken up AGAIN.

---

FWIW, I think the F-16 are there to present a "credible threat" challenge that will make Russia commit resources to respect their presence. They can serve to cover some at defense gaps, and with information provided from western radar coverage, can provide some legitimate air defense threat against incursions.

Their airfields will for better or worse draw a lot of Russian attention.

In reply to MouthBQ98

MouthBQ98 said:

---

FWIW, I think the F-16 are there to present a "credible threat" challenge that will make Russia commit resources to respect their presence. They can serve to cover some at defense gaps, and with information provided from western radar coverage, can provide some legitimate air defense threat against incursions.

Their airfields will for better or worse draw a lot of Russian attention.

---

Ukraine is working on that: PROTECTION

Some background on the Su-24. Pretty entertaining, and as always with this channel, great insight into Russian mentality.

Its too bad Poland and Romania are out of operational range, but any long term storage or maintenance tasks could sure be located in those places.

Time to think outside the box something between Baa Baa Black Sheep era through SOAR/AFSOC.

MUST WATCH: Russian commander's motivational speech to his new batch of cannon fodder before they are sent to certain death on the front lines in Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/F5xbmMUDRr

— Igor Sushko (@igorsushko) May 3, 2024

In reply to Raiderjay

Raiderjay said:

---

MUST WATCH: Russian commander's motivational speech to his new batch of cannon fodder before they are sent to certain death on the front lines in Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/F5xbmMUDRr

— Igor Sushko (@igorsushko) May 3, 2024

---

I would shoot that guy. The fact they're there means Russia already forgot about them.

In reply to ABATTBQ11 That can't be good for morale. Hope is very motivational. Doom is just about the opposite.

In reply to MouthBQ98

MouthBQ98 said:

---

That can't be good for morale. Hope is very motivational. Doom is just about the opposite.

---

I doubt they care about morale regarding cannon fodder.

In reply to MouthBQ98

MouthBQ98 said:

---

That can't be good for morale. Hope is very motivational. Doom is just about the opposite.

---

the only thing I believe in the whole speech is that they will likely die...BTW those guy don't look like dregs from some backwater to me.

All I can think of is them looking at a picture of Putin and saying "We who are about to die, salute you!"

In reply to 2wealfth Man

2wealfth Man said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

That can't be good for morale. Hope is very motivational. Doom is just about the opposite.

---

the only thing I believe in the whole speech is that they will likely die...BTW those guy don't look like dregs from some backwater to me.

---

Sure.

But they'll die like them all the same.

Senseless

In reply to MouthBQ98

MouthBQ98 said:

---

That can't be good for morale. Hope is very motivational. Doom is just about the opposite.

---

To us that's true but even Stalin the hardcore soulless commie invoked the patriotism of Mother Russia by 1942, after praises of the party fell on deaf IDGaF ears. But in the name of Momma Russia, millions of bodies where thrown into the meat grinder and they still came on. That worked, sort of, in the 1940's.

Thing is they dont have the demographics or population to play that game these days. Old habits die hard in the land of icy hearts. This mentality is going to ruin them.

In reply to Waffledynamics

Waffledynamics said:

---

Ukraine can strike inside Russia with British weapons, UK’s Foreign Secretary David Cameron has said.https://t.co/uaiG267a64

— POLITICOEurope (@POLITICOEurope) May 3, 2024

---

I mean it only makes sense right? Should of been allowed to do this a long time ago!

It's a double edged sword.

Ukraine can't make impact full gains unless they strike inside Russia. Which they are now doing. Buy using foreign weapon systems will enrage Russia. Which would put all the Baltic states on target. But Russia is already tapped in Ukraine.

Which only leaves nuclear options.

Move, counter move

The USAF has announced a contract to equip Ukrainian JDAM-ERs with Home-on GPS Jam seekers.

This should enable Ukrainian Air Force strike aircraft to target Russian GPS jammers near the front, allowing other GPS guided munitions like GMLRS and 155mm Excalibur to hit targets. pic.twitter.com/RF75HyyiLA

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) May 3, 2024

In reply to AtticusMatlock Agreed. We've been announcing almost everything

Analyses of the strategic outlook provided by the RUSI folks in the UK:

Quote:

---

The entire report revolves around an urgent plea for the West to remold its strategic concept of warfare, which has been badly degraded and fallen out with the times by several decades of lazy misallocation of resources and reorientation toward colonial policing actions.

In the following paragraph, the author defines precisely the difference between 'maneuver' wars and classic attritional wars, which is relevant in understanding the rest of the exegesis:

Quote:

---

Attritional wars require their own 'Art of War' and are fought with a 'force-centric' approach, unlike wars of manoeuvre which are 'terrain-focused'. They are rooted in massive industrial capacity to enable the replacement of losses, geographical depth to absorb a series of defeats, and technological conditions that prevent rapid ground movement.

In attritional wars, military operations are shaped by a state's ability to replace losses and generate new formations, not tactical and operational manoeuvres. The side that accepts the attritional nature of war and focuses on destroying enemy forces rather than gaining terrain is most likely to win.

---

---

More at the links, as they say. I think both are interesting and informed analyses of the strategic outlook.

In reply to AlaskanAg99

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

It's a double edged sword.

Ukraine can't make impact full gains unless they strike inside Russia. Which they are now doing. Buy using foreign weapon systems will enrage Russia. Which would put all the Baltic states on target. But Russia is already tapped in Ukraine.

Which only leaves nuclear options.

---

I thought Russia was using Iranian drones and Chinese materials? Sounds foreign to me.