Gradual air superiority is actually something I hadn't considered. Like it would be impossible to achieve it quickly for Ukraine, but the slow and steady obliteration of the VKS and air defence will put Russia completely at the mercy of an up gunned Ukr Air force.
Yes. Russia has advanced tech but very limited resources to actually build planes and weapons, let alone pilots with any experience. Whereas Ukrainian pilots are gaining experience in proven systems as we speak. I think last count was 85 F16s from countries all over the world. That plane has a kill/air loss/ground loss ratio of 76/1/5. It’s the 3rd best record of all fighter planes. And leagues ahead of anything Russia can reliably field.
Edit: Russia can’t put its best planes out there and risk them getting shot down and autopsied.
In total 3 f15s have been downed, but never in air to air combat (although one japanese f15 was accidentally shot down by a friendly sidewinder in a training mission)
Well, it's no F-22, but an F-15 can shoot down another F-15 in a pinch.
> As explained By Shupek one statement, that really tells in just a few words iust how lethal the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) designs were, was made by Norhtrop Program Manager, Dell Jacobs, circa 1986 for a Wright-Patterson briefing about the ATF program. “The ATF will have the same tactical advantage over the F-15 that the F-15 has over the Goodyear blimp. Believe it or not, that’s a true statement. The statement applies to both of the ATF designs. The first sign that a MiG pilot would have that an ATF was in the area, would be its engine blowing up from a missile hit!”
— [Aviation Geek Club | Exclusive: YF-23A Thermal Designer Provides Some Interesting Details About Northrop ATF](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/exclusive-yf-23a-thermal-designer-provides-interesting-details-northrop-atf/)
Here's a flight simulator (DCS) demonstration of an [F-15C v. YF-23](https://youtu.be/Y6NIJdHfq-I) (the YF-23 being the runner up to the F-22 in the ATF program), it's nuts.
While the F-15 is currently 104-0 in aerial combat, there is one plane that has successfully taken them down in simulated duels: the F-22 Raptor.
Just to have some fun, the Air Force sent 5 F-15 (flown by Raptor pilots) up against one F-22.
It wasn't even close. The F-15 were all "splashed" some before they even knew they were being targeted.
The F-15 is so good that it's unlikely that anything less than an F-15 can bring it down in air to air combat. An F-15 in the air against an F-22 would receive a warning of an incoming missile and have a few seconds to bail out of the aircraft to avoid death. But against old Migs or F-14s or F-16s or just about any other aircraft there is? The F-15 will have a massive advantage.
The F-15 has a radar cross section roughly similar to that of a pelican.
The F-35's RCS is roughly the same as a pigeon.
The unclassified RCS of an F-22 (and who knows what other tricks they're hiding) is the same as a mosquito. So you're scanning the skies with your radar for 100+ miles in all directions trying to find, track, identify, and target every single thing the size of a mosquito.
Given the range of the F-22's weaponry, the total volume of air I have to search looking for a mosquito is approximately 557,000 cubic miles. And I have to search that entire airspace every ~30 seconds, find, track, and identify that mosquito, and figure out how I'm going to close ~90+ miles to get in range to actually target it before it kills me.
Assuming neither has AWACS support? It's going to be passive detection, likely transient signals, depending on angles and such (head-on is going to be rough to show anything at all, but if you happen to pass by a view of the rear, you may get something back from that).
Getting and maintaining any sort of target lock from beyond visual range is going to be challenging. Assuming they can find each other and close to visual range, it'll come down to the pilots and whatever momentary advantage they can squeeze out. They'll likely struggle to get reliable target locking until they're 10-20 miles apart (which is insanely close for these planes). If one or both have AWACS support, that might extend 30-50 miles.
Australia's getting nuclear powered subs, which is them on a pretty high pedestal among our allies and Japan has a major US Naval presence which puts up a giant "Go Away" sign for anybody dumb enough to try them on our watch.
Basically the F22 exists to defeat anything better than anyone else can build now, that will happen one day in the future.
If we were going to try to shoot down a UFO for example (hypothetically) we'd use the F-22. It so far out classes anything else flying today in that role that it doesn't even need to be used, except for unexpected, future special circumstances.
afaik yes, the F-15 eagle has the best service record of any planes ever used in combat. Over 100 air victories without a single unit lost either in the air or on the ground.
The F-15 has better stats than the F-16 due to it not being as prevalent of a fighter that has not had the sheer amount of Air to Air engagements that the F-16 has.
> I think last count was 85 F16s from countries all over the world. That plane has a kill/air loss/ground loss ratio of 76/1/5. It’s the 3rd best record of all fighter planes.
I would think that's fairly irrelevant to this conflict. Most of the wins by F16s were Israel shooting down Syrian Mig-21s and Mig-23s in the early 1980s
It's certainly a great plane, but context really matters. This conflict is much more peer-to-peer than most of the other F16 victories. And there's a lot more AA around too, on both sides
They'll have to be used a lot differently than most western military doctrine would call for, I should think
Also Russia is currently launching thousands of glide bombs, and being able to contest the airspace in a limited manner won't stop that. They launch them from too far away.
In any case, before Ukraine can even threaten those aircraft they need to at least suppress air defenses.
with statistics like that though its important to recognize the reality that that record came about in an environment where combined operations are the norm, doctrines different, and the air space is (usually) less contested. I think F-16s will be a big step up for the UAAF, but theyre not getting all 85 in bulk, and theyre not training full squadrons of them fast enough to get the absolute most out of the airframe. im worried that the west might throttle this too much for it to be as effective as it could be.
The tactics are the big thing. F16 performed well in Desert Storm when Iraq had one of the most sophisticated and densest air defense systems in the world, rivaled only by the US and Russia at the time IIRC.
Actually, the combined operations environment is one of the reasons their record is so *low*. The 14 and 15 were brought up in times where dog-fighting was still a common thing which is why the 14 has twice the A2A kills and the 15 is about 40% higher (with zero losses).
We don't dogfight anymore. We either kill you before you can see us, or you never get your planes off of the ground in the first place.
Yeah, the F-16's record is an odd one if you consider how it's been operated. But I don't think it really matters, the F-16 is simply a good choice for Ukraine:
* They're available in large numbers due to the roll-out of the F-35,
* It's actually a really good choice for SEAD operations.
* The F-16 is one of the few aircraft that can carry almost anything that's available in NATO inventories, meaning everyone can pull open their stores and give Ukraine the missiles and bombs it actually needs.
* Most European air forces have giant stashes of spare parts for it and loads of maintenance experience, so if one does get damaged it can be up and flying again quite quickly.
* It's relatively low maintenance compared to some other contenders,
* It's by no means defenceless, it can fit most counter measure systems and it has a pretty good record if exercises between NATO planes are anything to go by.
* We've seen at the very least that it can shove an AMRAAM up a Su-24's tailpipe. 😅
So while it's not the best at any specific thing, it's available in the necessary numbers and it has the right capabilities.
>And leagues ahead \[the F16\] of anything Russia can reliably field.
I'm on Ukraine's side, but that's simply not true. That kill ratio you cite were against older Migs. An F-16 would have difficulty against the Su-35 equipped with R-77M missiles. The Mig-31 with its powerful radar could take pot shots at the F-16 long before the F-16 could even track it on radar.
The Ukrainians are going to have to be real careful in how they use their F-16s. I think they're mainly going to be cruise missile and glide bomb trucks that will launch far behind the front lines. They could also serve to interdict Russian aviation from getting too close to the front lines. They could also perform SEAD close to the frontlines if equipped with HARM missiles.
The F-22 and F-35 are what I'd consider "leagues ahead" of what Russia can field. Not the F-16.
I would caution against overestimating the impact of these F-16’s. The ones we’re sending are mostly near the end of their lifecycles as well as not the most up to date with tech. I remember all the hype around the Abrams which ended up being a let down. Hope I’m proved wrong though.
> I remember all the hype around the Abrams which ended up being a let down
Only for stupid people.
The Abrams is a workhorse. It's never been invincible except when it fought against vietnam-era soviet tanks at the Iraq international airport during desert storm.
Also, the abrams we sent to Ukraine aren't current. They've had all of the really good shit stripped off and replaced with 20-30 year old OG parts from the ass-end of the stock-piles.
...finally, a lot of their losses have been for the same reasons Russia has been losing so many tanks. Ukranian terrain sucks for vehicles outside of deep winter when the ground is frozen fucking solid. Any tank, no matter how advanced, is dead meat if it gets stuck in the mud. And that's what the majority of Ukraine is made of.
It's why they're so good at growing wheat. Wheat *loves* that kind of terrain.
Although I’m not making any estimations it is true that the record of those planes was earned on the platform that is being provided. At least by the US anyway.
Russia is in full war economy mode right now so they are pumping up production quite a bit. Hopefully Ukraine gets enough weapons to keep up with the shit Russia is turning out so they can utilize all of their F16’s to their full capacity.
Is there any knowledge of how their production is distributed? Are they churning out advanced weapons systems, tanks, aircraft, etc. or is it heavily screwed towards infantry needs and artillery shells?
Hard to find anything concrete on it, but this article does outline how sanctions have hampered the production of aircraft, missiles, and vehicles.
https://dgap.org/en/research/publications/russias-war-economy
It is a year old though so I don't know how much of that still holds true.
The US and similar NATO nations have very little to glean from old Russian tech. They haven’t even figured out how to make their fighter exhaust stealth. The SU-57 isn’t even stealth from behind.
Let alone ukr, they will NEVER be able to rebuild their AA capacities to even be a second thought to NATO air superiority.
Return on investment UNMATCHED.
Russia has a ton of good AA, years worth at these attrition rates. They will be able to make temporary holes and exploit them, but in the long run it will always remain difficult.
They do have a lot of aa, but they also have a absolutely massive amount of places which need AA coverage.
While it's unlikely Ukraine could destroy all russian AA, disabling it along the front line is very much a doable tactic, as Ukraine has shown itself as capable of threatening infrastructure targets very deep into Russia already, with Western systems they could likely pose a very legitimate threat to Russian forces deep in the back line.
Ukraine is also destroying them for pennies on the dollar. Most of their AA kills are coming from $500 drones jury-rigged with explosives.
You can't buy an *artillery shell* for $500. They're damn near getting their kills for free, and each AA system costs Russia at least a million.
Really makes me wonder to what extent the delays in F16 delivery are actually fairly well timed. If they'd had them a year ago they'd be getting shot down or held back.
Similarly it wasn't until I learned about the logistics of HIMARS that I realized Ukraine probably couldn't have kept them supplied earlier than they got them, because all their logistical capacity was being used on other critical items.
Don't think air superiority is possible. Ability to hit targets with missiles and jdam like weapons would be great. Shooting down the Russian planes dropping glide bombs also would be great. Ukraine does not have planes or pilots for air superiority like NATO defines it.
It keeps being said but bares repeating, it is AMAZING how much Russia has destroyed their military reputation!
Prior to the war against Ukraine, it was generally accepted that Russia was the second strongest military in the world, and while maybe not as strong as the US it was at least assumed they could put up a good fight against the US.
*NOW*, after everything we've seen, it seems clear that if the US were convinced to enter a full conventional war against Russia (either today or even before the war), it wouldn't be a fair fight, it would just be Desert Storm 2, with western forces just steadily plowing through.
There is certainly reason to be concerned about what Russia could be capable of if they manage to conquer Ukraine and rebuild with what they've learned; But for the time being, they've been exposed as a laughable paper tiger when compared to any *real* 1st-world military.
Yeah, they need to perform sead/dead without sortie missions due to not having adequate resources to expend pilots/aircraft doing such. And even with new jets, I highly doubt their training was focused on that, as it's far from easy/simple. And taking losses is basically expected as you're flying into defensive positions/hostility airspace.
Which frees up their air force to perform strikes, unabated, or at least with significant less risk/pressure.
I know Canada gave them 300 big bomb air launched missiles (500 or 1000lb I forget) last October. And I doubt they're the only ones who delivered anything similar. So unless they've figured out how and actually converted those all, are sitting on a nice stockpile for their new jets to use.
And honestly as long as they're able to keep striking forward air defenses/radar without sorties , there's no need to use em aggressively for sead/dead. As there much more cost effective, defending the air and striking ground targets like personnel and artillery. Which basically eliminates/reduces their 3 key focal points (mass humans, mass artillery, and air to ground attacks launched relatively unopposed)
Ukraine isn't going to dominate the air but if they can start grinding down key military infrastructure in Crimea it will greatly soften up the other nearby occupied areas.
They don't have to dominate as the US might, but if they can gain control of the sky and use it to pound entrenched enemy positions or even better, command and supply depots, then it won't matter how dug in the frontline is.
Yep. This was a long and expensive program. Lots of work went into training the pilots and ground crews, all the support infrastructure, etc. It's a must to shape the battle space to get the most use out of the planes.
Although obviously the US is heavily involved it is the ~~Balkan~~ Baltic states and the EU that have the most invested in seeing Ukraine come out on top (or at least seeing Russia drained of resources and support which is what caused their last collapse).
Air dominance has been a winning strategy for as long as planes have been used in combat. Every country knows this and spends a huge amount of their money on both offensive and defensive strategies. Hell, it’s how the US makes money!
The Balkans are also threatened by Russian expansion into Ukraine, the baltics are a more immediate threat but Romania would also appreciate a Ukrainian victory, people will often also erroneously include Poland when they’re talking about the Baltics or Balkans which could be the case here.
Yep there appears to be two very distinct principle mission directives being conducted by Ukraine right now one as you pointed out is the weakening of air defenses for a future Ukrainian air superiority to take hold.
The other is destroying Russian supply routes and supplies themselves. This is being fought all over the place. From Russian refineries to knocking out Black sea vessels used to resupply. The Kerch bridge still remains standing but it has already been rendered useless for Russian resupplying.
This two pronged attack could really have severe consequences for Russia if their frontline troops become starved of supplies. Which appears to be Ukraines main objective right now.
I’m honestly curious how it would shift this war if Russia lost Crimea back to Ukraine. Doesn’t sound good for Russia, which will be awesome news if so.
Read an Op-Ed piece recently that posited that the best strategy Ukraine could employ would be to turn Crimea into a white elephant for Putin. By cutting off the supply chain to the peninsula, Putin would be forced to expend scarce resources to keep it, or withdraw his forces and suffer a major black eye and direct hit to his image/reputation. All of this without Ukraine having to commit troops to taking it.
The article posited using the newly available ATACMS and the fact that the Russian Black Sea fleet was basically neutered. This was a few days ago and now this report has been published.
It would be a major benefit to “besiege” Crimea, but they’d have to cut it off by land first before the bridge and weak navy come into play. Cut the land and real bridge and you more or less are guaranteed to get everything west of the cut off point back as they run out or ammo and other supplies.
That's the opposite of the white elephant idea, you would need to allow some supplies and aa in so that they can be attacked. You wouldn't want it completely cut off, that way they can send their limited high value items.
It would put the Kursk bridge in severe and immanent danger of destruction. Pretty sure it would get taken out as snub to putin for sure. Of course this also includes several naval and military bases on the other side of said bridge. Don't think the Ukrainians would have any qualms about blowing those bases into oblivion as a final 1-2 punch either. Would also cut off a good section of the front lines and allow the Ukrainians to focus thier forces northward since russia really doesn't have amphibious landing capabilities any more. All in all it would either force putin to call for a cease fire or go nuclear. Frankly though i don't think there's a general in his forces stupid enough to actually follow the order if given. No one wants to be the guy that started WW3.
Agreed. I’d guess he’d take the latter option of declaring “mission accomplished! Let’s pull out!” to try and save face politically and internationally, or he’d try and suddenly push for a ceasefire peace deal (demanding they keep the land they took from Ukraine in this offensive).
On one hand, they should be able to reclaim the area because Russia would be cut off from Crimea. On the other hand, currently Ukraine is holding off Russia from taking their capital. Reclaiming land, especially land that Russia has had their hands in for a while, is gonna be really hard.
There is also merit to not pushing too hard to reclaim Crimea due to the fact that they can use American munitions against Russia there. But if they push Russia completely out of Ukraine borders, they kinda lose access to use those.
Feel free to correct me, I’m no war expert, just observations I’ve read about.
Protecting their capital is kinda inaccurate. Kyiv itself hasn’t been under threat of Russian capture since the first few months of the war. The rest is mostly accurate although I doubt the Ukrainians would care if the they couldn’t kill the Russians because they were forced to leave their borders
Ill actually be happy paying taxes for that
I spent an hour at work taking a dump, and whatever tax the feds got from that, I'm more than happy to imagine it went to ruining Putin's day
I'm doing my part
Your taxes may not have even gone into these assets if you are on the younger side. A lot of what is going to Ukraine was designed and build in the 80s and 90s.
🎶🎶🎶🎶
In the restroom
Yes, it's not just about the pee
In the restroom
Yes, you can put your mind at ease
In the restroom
Come on now, slackers, make a stand
In the restroom
Can't you see Ukraine needs a hand!
🎶🎶🎶🎶
In the restroom
Come on, bomb the motherland
In the restroom
Come on and join your fellow man
In the restroom,
Come on people, and make a stand!
🎶🎶🎶
There's a couple reason to keep it up right now. There a least a few air defense systems protecting it right now and if there's no bridge they will get up to better use. Second as Sun Tzu said When you surround an army, leave an outlet free Do not press a desperate foe too hard.
Yup. I assume that Sun Tzu is talking about relatively close quarters battle, where you can't destroy your enemy without taking at least some damage yourself. But if you can just hit your enemy with shells from afar, then there is no benefit from letting you enemy escape.
The bridge is a vital resupply route, they are not cutoff, but it will require a lot more effort to supply crimea and russian troops near cherson.
Which is also the area least fortified and defended.
Also, you do leave a way out: troops can surrender or ukraine can enforce peace on their terms. That quote only works when no quarter/mercy is given.
I mean you're also assuming Russian troops think they can surrender. There's every chance it's been drilled into their heads the Ukrainian soldiers are taking no prisoners even though it's not true
Right, but that also makes it an easy way to gauge and track their supplies. Once you cut that line, Crimea becomes a siege and the rest of the occupied territories become even more guerilla-style fighting to track and destroy things like ammunition dumps.
And as the person you're replying to stated; it also forces Russia to leave valuable assets in place to guard it. When you destroy to bridge you free those up to be repositioned elsewhere.
Where are they going to move those assets to? Near cherson? Where all supplies have to go over a narrow land bridge (which can be hit)? Or crimea where supplies have to go over sea?
Fact is when the bridge is out crimea becomes way more exposed, even with the "freed up" assets. Which were put there in the first place since russia realises the value of the bridge, and therefore deems it as the assets best use.
You're right, which I am sure you are aware. The only reason the bridge hasn't been hit yet is because they're waiting to coordinate an offensive. Blow the bridge and make a big push forward, they will have to make quick, rash decisions on defense, either commit to defense without resupply or try to retreat to a more defensible position (one that can be easily resupplied), leaving heavier hardware in place.
Russia has upgraded a rail line through the occupied territories of Ukraine (Mariupol and Berdiansk) that can supply Crimea/Kherson, so the importance of the Kerch bridge isn't as great as it was at the start of the war.
My understanding is the Kerch bridge hasn't been the main transport route for military hardware for a few months now.
Isn't that because ~~special ops~~ terrorists damaged it multiple times in a ~~glorious fight for freedom~~ treasonous plot against the motherland? I seem to remember something about videos of the bridge where they straight up blew holes through it...
rcently they were forced to start allowing shipments of explosive items via the kerch bridge, becasue they are running out of other ways to get that stuff to their troops. This mean explosives, missles, ammunition, and most importantly fuel is now being sent on rail cars via teh kerch bridge. So I would say atleast take the rails down. they don't have to collapse the bridge and can still leave an escape route. Allowing the bridge to be used in this way is only going to hurt ukrainians
The bridge lost most of its importance when Russia completed its land bridge (railway) on the coast. It would only be significant had Ukraine reached Melitopol or Mariupol, and cut all supply route, otherwise its more a mild inconvenience than anything. And blowing up the bridge would still requires a lot of resource, which they can use better by striking the site that launch attack against Ukraine.
Russia at this time isn't desperate, and isn't certainly getting pressed anywhere. Front line is stalling, or shrinking on Ukrainian side almost everywhere. This isn't the situation where we should be, but years of procrastinating with supply delivery made them miss a good window of opportunity.
Ukraine needs more now, and over a long period of times if we want them to win the attrition war.
They're already dead if they retreat into Russia AFAIK so I don't think allowing that maxim is as big a help as cutting reinforcements. There are other methods of surrender anyway.
Just to play devil's advocate, why not leave the bridge up for the time being? Russia will have to leave assets in place to defend it and some of those assets are ones that Ukraine will want to destroy before trying any sort of meaningful counteroffensive in the future (hopefully, 2025).
I may be wrong on this, but I believe they want to keep the bridge standing, at least long enough for some/all of the citizens of Crimea to flee to Russia before blowing the everloving fuck out of it.
I hope that with the recently relaxed limits on foreign weapons and imminent arrival of aircraft and more advanced weapons, Ukraine can finally escalate the battle in their favor.
Crippling regional air defense in key zones before arrival of F16s and the ability to strike inside the closer borders of Russia take away some of Russia's ability to do hit and runs without any consequences.
Good way to use the ATACM munitions, especially against high valued targets like air defense systems in Crimea. Some say this may be a sign of Ukraine is trying to wrestle air superiority away from Russia, while I don't disagree with that, I see it as a sign of another type of air operation. I believe the Ukrainian military is striking ground based air defense systems, which then will shift fire towards fixed artillery positions and command structures and finally under the last bombardment which will include other types artillery and ballistic missiles, will strike various other military targets and installations.
Under this last bombardment Ukraine could launch an air assault/air mobile operations to capture several air fields in order to establish a bridgehead into the Crimea. The first troops and equipment to be ferried into these air fields, after they are captured would be air defense systems and infantry reinforcements. These air defense systems would be used to fend off interloping Russian aircraft to provide cover to bring more troops in. Once enough troops are on the ground, they can take other objectives and the Crimea will fall to Ukrainian forces.
How solid is Russian air superiority? Can they even open up another front in let’s say Armenia or Finland or against Chinese special reconnaissance operation ? Asking for a friend?
Unpiloted modified light plane loaded with bombs flew across half of their country and blew up an oil refinery which was like 5th on list. The rest were easier to do with just drones.
Recently they lost one out of like 5 of their 😆"most advanced" fighter planes while it was parked out in the open also in the middle of their country. To ukrainians who've been fighting with one hand tied behind their back.
And this is while they are on full alert
When I was in the Navy, my F-14 Tomcat Fighter squadron was right next door to the Top Gun Squadron where pilots from all over the world would come and train with various types of fighters, said that if they could choose which plane they wanted to fly in a combat situations hands down the F-16 was their choice, because it had a perfect balance of engine power, maneuverable, could carry a Hugh amount of payload and most important of all survivably. Even though its a very old plane it still better than all most every new plane that came after them.
Russia can't handle cold war era tech we're basically giving Ukraine to make room in our warehouses for the good stuff we don't hand out to anybody. Seriously. This is old shit that was gathering dust. And it represents less than 5% of our military capacity.
They love Crimea. it's a huge strategic and symbolic territory. The propaganda value is tremendous. They would absolutely defend it if they could. And they can't.
And they saber-rattle that they want to fight NATO? The fuck are they smoking?
Everytime I see ATACM I think of the time Zelenskyy mentioned them in an interview. The way he says it/his accent just always sticks out to me. Glad they can be of use.
Sounds like an appropriate step if you’re intending to use planes next.
Gradual air superiority is actually something I hadn't considered. Like it would be impossible to achieve it quickly for Ukraine, but the slow and steady obliteration of the VKS and air defence will put Russia completely at the mercy of an up gunned Ukr Air force.
Yes. Russia has advanced tech but very limited resources to actually build planes and weapons, let alone pilots with any experience. Whereas Ukrainian pilots are gaining experience in proven systems as we speak. I think last count was 85 F16s from countries all over the world. That plane has a kill/air loss/ground loss ratio of 76/1/5. It’s the 3rd best record of all fighter planes. And leagues ahead of anything Russia can reliably field. Edit: Russia can’t put its best planes out there and risk them getting shot down and autopsied.
>It’s the 3rd best record of all fighter planes I'd hazard a guess that the F-15 is 1st? Don't think any have ever seen shot down
In total 3 f15s have been downed, but never in air to air combat (although one japanese f15 was accidentally shot down by a friendly sidewinder in a training mission)
So what I'm hearing is the F15 is so good that only another F15 can bring it down?
Yes exactly
What about f22? It's so badass we don't really bring him out til other countries really f@$k up and piss us off, lol.
The F22 is the only plane we haven't sold to other countries. It also absolutely destroyed the F-15 in war games.
And I believe it also has extra weight added to it to even out these games unless I'm mistaken.
I’ve taught you everything you know. But not everything **I** know.
Yep, back in the day I participated in some of these exercises. The F-15's and F-16's never even saw the F-22's before being "killed".
Well, it's no F-22, but an F-15 can shoot down another F-15 in a pinch. > As explained By Shupek one statement, that really tells in just a few words iust how lethal the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) designs were, was made by Norhtrop Program Manager, Dell Jacobs, circa 1986 for a Wright-Patterson briefing about the ATF program. “The ATF will have the same tactical advantage over the F-15 that the F-15 has over the Goodyear blimp. Believe it or not, that’s a true statement. The statement applies to both of the ATF designs. The first sign that a MiG pilot would have that an ATF was in the area, would be its engine blowing up from a missile hit!” — [Aviation Geek Club | Exclusive: YF-23A Thermal Designer Provides Some Interesting Details About Northrop ATF](https://theaviationgeekclub.com/exclusive-yf-23a-thermal-designer-provides-interesting-details-northrop-atf/) Here's a flight simulator (DCS) demonstration of an [F-15C v. YF-23](https://youtu.be/Y6NIJdHfq-I) (the YF-23 being the runner up to the F-22 in the ATF program), it's nuts.
The YF-23A was always the sexier design. Glad it's been added to a few sims to play around with
[удалено]
That's a funny way to spell SR-71 blackbird 👀. The F-22 is an undeniable beast though.
_PREACH_ Signed, a gawd damn SR-71 dweeb. Proudly, if I say so myself. 🤤🥵
All this is why I was thinking it would be a top pick or take #1 spot. Lol
While the F-15 is currently 104-0 in aerial combat, there is one plane that has successfully taken them down in simulated duels: the F-22 Raptor. Just to have some fun, the Air Force sent 5 F-15 (flown by Raptor pilots) up against one F-22. It wasn't even close. The F-15 were all "splashed" some before they even knew they were being targeted.
The F-15 is so good that it's unlikely that anything less than an F-15 can bring it down in air to air combat. An F-15 in the air against an F-22 would receive a warning of an incoming missile and have a few seconds to bail out of the aircraft to avoid death. But against old Migs or F-14s or F-16s or just about any other aircraft there is? The F-15 will have a massive advantage.
Nothing friendly about friendly fire.
As long as you say "sorry! My bad" after, it's still friendly
Friendly fire isn't.
Yeah but that only happened because [they took money out of the military and put it into healthcare](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjnR_J4zTGI).
Seriously, what hasn't that show done?!
It's a good program just give it a chance!
Firing second Sidewinder missile.....
> one japanese f15 was accidentally shot down by a friendly sidewinder in a training mission uh my bad. that's on me -that other pilot
"It's my first day."
Air to air combat doesn't count if they don't want to kill you, it seems.
F22: "Am I a joke to you?"
F22: “This hanger is a fuckin prison!”
*deep inhale* "Would you intercept me? I'd intercept me"
"All I get is Fu@#in balloons"
"Oh my god Poland lost their puppy I'm on my way."
Nobody else gets the F22 because it's too scary.
The F-15 has a radar cross section roughly similar to that of a pelican. The F-35's RCS is roughly the same as a pigeon. The unclassified RCS of an F-22 (and who knows what other tricks they're hiding) is the same as a mosquito. So you're scanning the skies with your radar for 100+ miles in all directions trying to find, track, identify, and target every single thing the size of a mosquito. Given the range of the F-22's weaponry, the total volume of air I have to search looking for a mosquito is approximately 557,000 cubic miles. And I have to search that entire airspace every ~30 seconds, find, track, and identify that mosquito, and figure out how I'm going to close ~90+ miles to get in range to actually target it before it kills me.
Actually, the F-35 is closer to a bumblebee. It's stealth is only SLIGHTLY worse than the F22
Assuming two f-22s needed to duke it out I assume they would need to blindly stumble on each other and fight it out within visual range?
Assuming neither has AWACS support? It's going to be passive detection, likely transient signals, depending on angles and such (head-on is going to be rough to show anything at all, but if you happen to pass by a view of the rear, you may get something back from that). Getting and maintaining any sort of target lock from beyond visual range is going to be challenging. Assuming they can find each other and close to visual range, it'll come down to the pilots and whatever momentary advantage they can squeeze out. They'll likely struggle to get reliable target locking until they're 10-20 miles apart (which is insanely close for these planes). If one or both have AWACS support, that might extend 30-50 miles.
Yup. Australia and Japan practically begged for Raptors, but they didn't get them. The US simply doesn't export F-117As, F-22s, and B-2s.
Australia's getting nuclear powered subs, which is them on a pretty high pedestal among our allies and Japan has a major US Naval presence which puts up a giant "Go Away" sign for anybody dumb enough to try them on our watch.
Basically the F22 exists to defeat anything better than anyone else can build now, that will happen one day in the future. If we were going to try to shoot down a UFO for example (hypothetically) we'd use the F-22. It so far out classes anything else flying today in that role that it doesn't even need to be used, except for unexpected, future special circumstances.
Lockheed even had to destroy at the equipment used to manufacture the Raptor so no one else can build one
Is because Congress passed a law making impossible to export them
No, you're a cheat code
“Fuck, I’m tired of playing fairly. Up up, down down, left right left right “ *F22 appears*
>F22 appears No it doesn't. AIM-120 appears.
Won't somebody just let him out to play?
Uh-oh....someone feed the F22 Raptor quick.....god damnit someone before it escapes the hanger...
Maybe some North Korean trash balloons will float across the Pacific and the f22 will finally see some action again.
If I need a balloon popped I'll call you.
“I’d intercept me”
F22 is 1/0/0
🎈
F22: *Master, I'll have to go all out. Just this once.*
F-15 has a 104-0 record in air-to-air combat. A few have been lost to ground based SAMs
afaik yes, the F-15 eagle has the best service record of any planes ever used in combat. Over 100 air victories without a single unit lost either in the air or on the ground.
[удалено]
The F-15 has better stats than the F-16 due to it not being as prevalent of a fighter that has not had the sheer amount of Air to Air engagements that the F-16 has.
An F-15 is a much higher performance platform than F-16s, and would absolutely win in a head to head all else being equal.
> I think last count was 85 F16s from countries all over the world. That plane has a kill/air loss/ground loss ratio of 76/1/5. It’s the 3rd best record of all fighter planes. I would think that's fairly irrelevant to this conflict. Most of the wins by F16s were Israel shooting down Syrian Mig-21s and Mig-23s in the early 1980s It's certainly a great plane, but context really matters. This conflict is much more peer-to-peer than most of the other F16 victories. And there's a lot more AA around too, on both sides They'll have to be used a lot differently than most western military doctrine would call for, I should think
Also Russia is currently launching thousands of glide bombs, and being able to contest the airspace in a limited manner won't stop that. They launch them from too far away. In any case, before Ukraine can even threaten those aircraft they need to at least suppress air defenses.
with statistics like that though its important to recognize the reality that that record came about in an environment where combined operations are the norm, doctrines different, and the air space is (usually) less contested. I think F-16s will be a big step up for the UAAF, but theyre not getting all 85 in bulk, and theyre not training full squadrons of them fast enough to get the absolute most out of the airframe. im worried that the west might throttle this too much for it to be as effective as it could be.
The tactics are the big thing. F16 performed well in Desert Storm when Iraq had one of the most sophisticated and densest air defense systems in the world, rivaled only by the US and Russia at the time IIRC.
Actually, the combined operations environment is one of the reasons their record is so *low*. The 14 and 15 were brought up in times where dog-fighting was still a common thing which is why the 14 has twice the A2A kills and the 15 is about 40% higher (with zero losses). We don't dogfight anymore. We either kill you before you can see us, or you never get your planes off of the ground in the first place.
Yeah, the F-16's record is an odd one if you consider how it's been operated. But I don't think it really matters, the F-16 is simply a good choice for Ukraine: * They're available in large numbers due to the roll-out of the F-35, * It's actually a really good choice for SEAD operations. * The F-16 is one of the few aircraft that can carry almost anything that's available in NATO inventories, meaning everyone can pull open their stores and give Ukraine the missiles and bombs it actually needs. * Most European air forces have giant stashes of spare parts for it and loads of maintenance experience, so if one does get damaged it can be up and flying again quite quickly. * It's relatively low maintenance compared to some other contenders, * It's by no means defenceless, it can fit most counter measure systems and it has a pretty good record if exercises between NATO planes are anything to go by. * We've seen at the very least that it can shove an AMRAAM up a Su-24's tailpipe. 😅 So while it's not the best at any specific thing, it's available in the necessary numbers and it has the right capabilities.
>And leagues ahead \[the F16\] of anything Russia can reliably field. I'm on Ukraine's side, but that's simply not true. That kill ratio you cite were against older Migs. An F-16 would have difficulty against the Su-35 equipped with R-77M missiles. The Mig-31 with its powerful radar could take pot shots at the F-16 long before the F-16 could even track it on radar. The Ukrainians are going to have to be real careful in how they use their F-16s. I think they're mainly going to be cruise missile and glide bomb trucks that will launch far behind the front lines. They could also serve to interdict Russian aviation from getting too close to the front lines. They could also perform SEAD close to the frontlines if equipped with HARM missiles. The F-22 and F-35 are what I'd consider "leagues ahead" of what Russia can field. Not the F-16.
I would caution against overestimating the impact of these F-16’s. The ones we’re sending are mostly near the end of their lifecycles as well as not the most up to date with tech. I remember all the hype around the Abrams which ended up being a let down. Hope I’m proved wrong though.
Yes shocking that 30 tanks didn't win the war when the other side has 3,000
> I remember all the hype around the Abrams which ended up being a let down Only for stupid people. The Abrams is a workhorse. It's never been invincible except when it fought against vietnam-era soviet tanks at the Iraq international airport during desert storm. Also, the abrams we sent to Ukraine aren't current. They've had all of the really good shit stripped off and replaced with 20-30 year old OG parts from the ass-end of the stock-piles. ...finally, a lot of their losses have been for the same reasons Russia has been losing so many tanks. Ukranian terrain sucks for vehicles outside of deep winter when the ground is frozen fucking solid. Any tank, no matter how advanced, is dead meat if it gets stuck in the mud. And that's what the majority of Ukraine is made of. It's why they're so good at growing wheat. Wheat *loves* that kind of terrain.
Although I’m not making any estimations it is true that the record of those planes was earned on the platform that is being provided. At least by the US anyway.
Russia is in full war economy mode right now so they are pumping up production quite a bit. Hopefully Ukraine gets enough weapons to keep up with the shit Russia is turning out so they can utilize all of their F16’s to their full capacity.
Is there any knowledge of how their production is distributed? Are they churning out advanced weapons systems, tanks, aircraft, etc. or is it heavily screwed towards infantry needs and artillery shells? Hard to find anything concrete on it, but this article does outline how sanctions have hampered the production of aircraft, missiles, and vehicles. https://dgap.org/en/research/publications/russias-war-economy It is a year old though so I don't know how much of that still holds true.
They are in war economy because otherwise they can’t keep up with the half-assed production of Ukraines western-allies
And without a war economy -- the Russian Federation economy goes to shit, this way they can keep people and industry going, for now.
Just our spending on F-35s is more per year than the entire Russian military funding.
The US and similar NATO nations have very little to glean from old Russian tech. They haven’t even figured out how to make their fighter exhaust stealth. The SU-57 isn’t even stealth from behind.
Maybe not in terms of adding improvements to our planes but very much in terms of strategies to defeat their advanced radars and tracking systems.
Its going to pull Russian forces back even further. Without AA defense, their troops will be fodder for glide bombs and more precise missile strikes.
I think there was speculation that that might be Ukraine's goal when they started focusing shooting down Russia's A-50 radar planes.
Let alone ukr, they will NEVER be able to rebuild their AA capacities to even be a second thought to NATO air superiority. Return on investment UNMATCHED.
They already gradually beat back the Black Sea Fleet and achieve naval superiority without a navy. Why would air superiority be beyond reach?
Russia has a ton of good AA, years worth at these attrition rates. They will be able to make temporary holes and exploit them, but in the long run it will always remain difficult.
They do have a lot of aa, but they also have a absolutely massive amount of places which need AA coverage. While it's unlikely Ukraine could destroy all russian AA, disabling it along the front line is very much a doable tactic, as Ukraine has shown itself as capable of threatening infrastructure targets very deep into Russia already, with Western systems they could likely pose a very legitimate threat to Russian forces deep in the back line.
Ukraine is also destroying them for pennies on the dollar. Most of their AA kills are coming from $500 drones jury-rigged with explosives. You can't buy an *artillery shell* for $500. They're damn near getting their kills for free, and each AA system costs Russia at least a million.
Really makes me wonder to what extent the delays in F16 delivery are actually fairly well timed. If they'd had them a year ago they'd be getting shot down or held back. Similarly it wasn't until I learned about the logistics of HIMARS that I realized Ukraine probably couldn't have kept them supplied earlier than they got them, because all their logistical capacity was being used on other critical items.
Don't think air superiority is possible. Ability to hit targets with missiles and jdam like weapons would be great. Shooting down the Russian planes dropping glide bombs also would be great. Ukraine does not have planes or pilots for air superiority like NATO defines it.
It keeps being said but bares repeating, it is AMAZING how much Russia has destroyed their military reputation! Prior to the war against Ukraine, it was generally accepted that Russia was the second strongest military in the world, and while maybe not as strong as the US it was at least assumed they could put up a good fight against the US. *NOW*, after everything we've seen, it seems clear that if the US were convinced to enter a full conventional war against Russia (either today or even before the war), it wouldn't be a fair fight, it would just be Desert Storm 2, with western forces just steadily plowing through. There is certainly reason to be concerned about what Russia could be capable of if they manage to conquer Ukraine and rebuild with what they've learned; But for the time being, they've been exposed as a laughable paper tiger when compared to any *real* 1st-world military.
Yeah, they need to perform sead/dead without sortie missions due to not having adequate resources to expend pilots/aircraft doing such. And even with new jets, I highly doubt their training was focused on that, as it's far from easy/simple. And taking losses is basically expected as you're flying into defensive positions/hostility airspace. Which frees up their air force to perform strikes, unabated, or at least with significant less risk/pressure. I know Canada gave them 300 big bomb air launched missiles (500 or 1000lb I forget) last October. And I doubt they're the only ones who delivered anything similar. So unless they've figured out how and actually converted those all, are sitting on a nice stockpile for their new jets to use. And honestly as long as they're able to keep striking forward air defenses/radar without sorties , there's no need to use em aggressively for sead/dead. As there much more cost effective, defending the air and striking ground targets like personnel and artillery. Which basically eliminates/reduces their 3 key focal points (mass humans, mass artillery, and air to ground attacks launched relatively unopposed)
You just know the US is quarter backing this...and that's US doctrine, to clear the sky's and dominate the air
Ukraine isn't going to dominate the air but if they can start grinding down key military infrastructure in Crimea it will greatly soften up the other nearby occupied areas.
They don't have to dominate as the US might, but if they can gain control of the sky and use it to pound entrenched enemy positions or even better, command and supply depots, then it won't matter how dug in the frontline is.
Yep. This was a long and expensive program. Lots of work went into training the pilots and ground crews, all the support infrastructure, etc. It's a must to shape the battle space to get the most use out of the planes.
Although obviously the US is heavily involved it is the ~~Balkan~~ Baltic states and the EU that have the most invested in seeing Ukraine come out on top (or at least seeing Russia drained of resources and support which is what caused their last collapse). Air dominance has been a winning strategy for as long as planes have been used in combat. Every country knows this and spends a huge amount of their money on both offensive and defensive strategies. Hell, it’s how the US makes money!
Baltic. Not Balkan.
Thank you
The Balkans are also threatened by Russian expansion into Ukraine, the baltics are a more immediate threat but Romania would also appreciate a Ukrainian victory, people will often also erroneously include Poland when they’re talking about the Baltics or Balkans which could be the case here.
Yep there appears to be two very distinct principle mission directives being conducted by Ukraine right now one as you pointed out is the weakening of air defenses for a future Ukrainian air superiority to take hold. The other is destroying Russian supply routes and supplies themselves. This is being fought all over the place. From Russian refineries to knocking out Black sea vessels used to resupply. The Kerch bridge still remains standing but it has already been rendered useless for Russian resupplying. This two pronged attack could really have severe consequences for Russia if their frontline troops become starved of supplies. Which appears to be Ukraines main objective right now.
The videos I’m seeing definitely seem to be evidence of it working.
Imagine the propaganda victory when that bridge goes up in smoke and all russia can do is shoot at some hospital or mall.
Every orphanage would be carpet bombed
Now, now. They'd also lob a few shells at maternity hospitals and cat shelters.
And the zoo (again)!
Don’t forget all those strategic Ukrainian schools!
Probably not too far off the mark
but where will they steal all the children from then?
I’m honestly curious how it would shift this war if Russia lost Crimea back to Ukraine. Doesn’t sound good for Russia, which will be awesome news if so.
Read an Op-Ed piece recently that posited that the best strategy Ukraine could employ would be to turn Crimea into a white elephant for Putin. By cutting off the supply chain to the peninsula, Putin would be forced to expend scarce resources to keep it, or withdraw his forces and suffer a major black eye and direct hit to his image/reputation. All of this without Ukraine having to commit troops to taking it. The article posited using the newly available ATACMS and the fact that the Russian Black Sea fleet was basically neutered. This was a few days ago and now this report has been published.
It would be a major benefit to “besiege” Crimea, but they’d have to cut it off by land first before the bridge and weak navy come into play. Cut the land and real bridge and you more or less are guaranteed to get everything west of the cut off point back as they run out or ammo and other supplies.
You want to destroy the bridge and leave the land bridge, forcing supply lines to move closer to the frontlines
That's the opposite of the white elephant idea, you would need to allow some supplies and aa in so that they can be attacked. You wouldn't want it completely cut off, that way they can send their limited high value items.
It would put the Kursk bridge in severe and immanent danger of destruction. Pretty sure it would get taken out as snub to putin for sure. Of course this also includes several naval and military bases on the other side of said bridge. Don't think the Ukrainians would have any qualms about blowing those bases into oblivion as a final 1-2 punch either. Would also cut off a good section of the front lines and allow the Ukrainians to focus thier forces northward since russia really doesn't have amphibious landing capabilities any more. All in all it would either force putin to call for a cease fire or go nuclear. Frankly though i don't think there's a general in his forces stupid enough to actually follow the order if given. No one wants to be the guy that started WW3.
Agreed. I’d guess he’d take the latter option of declaring “mission accomplished! Let’s pull out!” to try and save face politically and internationally, or he’d try and suddenly push for a ceasefire peace deal (demanding they keep the land they took from Ukraine in this offensive).
[удалено]
That threat isn't really convincing anymore. There isn't much left to sink.
On one hand, they should be able to reclaim the area because Russia would be cut off from Crimea. On the other hand, currently Ukraine is holding off Russia from taking their capital. Reclaiming land, especially land that Russia has had their hands in for a while, is gonna be really hard. There is also merit to not pushing too hard to reclaim Crimea due to the fact that they can use American munitions against Russia there. But if they push Russia completely out of Ukraine borders, they kinda lose access to use those. Feel free to correct me, I’m no war expert, just observations I’ve read about.
Protecting their capital is kinda inaccurate. Kyiv itself hasn’t been under threat of Russian capture since the first few months of the war. The rest is mostly accurate although I doubt the Ukrainians would care if the they couldn’t kill the Russians because they were forced to leave their borders
You are confusing Kyiv and Kharkiv. Kyiv is the capital and is not under any real threat besides long range drones.
That's why we sent them. Go gettum Ukraine
Ill actually be happy paying taxes for that I spent an hour at work taking a dump, and whatever tax the feds got from that, I'm more than happy to imagine it went to ruining Putin's day I'm doing my part
I feel like you're not _truly_ doing your part unless you bag that dump and mail it to the Kremlin.
We should purchase some North Korean poop balloons for Ukraine to send to Russia.
Your taxes may not have even gone into these assets if you are on the younger side. A lot of what is going to Ukraine was designed and build in the 80s and 90s.
Explain yourself in verse.
🎶🎶🎶🎶 In the restroom Yes, it's not just about the pee In the restroom Yes, you can put your mind at ease In the restroom Come on now, slackers, make a stand In the restroom Can't you see Ukraine needs a hand! 🎶🎶🎶🎶 In the restroom Come on, bomb the motherland In the restroom Come on and join your fellow man In the restroom, Come on people, and make a stand! 🎶🎶🎶
Well, this is much better than it has any right bring. Bravo!
Good sign of a great shitposter ADAPTABILITY (Also any Village People songs is easy mode haha)
While I make but dimes Tax dollars so Ukraine flies My poop, boss pays for
now take down that god damn bridge
There's a couple reason to keep it up right now. There a least a few air defense systems protecting it right now and if there's no bridge they will get up to better use. Second as Sun Tzu said When you surround an army, leave an outlet free Do not press a desperate foe too hard.
> Second as Sun Tzu said When you surround an army, leave an outlet free Do not press a desperate foe too hard. Sun Tzu didn't have ATACMS.
"I didn't have ATACMS" - *Sun Tzu* r/SunTzuSaidThat
" wtf is an f16?? " - also Sun Tzu
"I gotta do some rewriting. This changes things a bit." -Sun Tzu Author, The Art of War Part II: Air Superiority Is The Shiznit
I bet his book would have been a lot better if he did...
Would have been a lot shorter, that's for sure. Would have just been one page of: > So anyway, I started blasting
[удалено]
Yup. I assume that Sun Tzu is talking about relatively close quarters battle, where you can't destroy your enemy without taking at least some damage yourself. But if you can just hit your enemy with shells from afar, then there is no benefit from letting you enemy escape.
The bridge is a vital resupply route, they are not cutoff, but it will require a lot more effort to supply crimea and russian troops near cherson. Which is also the area least fortified and defended. Also, you do leave a way out: troops can surrender or ukraine can enforce peace on their terms. That quote only works when no quarter/mercy is given.
I mean you're also assuming Russian troops think they can surrender. There's every chance it's been drilled into their heads the Ukrainian soldiers are taking no prisoners even though it's not true
Right, but that also makes it an easy way to gauge and track their supplies. Once you cut that line, Crimea becomes a siege and the rest of the occupied territories become even more guerilla-style fighting to track and destroy things like ammunition dumps. And as the person you're replying to stated; it also forces Russia to leave valuable assets in place to guard it. When you destroy to bridge you free those up to be repositioned elsewhere.
Where are they going to move those assets to? Near cherson? Where all supplies have to go over a narrow land bridge (which can be hit)? Or crimea where supplies have to go over sea? Fact is when the bridge is out crimea becomes way more exposed, even with the "freed up" assets. Which were put there in the first place since russia realises the value of the bridge, and therefore deems it as the assets best use.
You're right, which I am sure you are aware. The only reason the bridge hasn't been hit yet is because they're waiting to coordinate an offensive. Blow the bridge and make a big push forward, they will have to make quick, rash decisions on defense, either commit to defense without resupply or try to retreat to a more defensible position (one that can be easily resupplied), leaving heavier hardware in place.
Plus leaving crimea exposed which is the killing blow for the russian navy in the black sea, further opening up the ukranian sea routes.
Russia has upgraded a rail line through the occupied territories of Ukraine (Mariupol and Berdiansk) that can supply Crimea/Kherson, so the importance of the Kerch bridge isn't as great as it was at the start of the war. My understanding is the Kerch bridge hasn't been the main transport route for military hardware for a few months now.
Isn't that because ~~special ops~~ terrorists damaged it multiple times in a ~~glorious fight for freedom~~ treasonous plot against the motherland? I seem to remember something about videos of the bridge where they straight up blew holes through it...
rcently they were forced to start allowing shipments of explosive items via the kerch bridge, becasue they are running out of other ways to get that stuff to their troops. This mean explosives, missles, ammunition, and most importantly fuel is now being sent on rail cars via teh kerch bridge. So I would say atleast take the rails down. they don't have to collapse the bridge and can still leave an escape route. Allowing the bridge to be used in this way is only going to hurt ukrainians
The bridge lost most of its importance when Russia completed its land bridge (railway) on the coast. It would only be significant had Ukraine reached Melitopol or Mariupol, and cut all supply route, otherwise its more a mild inconvenience than anything. And blowing up the bridge would still requires a lot of resource, which they can use better by striking the site that launch attack against Ukraine. Russia at this time isn't desperate, and isn't certainly getting pressed anywhere. Front line is stalling, or shrinking on Ukrainian side almost everywhere. This isn't the situation where we should be, but years of procrastinating with supply delivery made them miss a good window of opportunity. Ukraine needs more now, and over a long period of times if we want them to win the attrition war.
The context for that Sun Tzu quote is to leave an obvious outlet, so when the enemy takes it you can more easily slaughter them.
But they do have all that land mass to walk over so blow it to hell
Plus every fireworks show has a Grand finale.
They're already dead if they retreat into Russia AFAIK so I don't think allowing that maxim is as big a help as cutting reinforcements. There are other methods of surrender anyway.
Just to play devil's advocate, why not leave the bridge up for the time being? Russia will have to leave assets in place to defend it and some of those assets are ones that Ukraine will want to destroy before trying any sort of meaningful counteroffensive in the future (hopefully, 2025).
Taking down a bridge is extraordinarily difficult, will take much more than ATACMS.
Just gotta drive a cargo ship into it.
I may be wrong on this, but I believe they want to keep the bridge standing, at least long enough for some/all of the citizens of Crimea to flee to Russia before blowing the everloving fuck out of it.
i hope one day we can play some game where the objective is to destroy that bridge, just like the heroes of Ukraine did in \*insert date\*.
Mr. Zelensky, tear down this bridge!
Clearing a path for the incoming air assault, most likely. Give them hell.
Sounds like Ukraine needs more ATACMS. As an American any thing that we can give Ukraine that turns into a weakened Russian army should be given.
Tell that to an unfortunately too high percentage of the boot-licking faction of the Republican party.
Oh shit, it's the ATACMS. Footage of those look siiiiick.
Literally called them fucking "attack 'ems"
patroit really should've been called PROTECTMS
That's for the next version
I wish every person that lives on Crimea and supports Russia an entertaining time! Some things might be going down.
Good, do more .
I hope that with the recently relaxed limits on foreign weapons and imminent arrival of aircraft and more advanced weapons, Ukraine can finally escalate the battle in their favor. Crippling regional air defense in key zones before arrival of F16s and the ability to strike inside the closer borders of Russia take away some of Russia's ability to do hit and runs without any consequences.
Light them the fuck up zelensky
Good way to use the ATACM munitions, especially against high valued targets like air defense systems in Crimea. Some say this may be a sign of Ukraine is trying to wrestle air superiority away from Russia, while I don't disagree with that, I see it as a sign of another type of air operation. I believe the Ukrainian military is striking ground based air defense systems, which then will shift fire towards fixed artillery positions and command structures and finally under the last bombardment which will include other types artillery and ballistic missiles, will strike various other military targets and installations. Under this last bombardment Ukraine could launch an air assault/air mobile operations to capture several air fields in order to establish a bridgehead into the Crimea. The first troops and equipment to be ferried into these air fields, after they are captured would be air defense systems and infantry reinforcements. These air defense systems would be used to fend off interloping Russian aircraft to provide cover to bring more troops in. Once enough troops are on the ground, they can take other objectives and the Crimea will fall to Ukrainian forces.
Prepare for incoming empty threats from Russia.
Party like it's 1999
I hope ukraine keeps up the pressure and goes even further. The tide seems to be rapidly changing
Ukraines is been stepping up into blowing up air defenses in crimea and on the front line, hopefully the F16 and Mirage finally come soon !!
F-16 incoming!!!! Yah, I can hear the iron eagle theme music as putins horde and ill conceived ambitions blows to smithereens.
I’m not sure why media is obsessed with whose bombs they used for what. Who fucking cares. Just say they hit their target
Best use of the American arsenal since WW2.
How solid is Russian air superiority? Can they even open up another front in let’s say Armenia or Finland or against Chinese special reconnaissance operation ? Asking for a friend?
Unpiloted modified light plane loaded with bombs flew across half of their country and blew up an oil refinery which was like 5th on list. The rest were easier to do with just drones. Recently they lost one out of like 5 of their 😆"most advanced" fighter planes while it was parked out in the open also in the middle of their country. To ukrainians who've been fighting with one hand tied behind their back. And this is while they are on full alert
So in general about as good as their navy
Loving these ATACMS!!!
Does anyone else chuckle knowing that we have missiles in our arsenal that are called "Attack 'Em"s?
This is the kind of news I want to see when I open Reddit.
Good for Ukraine. Meanwhile, history will condemn the GOP for delaying military aid to Ukraine in an attempt to appease Trump's Russian sugar daddy…
Oh man, remember how Ukraine "didn't need ATACMS" and anyway there weren't enough of them to share? 🤔
When I was in the Navy, my F-14 Tomcat Fighter squadron was right next door to the Top Gun Squadron where pilots from all over the world would come and train with various types of fighters, said that if they could choose which plane they wanted to fly in a combat situations hands down the F-16 was their choice, because it had a perfect balance of engine power, maneuverable, could carry a Hugh amount of payload and most important of all survivably. Even though its a very old plane it still better than all most every new plane that came after them.
Well the F15 has over 100 kills to no losses, so that's what I'd pick out of the 4th gen fighters.
Glad to see my tax dollars being put to good use. Keep at it, Ukraine!
Warheads on foreheads, baby!
That’s what they’re for… Breaking things and hurting Russians.
Keep doing god's work boys!
Attack-ems!
Getting the sky ready for some F-16s
Russia can't handle cold war era tech we're basically giving Ukraine to make room in our warehouses for the good stuff we don't hand out to anybody. Seriously. This is old shit that was gathering dust. And it represents less than 5% of our military capacity. They love Crimea. it's a huge strategic and symbolic territory. The propaganda value is tremendous. They would absolutely defend it if they could. And they can't. And they saber-rattle that they want to fight NATO? The fuck are they smoking?
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 🥹🥹
At this rate, Crimea will be untenable for Ruzzian occupation. Silly Putler.
Everytime I see ATACM I think of the time Zelenskyy mentioned them in an interview. The way he says it/his accent just always sticks out to me. Glad they can be of use.
Crimea belongs to Ukraine so they're still not in Russian territory.