I’m continuously - for days, weeks, and months already - ‘bombarded’ with questions like, ‘why isn’t Ukraine getting F-16s’. Have tried to explain this multiple times, but it seems that wasn’t enough. Thus, let me try it once again. 1.) It’s not economical.
Дуже дорого. А українці дешеві. І земля наша дешева, її можна вибухівкою нашпигувати на 10 метрів вглиб. А найбільш дешево було наїбати українців і забрати ядерну зброю (скільки вона коштувала?) в обмін на голий цинізм.
I'm sorry but you are forgetting one thing. No matter the price it is cheaper than one more year's worth of war. It's cheaper than a Russian victory.
As far as the support needed to effectively operate the aircraft... that's what NATO/US is for. We are providing the intel anyway. The aircraft are already flying sorties everyday anyway. That money is already spent.
You missed this one. You are normally spot on. But you did not weigh the opportunity cost of NOT giving the f16s to Ukraine. Which is significantly LESS than the figures you posted.
Sorry... you might need to edit this post to include "opportunity cost."
I have very little knowledge around this, but have this feeling that armies in Europe like shiny things, and feeling important when they buy planes and ammo for them, and these look good in the news so politicians like these too (unlike artillery ammo that is definitely not sexy) so I have this picture that they overordered everything related to planes, so they have more than they need in th near future. But all of this is based on my knowledge of political decisionmaking and corruption, not about planes themselves, so I admit it can be wrong.
Apr 29, 2023·edited Apr 29, 2023Liked by Sarcastosaurus
They count money all the time, but a miser pays twice. See that your soldiers do not have to fight later. Maniacs will get a taste. It will be even more expensive.
I agree completely when discussing about the current war.
But anyway, if we look at the future (2-5-10 years) it will be mandatory for Ucraine to switch to a 100% Nato compliant weapon systems. From Fighter Jets to guns.
Their current "Soviet" equipment will never be replaced except for something self produced in Ukraine.
Although the points you outlined make a lot of sense, how does it solve the problem you outlined in the previous reports - specifically, the lack of air defence for Ukraine? Because the primary reason Ukraine wants the F-16 is not to use them as a fighter-bomber, but to boost the air defence system.
Especially in spite of the expected counter-offense, Ukraine needs to protect the advancing ground troops. In the meanwhile, as mentioned in your reports for the last 1-2 months, russian air force is getting bolder, because the air defence capacities Ukraine has has been exhausted, and can't cover the entire frontline. Sure, sending more air defence systems could help - but they're not quite cheap and easy to use as well, they often use the same expensive missiles as the fighter jets, and the stocks of these are not dramatically larger than the stocks of F-16 or similar-class jets. And unless the West wants to see the whole packs of tanks, APCs and all the other equipment they're sending being bombed to a ground in a failed counter-offensive, this problem needs to be solved somehow.
So wouldn't it be better to proceed with F-16 then? Even if not used to a 100% of their strengths, they will be much more capable than MiG-29.
Hi Tom.I agree with your arguments but exist one problem. Imagine that West gives a few hundreds more artillery and dozens millions of shells every few month. But does it make sense if Russia has gluided bombs. If they can bomb frontline from napalm and heavy FAB-3000 can artillery change it if will be destroyed by it? F16 needed to keep Russian planes further from frontline, flight close to ground. Maybe, defensive role is main for Ukranian planes, because West can’t get hundreds of planes to reach superiority. In my opinion, dozen of Gripens with meteors can help Ukraine to reduce aviation activity close frontline how mig-31 of Russia miss Ukranian planes. Or meteors can help to hit A-50 or mig-31 in first time due surprise effect. I can be wrong, so I would be glad to read your answer. Thank you
It would be much cheaper for West to either intimidate russia or provide Ukraine with enough weapons to finish the war.
For instance, 1 year ago West would say: "we are going to give Ukraine 1000 tanks and 2000 artillery right now and 1 trillion of other weapons. production has already started". This would show russia they have no chance.
But West does completely opposite: "we will not give Ukraine more weapons then 10 artillery pieces" . So russia always has a chance to win and they continue
West destroyed 2400 ukrainian thermonuclear bombs. And huge amount of other weapons. What kind of weapon do Ukraine most need now?
0. Thermonuclear bombs. IF Ukraine would get 1% of former stock - war will stop immediately. West is a business partner with russian fascists - so this variant impossible.
1. The best possible IF Ukraine would get UAVs like Shakhed, Orlan and Lancets. Orlan is better than any UAV which West gave/sold to Ukraine. Lancet is better than any UAV which West gave/sold to Ukraine. If you not agree - write what better. Orlan and Lancet are cheap and functional. Shahed better the ANY western UAV AT ALL! Cheap, easy production, 1000+ km range, 40+ kg explosive. West is partner to Moscow maniacs - so sent to Ukraine ONLY trash, sometimes even shit UAVs. Switchblade 300 - complete shit. - Ukrainians produce UAVs 5-10 times cheaper and BETTER than Switchblade 300. Not 50 F-16, but 100 000 Shaheds cost the same money. Can we compare result of using 100 000 Shaheds and 50 F-16? (1 engine easily shoot down).
GMLRS needs GPS, which russians easily disturb.
2. Ukraine army needs 20 000 pickups every 3 month, because losses. This is not weapon. Does West have 80 000 pickups? WEst not want win for Ukraine, so only look at PROFITS. West NOT sees profits in delivering pickups to Ukraine, so How many pickups has West sent during 9 years of this war?
3. West delivered as many as 1 Patriot during 9 years. Rus army can eliminate 10-30 Patriot radars/year. Ukraine needs 200+ IRIS, got 1.
4. Dogs bite the stick, which man use to hit the dog. Dog think it smart. Russian army in Ukraine - is the STICK, the hand - is the russian economic and other IN the Moscow empire territory. West and russian fascists are business partners => West banned to hit/damage the hand - in Russia. So ALL this is a well planned genocide of ukrainians. West gave 2.4 trillions $ to Moscow during this war, and provided russian military and other industries with ALL they need. Do it hard to burn oil refinery in Russia? Without refineries war will stop shortly. Burn ALL refineries in Russia not difficult, but West strongly BANNED such activity. War ONLY on Ukraine territory and casualties and economic disaster. West has shares in Rosneft Lukoil and so on. In Sberbank - totally western investments in Russia 600+ billions $. And burning oil refineries - not good for western pockets.
More ukrainians will be killed => more millions children and girls rut to West - they are the most precious what exist in this World. So West has huge profits in ukrainian genocide. West sold ukrainians tears and blood to russian fascists during 9 years. The SAME for sirians or chechens or Georgia or Moldova.
China can produce 1 million Shaheds, range 1000+ km. And ALL Great american weapone in Taiwan will become the piles of shit. IF 1 mil not enough, China can produse 10 millions Shaheds. WHY do West not give weapon against Shaheds to Ukraine?
Дуже дорого. А українці дешеві. І земля наша дешева, її можна вибухівкою нашпигувати на 10 метрів вглиб. А найбільш дешево було наїбати українців і забрати ядерну зброю (скільки вона коштувала?) в обмін на голий цинізм.
I'm sorry but you are forgetting one thing. No matter the price it is cheaper than one more year's worth of war. It's cheaper than a Russian victory.
As far as the support needed to effectively operate the aircraft... that's what NATO/US is for. We are providing the intel anyway. The aircraft are already flying sorties everyday anyway. That money is already spent.
You missed this one. You are normally spot on. But you did not weigh the opportunity cost of NOT giving the f16s to Ukraine. Which is significantly LESS than the figures you posted.
Sorry... you might need to edit this post to include "opportunity cost."
I have very little knowledge around this, but have this feeling that armies in Europe like shiny things, and feeling important when they buy planes and ammo for them, and these look good in the news so politicians like these too (unlike artillery ammo that is definitely not sexy) so I have this picture that they overordered everything related to planes, so they have more than they need in th near future. But all of this is based on my knowledge of political decisionmaking and corruption, not about planes themselves, so I admit it can be wrong.
They count money all the time, but a miser pays twice. See that your soldiers do not have to fight later. Maniacs will get a taste. It will be even more expensive.
nur NATO über alles.
Ohne NATO - gibts keinen Sieg. Leider.
Das Imperium des Bösen 2.0 muss vernichtet werden.
Je früher, desto -sorry- billiger für die Zivilisation.
Das ist die bittere Wahrheit.
I agree completely when discussing about the current war.
But anyway, if we look at the future (2-5-10 years) it will be mandatory for Ucraine to switch to a 100% Nato compliant weapon systems. From Fighter Jets to guns.
Their current "Soviet" equipment will never be replaced except for something self produced in Ukraine.
Although the points you outlined make a lot of sense, how does it solve the problem you outlined in the previous reports - specifically, the lack of air defence for Ukraine? Because the primary reason Ukraine wants the F-16 is not to use them as a fighter-bomber, but to boost the air defence system.
Especially in spite of the expected counter-offense, Ukraine needs to protect the advancing ground troops. In the meanwhile, as mentioned in your reports for the last 1-2 months, russian air force is getting bolder, because the air defence capacities Ukraine has has been exhausted, and can't cover the entire frontline. Sure, sending more air defence systems could help - but they're not quite cheap and easy to use as well, they often use the same expensive missiles as the fighter jets, and the stocks of these are not dramatically larger than the stocks of F-16 or similar-class jets. And unless the West wants to see the whole packs of tanks, APCs and all the other equipment they're sending being bombed to a ground in a failed counter-offensive, this problem needs to be solved somehow.
So wouldn't it be better to proceed with F-16 then? Even if not used to a 100% of their strengths, they will be much more capable than MiG-29.
Hi Tom.I agree with your arguments but exist one problem. Imagine that West gives a few hundreds more artillery and dozens millions of shells every few month. But does it make sense if Russia has gluided bombs. If they can bomb frontline from napalm and heavy FAB-3000 can artillery change it if will be destroyed by it? F16 needed to keep Russian planes further from frontline, flight close to ground. Maybe, defensive role is main for Ukranian planes, because West can’t get hundreds of planes to reach superiority. In my opinion, dozen of Gripens with meteors can help Ukraine to reduce aviation activity close frontline how mig-31 of Russia miss Ukranian planes. Or meteors can help to hit A-50 or mig-31 in first time due surprise effect. I can be wrong, so I would be glad to read your answer. Thank you
Ukraine has a lot of western weapons. As far as I understand, the problem is with ammo:
artillery, but also Anti-Aircraft, even normal bullets.
How would the West run out of ammo for artillery after 14 month of war?
They could easily provide Ukraine with 10 times more ammo then Russians have.
And anti-aircraft systems which will dominate Russian planes
It would be much cheaper for West to either intimidate russia or provide Ukraine with enough weapons to finish the war.
For instance, 1 year ago West would say: "we are going to give Ukraine 1000 tanks and 2000 artillery right now and 1 trillion of other weapons. production has already started". This would show russia they have no chance.
But West does completely opposite: "we will not give Ukraine more weapons then 10 artillery pieces" . So russia always has a chance to win and they continue
Fragt eigentlich irgendjemand mal einen Analysten wie Sie von den Herren:innen in Berlin, Paris, NY oder Brüssel?
Realism. Nice one. Thanks for that.
West destroyed 2400 ukrainian thermonuclear bombs. And huge amount of other weapons. What kind of weapon do Ukraine most need now?
0. Thermonuclear bombs. IF Ukraine would get 1% of former stock - war will stop immediately. West is a business partner with russian fascists - so this variant impossible.
1. The best possible IF Ukraine would get UAVs like Shakhed, Orlan and Lancets. Orlan is better than any UAV which West gave/sold to Ukraine. Lancet is better than any UAV which West gave/sold to Ukraine. If you not agree - write what better. Orlan and Lancet are cheap and functional. Shahed better the ANY western UAV AT ALL! Cheap, easy production, 1000+ km range, 40+ kg explosive. West is partner to Moscow maniacs - so sent to Ukraine ONLY trash, sometimes even shit UAVs. Switchblade 300 - complete shit. - Ukrainians produce UAVs 5-10 times cheaper and BETTER than Switchblade 300. Not 50 F-16, but 100 000 Shaheds cost the same money. Can we compare result of using 100 000 Shaheds and 50 F-16? (1 engine easily shoot down).
GMLRS needs GPS, which russians easily disturb.
2. Ukraine army needs 20 000 pickups every 3 month, because losses. This is not weapon. Does West have 80 000 pickups? WEst not want win for Ukraine, so only look at PROFITS. West NOT sees profits in delivering pickups to Ukraine, so How many pickups has West sent during 9 years of this war?
3. West delivered as many as 1 Patriot during 9 years. Rus army can eliminate 10-30 Patriot radars/year. Ukraine needs 200+ IRIS, got 1.
4. Dogs bite the stick, which man use to hit the dog. Dog think it smart. Russian army in Ukraine - is the STICK, the hand - is the russian economic and other IN the Moscow empire territory. West and russian fascists are business partners => West banned to hit/damage the hand - in Russia. So ALL this is a well planned genocide of ukrainians. West gave 2.4 trillions $ to Moscow during this war, and provided russian military and other industries with ALL they need. Do it hard to burn oil refinery in Russia? Without refineries war will stop shortly. Burn ALL refineries in Russia not difficult, but West strongly BANNED such activity. War ONLY on Ukraine territory and casualties and economic disaster. West has shares in Rosneft Lukoil and so on. In Sberbank - totally western investments in Russia 600+ billions $. And burning oil refineries - not good for western pockets.
More ukrainians will be killed => more millions children and girls rut to West - they are the most precious what exist in this World. So West has huge profits in ukrainian genocide. West sold ukrainians tears and blood to russian fascists during 9 years. The SAME for sirians or chechens or Georgia or Moldova.
Excellent piece thanks Tom.
One detail is missing - what does that 40 kg 155mm round cost ?
That will enable the complete comparison of the cost to deliver munitions by jet or gun barrel.
China can produce 1 million Shaheds, range 1000+ km. And ALL Great american weapone in Taiwan will become the piles of shit. IF 1 mil not enough, China can produse 10 millions Shaheds. WHY do West not give weapon against Shaheds to Ukraine?
My idea is following:
West gave Ukraine just as little as possible because Ukraine cannot surrender and now is hoocked to fight.
So you can give them as little as you wish, just enough to stay in the fight