Thumpalumpacus
Major
100 F-16s and 100 A-10s. This is doable!
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That's what I mean. At least send a couple to Ukraine's aviation mechanics schools. Get them started.Just four left. But I bet there a hundreds of other suitable strike aircraft in the American desert waiting for renewed life and purpose, like these F-16s below.
View attachment 687834
They provided 500,000 (Swiss Francs) in humanitarian aid - not bad for a nation of about 40,000 people!Is Lichtenstein pulling its weight?
They provided 500,000 (Swiss Francs) in humanitarian aid - not bad for a nation of about 40,000 people!
Just four left. But I bet there a hundreds of other suitable strike aircraft in the American desert waiting for renewed life and purpose, like these F-16s below.
View attachment 687834
I may have been misunderstood. I'm saying send a few complete planes and knock them down for shipment to Ukraine. They can't be flown. No pilots, no ground crews nor related equipment. They will have a couple of F-16s for the mechanics to start poking around with. No fuel, no runways, bowsers required. I forgot about bowsers. Maybe a couple of those? I can't see national security being compromised by not splattering 2 more jets over the dessert.Before you start pointing at AMARC, some things to consider -
Many aircraft placed there (like these F-16s) are high time airframes. In some cases it's more economical to place them in storage rather than keep them operational, or in the end part them out and eventually scrap what's left. If the airframes are high time, it may not be economical (and in some cases dangerous) to try to pull them out of storage and then think you're going to give them "renewed life." Many of these aircraft are slated to be target drones, about the best thing that can be done to them. I worked on the QF-4 program many years ago and used to wonder why seemingly good combat aircraft were being droned until I got to look inside of them and learned what it would take to give them a useful few more years of life.
View attachment 687837 View attachment 687838
They will have a couple of F-16s for the mechanics to start poking around with. No fuel, no runways, bowsers required.
Nothing wrong with that until they have viable airframes to actually deployI may have been misunderstood. I'm saying send a few complete planes and knock them down for shipment to Ukraine. They can't be flown. No pilots, no ground crews nor related equipment. They will have a couple of F-16s for the mechanics to start poking around with. No fuel, no runways, bowsers required. I forgot about bowsers. Maybe a couple of those? I can't see national security being compromised by not splattering 2 more jets over the dessert.
The only funny one was the F-117, because we had no sergeants in 1991 who'd worked a -117 flightline.
Finding the maintenance access panels would have been a bugger...
We were not allowed to do familiarization.
That's a shame, would have been an intriguing aeroplane to work on, I reckon. I've gotten close enough to touch one at an airshow only and the armed guards surrounding it looked a little too menacing to tempt it, although they graciously moved out of the way when we went to take photos!
There are only a couple of those left and they are in museums.We should also unload those B-36s gathering dust.
I meant to mention earlier - the F-16s seen at AMARC are very different from the F-16s being used operationally today, almost like 2 different aircraft.Before you start pointing at AMARC, some things to consider -
Many aircraft placed there (like these F-16s) are high time airframes. In some cases it's more economical to place them in storage rather than keep them operational, or in the end part them out and eventually scrap what's left. If the airframes are high time, it may not be economical (and in some cases dangerous) to try to pull them out of storage and then think you're going to give them "renewed life." Many of these aircraft are slated to be target drones, about the best thing that can be done to them. I worked on the QF-4 program many years ago and used to wonder why seemingly good combat aircraft were being droned until I got to look inside of them and learned what it would take to give them a useful few more years of life.
View attachment 687837 View attachment 687838
Combat seems to be returning to the near static/incremental phase seen before the start of September, albeit with Ukraine now having strategic initative in several geographies.
For all the speculation about offensives in the lead up to Winter, I think that we're going to see this settling in phase for at least a few more weeks, possibly until the end of October. (I'd love to be proved wrong here though).
Ukraine needs to set up proper supply lines into the battles around Lyman, Sivers'k and Kupiansk. In addition, it will want to establish some fall back positions should Russia be able to turn a Ukrainian attack and conduct a counter offensive.
A part of the problem is that Russia's forward artillery positions are able to interdict Ukrainian supply columns moving southeast and east from positions established to support the initial Kharkiv offensive. (Russia also reportedly has the same problem, with units reinforcing positions around Kremenna, Lysychansk and Svatove subject to Ukranian long range artillery).
For Russia, it needs to stem Ukraine's incremental gains west of the Oskil (or risk the main supply line into northeast Ukraine being severed), assembling sufficient forces to look to push back some of the westward advances that threaten control of battlefields further to the south.
It will also look to defeat Ukraine's advances towards Kherson and the northern bank of the Dnipro. There were (Russian) reports of a strong counter-attack on the Ukrainian bridgehead across the Inhulets which may have pushed them back across (who knows though, mil bloggers on both sides get a little enthusiastic when reporting advances). Recent OPSINT reports show heavy losses of Russian artillery systems in this area [circa 16 mobile systems and 5 fixed guns] in the past 48 hours so its not all one way traffic. Ukraine, for its part, seems to be content widening the bridgehead east and west, rather than deepening the penetration.
I don't think that either side is going to be suckered into major shifts in emphasis any time soon.