Russia and Ukraine flashpoint

[Ryuu96]

Biggerboat1 said:

Ryuu96 said:

Neither side has air superiority really, aside from behind their respective frontlines, F-16's won't change much there.

They won't be a wonder weapon, rather they'll be another good weapon to add to their overall strength.

F'16s are better than what Ukraine currently employs in practically every way, better radars, better anti-jamming, they can intercept missiles from further away which will improve Ukraine's air defences and relieve pressure on ground based air defence, they will be able to detect Russian aircraft at further distances than the current Ukraine jets, Russian jets right now can see Ukrainian jets first and Ukraine could perform missions further away from Russia's frontline air-defence.

Also, F-16's can be more easily integrated with other sophisticated weapon systems that the West has, things easily compatible with the F-16 that, from offensive weaponry to defensive weaponry, right now that's complicated with the current Ukrainian jets, basically have to jerry-rig the Storm Shadows and SCALPs to them.

But Russia is full of anti-air defences, S-400's will still be able to target F-16s and Ukraine will still likely have to operate from time to time at low altitudes because of that which present problems of its own. There's just too much anti-air defence on both sides right now for any major changes in the skies. But F-16s for the long term is good value, it's just an all round better aircraft than what Ukraine currently uses and can easily integrate with other modern Western technology.

Thanks. Wishful thinking on my part that they'd potentially change the momentum of the conflict. I remember shortage of air support, in order to soften Russian artillery positions, being cited as one of the reasons that the most recent counteroffensive hadn't been as effective as hoped...

I also heard recently that the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is now over 40 - how long can their military sustain? At this point I fear Russia may win through sheer numbers. F16s are a small W I suppose, but could really do with a big one at this point. Hopefully Putin chokes on his cornflakes!

That's the thing though, no single weapon is going to change the momentum of the conflict, it will be a combination of weapons which does the job, from the MLRS to Long Range Missiles to Drones to Artillery to Aircraft, etc. Russia managed to blunt Ukraine's counteroffensive last summer because of the minefields, artillery and Russia's own air support (particularly, the Ka-52). I also don't know if it was a smart idea for Ukraine to attack the most heavily fortified position (Tokmak) because every single person expected that move, even Twitter users, I had figured they might pull another Kharkiv surprise but they never did. 

But it's all linked together, the MLRS, the Long-Range Missiles, the Drones, the Artillery, the Aircraft, they all play a vital role and they all need to work in tandem, the better versions of each of these equipment which Ukraine receives, the stronger their overall force becomes. Alongside that, like I said, there's some pretty sophisticated weaponry that the F-16's can be attached to which current Ukrainian jets can't be without ugly jerry rigging solutions and Ukraine being more up to date on NATO standards makes it easier in the long run to transfer them to further upgrades. So the F-16 won't change the war on its own, but it's still a big upgrade over what Ukraine currently uses.

As for Ukraine's average age, I had read that Ukraine's military wants to conscript thousands more troops but in the younger bracket (early 20s) which apparently Zelenskyy doesn't want to do yet, partly because these people are the backbone of Ukraine's economy right now and without them, Ukraine's economy will collapse to absolutely nothing and if Ukraine's economy collapses, they can't pay manufacturers to build weapons, they can't pay soldiers to keep fighting. It's a complicated situation although I don't know how true it is because for the past half a year now we've heard about how Zelenskyy and Zaluzhnyi are fighting and Zelenskyy is going to fire him today, but today never comes.

I don't envy the position Zelenskyy is in, I see the argument about not conscripting younger men, I see the argument about the economy, I understand why Ukraine leadership was pissed off about Zaluzhnyi's article because it made Ukraine's allies nervous as well, but on the flip side, Zaluzhnyi is very popular in Ukraine and seems to have mostly done a good job (aside from maybe Tokmak decision), Budanov has reportedly refused to replace him and Syrskyi has a bit of a Soviet fighting mentality, Zaluzhnyi is more of a NATO thinker and there's still a lot of Soviet-era dudes in Ukraine so it's hard to say who could possibly replace Zaluzhnyi unless it's someone young without that Soviet mentality.

America is reportedly fine with Zelenskyy replacing Zaluzhnyi. I blame the West's slowness partly for the current issues though.

Having said that, if Ukraine can just get through 2024 by staying on the defensive, if Biden wins and Democrats win House, then we'll be back on schedule with tens of billions from America, tens of billions from Europe, guaranteed support for the next 4 years at least and I think things will start looking up but Ukraine will have to get through a rough 2024 first. Don't stubbornly hold onto territory. The Russians themselves are nervous of the tactic of Ukraine just defending, killing Russians and blowing up equipment and then retreating when the ratio becomes unfavourable and repeating that move, at least until America gets its shit together, Russian blogs even are panicking about how much equipment they're losing lately.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 08 February 2024