The F-16s are getting older sidewinder and newer AIM-120 missles. I'm really exited about the latter.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/36931

The AIM-9 Sidewinder heat-seeking missile has an incredible combat history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#Combat

Newer variants are the AIM-9M or newer AIM-9X. I suspect Ukraine is being given the older AIM-9L, still a highly effective missile.

Doubt they'll be allowed and even if they are, they won't be able to be used beyond Ukraine's borders anyway...At least I suppose the benefit would be that the F-16s could lob missiles at Russian positions without getting their planes anywhere close to the frontlines. Could probably just have them fly around Kyiv and lob missiles all the way down to Crimea.

I agree with you Ryu, I doubt they will get JASSM. It is a stealthy cruise missile, it cannot be shot down. But, I don't see the US sharing them with Ukraine, at least not any time soon.

It would be dangerous to send out our best stuff in this war, bc of Russian intelligence. Like I've said previously, they don't need the best they just need good.

New video from Covert Cabal (in collaboration with jumpy), where they count the total amount of armored vehicles Russia has left.

The most important part is this table:

Out of a pre-war total of 22173 armored vehicles, Russia already lost 9669 of them, so almost half.

At first glance, one could think that Russia still has a big stock of vehicles left then... but more than half of what's left is in piss poor condition or actually already used for parts, including most of the tanks and two thirds of the BMP Russia has left.

Since already the first North Korean vehicles have been spotted in the Russian arsenal, how long until we'll see some Ch'onma Ho's or P'okp'ung Ho tanks in Ukraine? With the prospect of much more modern Russian military technology coming to North Korea (the Ch'onmas are still based on the T-62 with a 115mm gun), They certainly gladly get rid of their old vehicles if they can produce newer, much more efficient ones instead down the line. North Korea is also thought to still have over 1000 and possibly up to 1600 T54/55 which they could sell to Russia, as well as up to 1200 BTR-60, which they are slowly replacing with new domestically developed vehicles.

Thanks for posting.  I saw this on my yt feed b4 i came here, and in the video CC mentions that he'll do a similar video on artillery stocks soon.  Could you please post that when he does?  I don't regularly watch CC but the topic caught my eye and I couldn't say no so i might miss that and it's definitely relevant to the regulars in this thread.  

The Russians observed the heated diplomacy regarding ATACMS—and made a rare proactive decision to pull the Su-34s from Voronezh Malshevo and other border airfields. “Between the second half of June and mid-July, Russian forces relocated a lion’s [share] of valuable military assets away from the border area with Ukraine,” Frontelligence Insight noted. The departure of Su-34s from Voronezh Malshevo was among “the most notable movements.”

Today many of the Su-34s are at bases hundreds of miles from the border. They’re not invulnerable to Ukrainian drones—the farthest-flying models range more than 1,000 miles. But they are safe from most Ukrainian drones, as well as from the ATACMS, the most powerful of which range just 190 miles. If the White House ever grants permission for ATACMS raids on Russian bases, it might be too late. The most valuable targets may be too far away.

Ukraine Had A Chance To Blow Up Russia’s Best Warplanes On The Tarmac. The White House Said No—And Now It’s Too Late.

Hasn't the recent strike achieved Ukraine's objective anyway though?
Whilst it certainly would have been beneficial to destroy all the fighter craft, it was a never likely to be achieved in a single strike even using ATACMS and Russia would always have been likely to relocated the jets after the first strike highlighted the vulnerability. Maybe they could have launched a mass attack at all airfields in a single night, but again, that could have been done on the night of the drone strike.
Moving the jets hundreds of miles away restricts their effective range and the number of sorties they can carry out - what was previously touted as a benefit of pressuring the airfields with the missiles. Yes, they can still operate but less effectively. Not to say they couldn't move them back later, but then they're vulnerable to drone strikes again.

The recent strike only destroyed one plane and damaged another.

Issue is that drones are far easier to intercept, far less likely to destroy a plan, they've been multiple drone strikes on Russian airfields that have resulted in no aircraft destroyed using dozens of drones. ATACMS Cluster would have been far more likely to wipe out a bunch of jets before Russia could have moved them back and while Russia being forced to move them back is beneficial to Ukraine in a few ways, it would have been way more preferable if more jets could have been destroyed, now it's too late.

What should have happened is Ukraine, America and allies come to an agreement in private that Ukraine can use missiles on Russia, Ukraine then surprise attacks Russian airfields with ATACMS Cluster + Storm Shadow and then after that Russia is forced to move back their jets. Dozen long-range missiles could have wiped out far more jets than 100+ drones.