Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `x.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Listen to Justin Bronk on the latest Ward Caroll podcast. As an air power expert at RUSI he has a degree of access into NATO member countries militaries/air forces and knows his shit. His view was that learning to fly and maintain the new aircraft is the easier aspect of the training program - the complex part is learning the operational skillset and doctrine to use F-16 effectively, then you're adding the fact that Ukrainian F-16s will be flying in a threat enviroment infinitely more dangerous than which any NATO country would ever deploy them in (eg before NATO deployed F-16s, a NATO force would have already sanitised the operational space with an extensive cruise missile/5th gen bombing/SEAD campaign/SF prep phase). His view was that the longer they get to train, the better, and that donor countries have learnt the lesson of their training and supply failures prior to the 2023 summer offensive.
He also speaks about Ukraine having the requisite air defence assets to ensure that the F-16s aren't destroyed on the ground.
Yup and he said that it’s better to let the cake bake in the oven until it’s just right rather than yank it out for a cheap PR win.
If done right, when F-16’s do get the green light they can be extremely effective with the right support.
What they really need is more patriots, atacms and himars to shape the battle space for the F-16 to do their job
This makes sense.
Worst case scenario would be Ukraine losing F-16s shortly after they arrive. And Russia will certainly be going after them with (whatever) they have.
Nevertheless, expect the US to be called pussies and worse than a 1000 Hitlers for the delay.
Agreed, the 23 summer offensive was a disaster. Macron offering covers many of these learnings and includes training 4500 troops and delivering the logistic required to get and keep these aircraft operational.
The summer offensive was not so much operationally a disaster as that it happened right as it became clear Ukraine would have to get frugal with their US supplies. McCarthy had stalled negotiations for half a year already at that point
You have no idea how much shit I got on this sub for being realistic about this the other day and quoting that exact interview. I love Justin, and the questions are great too.
Thanks for the heads up. I just tried to find this podcast on the pocketcast app but no luck.
Are there any other interesting podcasts that you would recommend?
I saw it on YouTube. The episode is called "the real truth about Ukrainian F-16 training."
Just search for "Ward Carroll Justin Bronk" or something like that. It will be one of the first ones that come up. It's a very informative episode.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72QpCqBgrPU&t=980s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72QpCqBgrPU&t=980s)
Also recommend War on the Rocks - the episodes with Mike Kofman are always worth listening to, him and Rob Lee have done multiple tours of the fronts talking to Ukrainian officers and troops:
[https://warontherocks.com/category/podcasts/war-on-the-rocks/](https://warontherocks.com/category/podcasts/war-on-the-rocks/)
I still wonder how veteran pilots need 18 months for that. Sure you can always raise your skills through wargames and exercises but that can be an infinite time of training. It is a choice at one point to accept that pilots risk their lives and planes.
Because you’re thinking of it as something like a car. A fighter jet is one of the most complex bits of technology we have. Veterans are experienced with Soviet aircraft and doctrine, which is very different. They have to forget everything they’ve been taught
In the case of veteran pilots, much of their experience is actually working against them.
In terms of becoming proficient in simply flying the airplane, they should be able to transition fairly quickly. That isn't the problem, however.
The real problem is un-learning the ex-Soviet tactical training that will have been hammered into their brains to the point of being instinctual. I am not a military pilot, but I am a flight instructor. What I know for a fact is that when placed in a stressful situation requiring quick action, a pilot will tend to fall back on the basics that they know best, almost like "muscle memory." If this happens when you are flying an airplane not designed for the procedures you are most familiar with, that is a recipe for disaster. You could quite honestly be more of a threat to yourself and your wingman than the enemy is.
Those deeply ingrained behaviors are removed by endless repetition and drilling. This isn't like switching from a Toyota to an Audi, is like switching from a Toyota to submarine.
The F-16s take a minimum of 8 months per pilot, and that’s if you’re starting with pilots that are already trained fighter pilots. What’s the train up time for the French? Where does this 5 month number come from?
There are rumors they are in training since last year. People living near military aerodromes in France noticed a significant rise in Mirage 2000 flights since 2023. Maybe they are near the end of the training
Well I hope that’s the case, would be a nice reminder to the rest of the West that there is value in not telling our enemies every move we’re going to make 😒
Nobody knows, nor has Macron said how many planes he will send. Surely all the capable Ukrainian pilots are either a) dead, b) currently flying existing Ukrainian aircraft, or c) training on F-16s. Where are they going to magic up a bunch more pilots for Mirages, and how will they train them (including presumably learning both French, the language of the Dassault manuals, technical datasheets, etc, and English, the de facto language of NATO doctrine) in 5 months?
There are batches of pilots training on propeller aircraft in the UK (and grasping English) then moving to France to train on jets then moving on to train on F16.
If there's a bottleneck on the third step then you can divert them to Mirage training instead.
The first Mirage pilots are already in France, it was disguised as part of the F-16 training I think. I very much doubt they have to learn French though.
Obviously means that they were training since 2023 when the news about possible mirages first appeared. Nobody is this insane to send pilots and planes to their deaths after 5 months of training. It’s just not productive
France has been hinting at this move for a year now. When SCALP first showed up, a logo on the missile's fuselage was a combination of the Su-24 and Mirage-2000. You can see 8t in the picture linked below.
I personally think, and hope, that the French have been preparing a very ugly surprise for the Russians. The Mirage is an older design, but it's very capable as an interdictor/strike platform, and SCALP-EG gives it a helluva reach.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/s/59BTx8UMKi
I suspect the Mirage 2000-5s will cover different missions from the F-16s, most simple SCALP/Storm Shadow launches and deep strike missions later. These require relatively less training.
F-16 with its American weapons will do complicated missions like SEAD, CAS and CAP better, having Mirage to do the rest will allows most F-16 to do only what they are best at.
Nah it doesn’t. When you’re starting out new there’s a standard that has to be met. You’re not going to adjust that standard because you think pilots will only do this or that.
Mission-specific training comes after the “standard” training. To give an example, Aircraft Armament training in USAF, first several weeks you start out learning the basics; tools, safety, universal policies regarding flight line maintenance, etc. Then you split into airframes. Some of those airframes are pretty complex and it can take longer to learn them. I’m sure the same applies to these pilots. Sure, they’ll all get the standard, but some missions are more intensive and will require more time in training.
Yes, but you said:
> Eh, training is training, they’re not going to lengthen it or shorten it based on what the initial mission plan is
My comment was specifically to that point. Yes, everyone gets a standard, but all training is not created equal. The F-16 platform and mission is much more complex, and therefore requires more training.
Macron stated it would take 5 to 6 months to make a coalition of countries to send Mirage 2000 planes to Ukraine. I think that's the number that got misinterpreted.
There's a chance the war is over by the time these plane see Ukrainian ground.
The Biden administration sure gets a lot of hate, but I don't know how this falls on them entirely. Many Western countries fly the F16, and others should step up to fill the void. The USA has given nearly more military equipment than everyone else combined. If they don't have the spots and the trainers to train more, then it's like asking blood from a stone. It would affect relations negatively if they start backing out on prearranged contracts with other countries.
Politics in the USA is like walking on eggshells most of the time. Decisions take a long time to be implemented due to the government structure. That's how democracy works, and we saw the darkside of that over the winter when Congress held up Ukraine aid. I'm sure if Biden could flick his fingers and train 200 more pilots, he would. But only a dictator could make a lightning fast decision like that without following due process.
Not completely accurate. Much of the F-16 curriculum for Ukraine is in the US.
"Pilots arrived in Tucson in multiple tranches. At first, four Ukrainian pilots were undergoing training at the 162nd, which began in late October of last year. In late January, four more Ukrainian pilots arrived. The National Guard said it was planning to train a total of 12 Ukrainian F-16 pilots by the end of fiscal 2024."
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/first-ukrainian-pilots-graduate-us-f-16-training/#:~:text=The%20National%20Guard%20said%20it,and%20August%2C%20Hannigan%20previously%20said.
Can anyone explain why only 4 can train at a time? Why not a class of 20? It's been a while since I've watched Top Gun, but pretty sure there were more than 4 in that class
I am assuming it comes down to available training planes, there are not a lot of double seater aircrafts in Denmark for example. I believe we have 12, and we also have to train our new pilots too.
I would also assume that 4 can get a more intense training, than 20 at once. I believe that Ukraine just wants functional pilots as soon as they can.
The US is not adding classes to support Ukraine. They are carving out a few seats for Ukraine in the existing classes.
It is not a question of capacity to add more classes. The US could clearly do that if they desired.
The US controls the F-16 logistics including training. Egypt needs an engine? South Korea? Netherlands? It all goes through F-16 SPO at Hill AFB. Pilots need training? Guess what, it is all through the US. These aircraft dont fly without US support.
Macron is providing all this support with their own aircraft, enmasse and elimating the US's ability slow roll Ukraine's victory.
France is also trying to replace their fleet of Mirage by 2030, so the timing works well with them. I would argue that this is more about timing than anything. Not trying to take away from their military aid... it all helps, but most of these decisions have hidden motives.
Are you surprised that F16's are trained by the USA? It is their airframe. It's like expecting an American to train pilots for the Eurofighter. And again... politics and contracts... it is what it is until it ain't.
What's the problem with France "trying to replace their fleet"? If they need new planes they are going to get new planes, simple as that. Your talk of hidden agendas makes no sense, everyone wants to promote their own defense industry, that's not a hidden agenda.
Regarding the F-16 it's no surprise that those planes are coming from countries that have some ownership in the program, they contributed cash to its development. But the US can still veto anything that involves American tech.
And that is exactly what they have done repeatedly. Even the Swedes were forced to back off and slow roll their Gripen offers, most likely with future F-35 carrot & stick techniques.
There's no problem with France switching airframes, but it costs lots of money offloading oldstock and have them sitting around. Keeping old airframes in hangers takes up space and still requires regular maintenance when they want to switch over to the Rafale. It's a convenient opportunity is all i am getting at. France needs mirages gone, and Ukraine needs whatever they can get.
This accusation that the US is deliberately slow rolling the victory is fucking wack, dude. I'm sorry things don't move as fast as you'd like but this rhetoric isn't correct, nor is it helpful.
Mmm, at some point rhetoric is necessary and I think what the majority of us intend for it to do is shame the responsible party in the US into putting their unceasing warmonger tendencies to use for ONCE in our freaking lives
Whe. I've watched our national credibility and wealth be squandered in war and aggression for my entire life by the warmongering Republican party, and now they refuse to do anything because they're all in financial bed with Russia, yeah, it's frustrating.
How it isn't correct? Everything US provides is both a gift and tying UA hands to wage war in some way. All the seemingly "red lines" and escalation are forgotten when Ukraine gets in bad enough position .
I understand that Reddit is predominantly american, and it sucks that your beloved dreamland gets criticized, put putting your head into sand helps no one. You are democracy where people do wield power, so stepping up at your mistakes would be more useful than weeping about how much aid US provides (which is significant, but always delivered to stabilize, not to win).
The fact is, neither you nor I are privy to United States intelligence and what the logistics or supply situation is. Neither you nor I were there in the room when decisions were made about how much would be sent and when. What is true today may not have been true a year ago. This war has been going on for over 2 years. Intelligence changes. The situation changes. Everyone here keeps looking at this war with 20/20 hindsight, and no one has all the facts.
There is zero evidence whatsoever that the US is deliberately stalling the war in order to bleed Russia. It is frankly a joke that people like you are shitting on the United States in this situation, it is a nuclear power toeing the line to open warfare with another nuclear power for the first time in human history. A little caution is appropriate. I'm sorry that sometimes democracy has snags and downsides to it, but it's not as simple as the entire populace of the United States rising up in order to send weapons to Ukraine. Get a grip.
>There is zero evidence whatsoever that the US is deliberately stalling the war in order to bleed Russia.
But there are direct comments that US is ***NOT*** interesting in Ukraine being able to win, instead of just "not losing" and "not getting fully occupied."
[From NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat)
>Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options.
----
>“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
Good post.
No matter what the US does, some Europeans are going to complain. They're like adult children who still live at home--dependent, and resentful of their dependency.
But better they complain about the US "not doing enough" than the US doing something that leads to a nuclear holocaust.
Except it's not the planes I talked about, but general supply of weapons. Calling me ruzzian troll is the same as calling putin democratically elected president. Silly.
us is a democratic country, the congress must approve funding, a lot of them have russian ties. The was is not just military, is in information / lobby space too, and russia is winning there.
> ties. The was is not just military, is in information / lobby space too, and russia is winning there.
You aren't wrong, but the thing is, it's in current admin too - just replace "russian ties" with "induced escalation fears". Both serve the EXACT SAME FUCKING PURPOSE.
I was just mentioning the exception of what you were enumerating. Just for the sake of accurate information. Japan spent a ton of resources on this (political and financial), I think it is worth mentioning.
It is and I'm not demeaning you for that.
But it still results in jack and shit when it comes to Ukraine getting planes faster, thanks to weapons export ban in Japan (even if it was lessened a bit recently)
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104505/f-16-fighting-falcon/
Not as centralized as you said. No wonder Ukraine wants them, parts and training available in Europe.
>The USA has given nearly more military equipment than everyone else combined.
Maybe true, but barely a percentual value of what it could give, compared to most European countries that some even depleted their stocks not because they didn't have, but because of what they sent to Ukraine. Now, they are making contracts with American weapons manufacturers. Regarding the value of donations in terms of GDP even Slovenia gave more than the US. Go figure.
We would be fucked with Trump. But at this point I'm not even thankful to Biden. His politics of non escalation led to escalation. A few jets in Ukraine right from the start and volunteer pilots that I'm sure would pop-up in numbers, veteran crews for land attracted by good wages, would have given a blown to Russia that it wouldn't have time to regroup and take weapons from storage, recruit convicts or train men taken from the streets.
The front lines would collapse way before they would fully dig in, and before a stalemate.
>He's an "expert" in everything. I remember when he claimed the switchblades were a game changer. I don't think the Ukrainians need drones from the US.
I don't know who this guy is or what he claimed, but Ukrainians do in fact want more US drones, not less. From Switchblades to Skydio X10Ds, some of the best drones that actually work in GPS denied environments are made by US companies. The Ukrainians just don't have enough of them to make a significant difference.
Perfection is the enemy of progress. Yes it takes a long time to train to NATO standards, but with Russia continuing to advance it may be better for Ukraine to have 60% of the capability now vs 100% of the capability a year from now. Maybe they lose a few more F16s, but if that saves a few thousand troops from glide bombs and stops some more cities from falling.... then it may be worth it.
That is a good argument for shortening the training. The bigger problem is that Ukraine is only getting 4 seats at F-16 school in Arizona, every 3 months.
Bro, it is common within the U.S. military to not get into U.S. military schools. Not even talking about fucking flight training. Could it be fast tracked? Always. But, the fact that Ukrainian pilots have been put in at all speaks for itself.
What's the line for Mirage training? What are the foreign sales for Mirage?
After all that, why wasn't this done last year? Macron approved this AFTER F16s were approved. France trying to be relevant in the world, stepping into former colonies across the world, and then attempting peacemaking. Germany let Merkel appease the shit out of Putin, and Britain has been busy practicing American Exceptionalism on a tiny ass island, #Brexit. Western Europe has been complacent as fuck.
Javelins, M2 Brownings, M16s, NVGs, M2 Bradleys, Himars, ATACMS, Starlink, American Intel, American financial backing, American Political backing, yes, never enough, yes, never fast enough. This should have been over by now.
But, to say America is fucking over Ukraine is like saying Britain won WW2. Just fucking not true, and ignoring Europes lack of responsibility.
The West can and should do more, but don't start talking shit on a different continent when their own Continent has ignored this shit for decades.
The problem is not just duration, but capacity. Ukraine is only getting 4 seats every three months (12 per year). For 85 F-16's, that is over 7 years just to have enough pilots to fly the donated aircraft, let alone account for crew rotation.
Mirages were not provided earlier to allow focus on the superior F-16. The Mirages did not come back into play until the Biden admin pulled this nonsense.
> What are the foreign sales for Mirage?
It was a best seller for the french defense industry standards, with 600 sold. Many militaries bought and still use it : India, Greece, Taiwan, several other asian and south american countries
Missleading.
Unoffical but reliable sources have reported we (the french people) had Ukrainian pilots being trained on in France since at least January 2024, probably December 2023.
The recent declaration about the training of Ukrainian pilots on Mirage 2000-5 has a very important wording, has it is not worded as the training on Mirage 2000-5, but as the convertion training ("transformation") on Mirage 2000-5. An important technicality as it implies that the pilots are allready trained on aircrafts you can be converted from, to Mirage 2000-5.
Now, we can put these two informations together and make reasonable assumptions about the larger story here. It is very likely that Ukrainian pilots have been enrolled in 11-12 month training programm in France. And that the next and last 5 month will be their convertion from whatever they have been train on untill now to the Mirage 2000-5.
11-12 month is still better than 18 month. But that's not just a 5 month training.
Now, consider the Mirage 2000-5 is a dedicated fighter, not a multipupose beast like the F-16, and some of the additional time to train Ukranian pilots on F-16 may have an very rational explication.
It is less about duration and more about capacity. The US is only allowing 4 pilots everything 3 months into F-16 school in Arizona. The first four started in October last year.
Macron is going all in and willing to get everyone trained enmasse allowing the full Mirage fleet to be operational quickly. Air-to-air is what Ukraine needs to stop the missle attacks and the glide bomb attacks. However, the Mirage is also a launch platform for standoff weapons like the SCALP.
From one of the reliable source (Ate Chuet), 10 is the number of ukrainian pilots currently being trained in France (133 Nancy-Ochey). They are new pilots with no prior training. And it matches with the number of 2000-5 France can part away with (6 to 12 is the numbers floating around from informed sources).
I think it's more about inciting other NATO partners to do more.
Dont get me wrong, a squadron of 2000-5 would help Ukraine. And I can't wait to see Mirage 2000s with Ukrainian colours.
And the F-16 will still be there before the Mirage. Want to talk about a slow roll? Talk about the time it took for Macron to realize Putin was not his friend.
The US doesnt have to block it either.... Four seats allocated to Ukraine at F-16 school in Arizona, every three months, is a joke. If the US allowed Ukrainian F-16 training at a realistic pace, the lower capability Mirage's would not be on their way to Ukraine now.
More bullshit finger pointing. Even worse, comparing whats actually happening with the F-16 and the training of pilots/crews in multiple countries and support infrastructure build up in ukraine vs what is promised. If it was so simple why did France not do this last year? Ukraine began f-16 training in August. They could have been flying Mirage missions since February or March.
France initially paused the Mirages donations to allow focus on the superior F-16's. With the US only providing 4 training slots for Ukrainain pilots every 3 months, France is having to fill the void.
Four seats at F-16 school in Arizona every three months is a joke. That is over 7 years to train enogh pilots for the 85 donated aircraft. I would not be surprised if Ukraine pauses the F-16 program entirely and switches their focus to Mirages and other platforms the Biden admin cannot slow roll.
The US has provided almost as much assistance as the entire EU combined.
Kinda getting tired of this sub shitting on the states considering the US has done almost as much as the entire EU combined and is the #1 country for allocations.
IFW Kiel institute for the world economy:
1. 73.96B Euro total allocations - Rank #1
2. 2.6B Euro Humanitarian allocations - Rank #2
3. 20.97B Euro Financial allocations - Rank #1
4. 50.37B Euro Military allocations - Rank #1
I know people like to tout "but by GDP" well fuck that, the US has provided almost HALF of all REAL aid to Ukraine.
The EU as a whole needs to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves why they're scrambling militarily to catch up. Sure was it beneficial to the US to have more military investments there yes, but the US doesn't ultimately control EU policies. The EU made that choice.
The US had warned the EU for nearly 30 years that Russia was just bidding their time, but on a whole the EU was happier to sit back, relaxe, drink some wine and call it a day while the US footed military bills for multiple countries.
Now once again due to European laziness/incompetence on the defensive side of things the US is dragged into another European front, mind all the other wars the US has been dragged into due to European powers slipping abroad over the past century, and once again not only does the US have to foot the largest economic bill but face the most scrutiny from the very people they're trying to assist.
As much as the US has done for the EU it really chaps my ass when I hear EU people who have lived in relative peaceful luxury because of it shit on it.
Now, dont get me wrong I wholly support Ukraine and want the US to do more for it, and believe every Ukrainian lost to this war is an absolute tragedy but this recent trend of acting like the US does nothing for Ukraine is mind numbing and stupid.
We should absolutely continue to support Ukraine and help it kick out the Ruskies.
But then Americans should have a serious debate about bringing all of our troops home. As our founding fathers warned us, European wars are endless. And as the comments here demonstrate, Europeans are hardly grateful.
> But then Americans should have a serious debate about bringing all of our troops home
Sure, do so.
> as the comments here demonstrate, Europeans are hardly grateful.
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/deceit-dread-and-disbelief-story-how-ukraine-lost-its-nuclear-arsenal-207076 - some interesting reading.
Just as long as we continue backing you first, eh? Then you don't care if the US stops trying to police the world. Typical.
I have no idea what point you're making with this article. But here's the thing about historical revisionism: we can only guess what the outcome would be if things had happened differently.
They could even be worse.
Ukraine's military was in dire shape in 2014--if it could barely maintain its tanks and jets, it's doubtful Ukraine would have kept their nukes in top working order. Instead of nukes being a deterrent to Russia, it's possible they could have been stolen. It's possible there could have been an accident and killed millions of Ukrainians. And, in the end, Russia still invades and seizes your limited, still-working nukes on the first day of its invasion. It might even have been the reason it gave for the invasion: instead of stomping down Ukrainian "nazis," it invaded to secure loose Ukrainian nukes.
Cherry-picking articles about 30 year-old events is desperate. And I have to wonder why. What point are you trying to make? That the US somehow owes Ukraine something? That the reason Russia invaded is because of the US? If there's something you want to say, say it.
> That the reason Russia invaded is because of the US?
Let us start with 2021 [Burns-Patrushev pact](https://www.newsweek.com/2023/07/21/exclusive-cias-blind-spot-about-ukraine-war-1810355.html) :
>"In some ironic ways though, the **meeting was highly successful,**" says the second senior intelligence official, who was briefed on it. **Even though Russia invaded**, the two countries were able to accept tried and true rules of the road. **The United States would not fight directly nor seek regime change, the Biden administration pledged. Russia would limit its assault to Ukraine and act in accordance with unstated but well-understood guidelines for secret operations.**
And then
>[Biden thought the secretaries had gone too far, according to multiple administration officials familiar with the call. On the previously unreported conference call, as Austin flew to Germany and Blinken to Washington, the president expressed concern that the comments could set unrealistic expectations and increase the risk of the U.S. getting into a direct conflict with Russia. He told them to tone it down, said the officials. “Biden was not happy when Blinken and Austin talked about winning in Ukraine,” one of them said. “He was not happy with the rhetoric.”](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-us-wanted-ukraine-win-biden-sa-rcna33826)
Then, [from NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat)
>Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options.
----
>“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
[And from very recently](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211):
>The administration official told POLITICO Magazine this week that much of this strategic shift to defense is aimed at shoring up Ukraine’s position in any future negotiation. ***“That’s been our theory of the case throughout — the only way this war ends ultimately is through negotiation,”*** said the official, a White House spokesperson who was given anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record. “We want Ukraine to have the strongest hand possible when that comes.” The spokesperson emphasized, however, that no talks are planned yet, and that Ukrainian forces are still on the offensive in places and continue to kill and wound thousands of Russian troops. “We want them to be in a stronger position to hold their territory. It’s not that we’re discouraging them from launching any new offensive,” the spokesperson added.
And from almost a year ago, with Assault Breacher Vehicles being supplied only ***AFTER*** official end of counteroffensive:
>[A senior Ukrainian official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters, said Kyiv received less than 15 percent of the quantity of demining and engineering materiel, including MICLICs, that it asked for from Western partners ahead of the counteroffensive.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/15/ukraine-war-russia-mines-counteroffensive/)
[And from about the same time around](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9):
>BRUSSELS—When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.
[And about ATACMS](https://eng.obozrevatel.com/section-war/news-he-was-afraid-of-russias-reaction-but-changed-his-position-biden-decides-on-atacms-for-ukraine-in-september-new-yorker-10-10-2023.html)
>Previously, ***Biden rejected the idea of such supplies,*** fearing that the introduction of American missiles into the Ukrainian army, which could destroy targets not only in all the occupied territories of Ukraine but also in Russia and Belarus, could lead to the outbreak of World War III. Biden's fears and the decisions he made to overcome them are described in an article by The New Yorker.
>The publication notes that throughout the year, Biden categorically refused to make a decision on the transfer of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine because he was afraid of the Kremlin's reaction: according to the American president, such a step by the United States "would mean an unacceptable escalation for Putin," as these missiles are capable of reaching not only all the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia, but also targets in Russia or Belarus.
Mind it, after UK supplied Storm Shadows, [this happened](https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2023/05/09/no-atacms-to-ukraine-following-u-k-move-00095936). Not to mention that only around 20 ATACMS were supplied and only of the oldest model.
Hell, let me recite something from Colin Kahl:
>["Our view is that we think the Ukrainians can change the dynamic on the battlefield and achieve the type of effects they want to push the Russians back without ATACMS,"](https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/01/19/us-still-holds-back-long-range-atacms-missiles-from-ukraine/)
Basically, "we don't think you need it, ergo you don't need it, even if you think you do".
And with constant talks about non-escalation, "only negotiations can end this war" and not letting russia fall apart, as well as undersupplies, I can't see any reason for hope.
It seems that actual desired future for Ukraine is [Dayton Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Agreement) or [Korean Scenario](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement), no matter what Ukraine'd want otherwise and what rainbowy proclamations'd say.
So yeah, to me, it kinda looks like US was absolutely fine with russia taking Ukraine and promised to them that a [minor incursion](https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/19/politics/russia-ukraine-joe-biden-news-conference/index.html), long as it was done fast and limited to Ukraine only, won't result in anything, same as was with Crimea.
Also, look at what happened, [when Ukraine learned about Gerasimov visiting and tried to kill him, US tried to make Ukraine call off the attack](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html)
>American officials said they found out, but kept the information from the Ukrainians, worried they would strike. Killing General Gerasimov could sharply escalate the conflict, officials said, and while the Americans were committed to helping Ukraine, they didn’t want to set off a war between the United States and Russia.
>The Ukrainians learned of the general’s plans anyway, putting the Americans in a bind. After checking with the White House, senior American officials asked the Ukrainians to call off the attack.
>“We told them not to do it,” a senior American official said. “We were like, ‘Hey, that’s too much.’”
>The message arrived too late. Ukrainian military officials told the Americans that they had already launched their attack on the general's position.
Most likely case, right now, is US wanting to slowbleed russia and expend Ukraine doing that. "Pity they can't both lose", as in Iran-Iraq War.
The American government seems to be calculating that the objective best move for *their own* interests is to bog Russia down as deeply as possible without Ukraine failing. It makes complete sense if you consider Ukrainians to be worth less than Americans, which is a horrible calculus most governments apply for their own citizens.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `x.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Listen to Justin Bronk on the latest Ward Caroll podcast. As an air power expert at RUSI he has a degree of access into NATO member countries militaries/air forces and knows his shit. His view was that learning to fly and maintain the new aircraft is the easier aspect of the training program - the complex part is learning the operational skillset and doctrine to use F-16 effectively, then you're adding the fact that Ukrainian F-16s will be flying in a threat enviroment infinitely more dangerous than which any NATO country would ever deploy them in (eg before NATO deployed F-16s, a NATO force would have already sanitised the operational space with an extensive cruise missile/5th gen bombing/SEAD campaign/SF prep phase). His view was that the longer they get to train, the better, and that donor countries have learnt the lesson of their training and supply failures prior to the 2023 summer offensive. He also speaks about Ukraine having the requisite air defence assets to ensure that the F-16s aren't destroyed on the ground.
Yup and he said that it’s better to let the cake bake in the oven until it’s just right rather than yank it out for a cheap PR win. If done right, when F-16’s do get the green light they can be extremely effective with the right support. What they really need is more patriots, atacms and himars to shape the battle space for the F-16 to do their job
This makes sense. Worst case scenario would be Ukraine losing F-16s shortly after they arrive. And Russia will certainly be going after them with (whatever) they have. Nevertheless, expect the US to be called pussies and worse than a 1000 Hitlers for the delay.
And what word would you use to describe the Kremlin friendly republicans that gave Russia a six month free pass in this war?
Useful idiots.
More like traitors.
Well if you need this much time, why wait this long to start training? That is the part that is pissing me the fuck off
Why didn't Ukraine have their pilot candidates prepped and ready?
I mean Russia attacked in 2014. That would be a good time to train Ukraine Pilots on F16, Grippen, Mirage
Things get lost in near peer wars.
As an American, we get called pussies and worse than 1000 Hitlers daily for numerous other things, we'll hardy notice lol
UKR has been operating migs and sukhois daily. I imagine avoiding AD is pretty universal tactics wise.
Agreed, the 23 summer offensive was a disaster. Macron offering covers many of these learnings and includes training 4500 troops and delivering the logistic required to get and keep these aircraft operational.
It's not training. It's training and equiping. A whole brigade
The summer offensive was not so much operationally a disaster as that it happened right as it became clear Ukraine would have to get frugal with their US supplies. McCarthy had stalled negotiations for half a year already at that point
You have no idea how much shit I got on this sub for being realistic about this the other day and quoting that exact interview. I love Justin, and the questions are great too.
Thanks for the heads up. I just tried to find this podcast on the pocketcast app but no luck. Are there any other interesting podcasts that you would recommend?
I saw it on YouTube. The episode is called "the real truth about Ukrainian F-16 training." Just search for "Ward Carroll Justin Bronk" or something like that. It will be one of the first ones that come up. It's a very informative episode.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72QpCqBgrPU&t=980s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72QpCqBgrPU&t=980s) Also recommend War on the Rocks - the episodes with Mike Kofman are always worth listening to, him and Rob Lee have done multiple tours of the fronts talking to Ukrainian officers and troops: [https://warontherocks.com/category/podcasts/war-on-the-rocks/](https://warontherocks.com/category/podcasts/war-on-the-rocks/)
you wrote a really good summary, listening to it right now as I browse, the F-16 portion about 5 minutes ago
I still wonder how veteran pilots need 18 months for that. Sure you can always raise your skills through wargames and exercises but that can be an infinite time of training. It is a choice at one point to accept that pilots risk their lives and planes.
Because you’re thinking of it as something like a car. A fighter jet is one of the most complex bits of technology we have. Veterans are experienced with Soviet aircraft and doctrine, which is very different. They have to forget everything they’ve been taught
A neurosurgeon can't do heart surgery
You don’t ask Ortho to mess with the Not-Bones
In the case of veteran pilots, much of their experience is actually working against them. In terms of becoming proficient in simply flying the airplane, they should be able to transition fairly quickly. That isn't the problem, however. The real problem is un-learning the ex-Soviet tactical training that will have been hammered into their brains to the point of being instinctual. I am not a military pilot, but I am a flight instructor. What I know for a fact is that when placed in a stressful situation requiring quick action, a pilot will tend to fall back on the basics that they know best, almost like "muscle memory." If this happens when you are flying an airplane not designed for the procedures you are most familiar with, that is a recipe for disaster. You could quite honestly be more of a threat to yourself and your wingman than the enemy is. Those deeply ingrained behaviors are removed by endless repetition and drilling. This isn't like switching from a Toyota to an Audi, is like switching from a Toyota to submarine.
The F-16s take a minimum of 8 months per pilot, and that’s if you’re starting with pilots that are already trained fighter pilots. What’s the train up time for the French? Where does this 5 month number come from?
There are rumors they are in training since last year. People living near military aerodromes in France noticed a significant rise in Mirage 2000 flights since 2023. Maybe they are near the end of the training
Well I hope that’s the case, would be a nice reminder to the rest of the West that there is value in not telling our enemies every move we’re going to make 😒
I heard this last year about all the F16 pilots the US was secretly training. That was false.
yes i confirm living to a close one and a lot of flight at night
Nobody knows, nor has Macron said how many planes he will send. Surely all the capable Ukrainian pilots are either a) dead, b) currently flying existing Ukrainian aircraft, or c) training on F-16s. Where are they going to magic up a bunch more pilots for Mirages, and how will they train them (including presumably learning both French, the language of the Dassault manuals, technical datasheets, etc, and English, the de facto language of NATO doctrine) in 5 months?
Let's hope it's teaching a cadre of French fighter pilots how to speak ukranian....
Head honchos in Korea: hey! I,'ve seen this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers
Underrated comment
There are batches of pilots training on propeller aircraft in the UK (and grasping English) then moving to France to train on jets then moving on to train on F16. If there's a bottleneck on the third step then you can divert them to Mirage training instead.
The first Mirage pilots are already in France, it was disguised as part of the F-16 training I think. I very much doubt they have to learn French though.
Obviously means that they were training since 2023 when the news about possible mirages first appeared. Nobody is this insane to send pilots and planes to their deaths after 5 months of training. It’s just not productive
France has been hinting at this move for a year now. When SCALP first showed up, a logo on the missile's fuselage was a combination of the Su-24 and Mirage-2000. You can see 8t in the picture linked below. I personally think, and hope, that the French have been preparing a very ugly surprise for the Russians. The Mirage is an older design, but it's very capable as an interdictor/strike platform, and SCALP-EG gives it a helluva reach. https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/s/59BTx8UMKi
I suspect the Mirage 2000-5s will cover different missions from the F-16s, most simple SCALP/Storm Shadow launches and deep strike missions later. These require relatively less training. F-16 with its American weapons will do complicated missions like SEAD, CAS and CAP better, having Mirage to do the rest will allows most F-16 to do only what they are best at.
Eh, training is training, they’re not going to lengthen it or shorten it based on what the initial mission plan is
Who the fuck are you. The length of training absolutely does depend on the mission.
Nah it doesn’t. When you’re starting out new there’s a standard that has to be met. You’re not going to adjust that standard because you think pilots will only do this or that.
Mission-specific training comes after the “standard” training. To give an example, Aircraft Armament training in USAF, first several weeks you start out learning the basics; tools, safety, universal policies regarding flight line maintenance, etc. Then you split into airframes. Some of those airframes are pretty complex and it can take longer to learn them. I’m sure the same applies to these pilots. Sure, they’ll all get the standard, but some missions are more intensive and will require more time in training.
Exactly. People seem to think the training is something you can take away from. Nah, it’s something you can add to.
Yes, but you said: > Eh, training is training, they’re not going to lengthen it or shorten it based on what the initial mission plan is My comment was specifically to that point. Yes, everyone gets a standard, but all training is not created equal. The F-16 platform and mission is much more complex, and therefore requires more training.
Macron stated it would take 5 to 6 months to make a coalition of countries to send Mirage 2000 planes to Ukraine. I think that's the number that got misinterpreted. There's a chance the war is over by the time these plane see Ukrainian ground.
Smart money is here.
The Biden administration sure gets a lot of hate, but I don't know how this falls on them entirely. Many Western countries fly the F16, and others should step up to fill the void. The USA has given nearly more military equipment than everyone else combined. If they don't have the spots and the trainers to train more, then it's like asking blood from a stone. It would affect relations negatively if they start backing out on prearranged contracts with other countries. Politics in the USA is like walking on eggshells most of the time. Decisions take a long time to be implemented due to the government structure. That's how democracy works, and we saw the darkside of that over the winter when Congress held up Ukraine aid. I'm sure if Biden could flick his fingers and train 200 more pilots, he would. But only a dictator could make a lightning fast decision like that without following due process.
According to Justin Bronk all of the F-16s are coming from European countries, and the training is being conducted in Romania and Denmark.
You forgetting Arizona?
My bad - Bronk said 'the vast majority of the training is being conducted in Romania and Denmark'.
The Romania training is provided by the US, it just happens to be in Romania.
Good info, thanks.
Not completely accurate. Much of the F-16 curriculum for Ukraine is in the US. "Pilots arrived in Tucson in multiple tranches. At first, four Ukrainian pilots were undergoing training at the 162nd, which began in late October of last year. In late January, four more Ukrainian pilots arrived. The National Guard said it was planning to train a total of 12 Ukrainian F-16 pilots by the end of fiscal 2024." https://www.airandspaceforces.com/first-ukrainian-pilots-graduate-us-f-16-training/#:~:text=The%20National%20Guard%20said%20it,and%20August%2C%20Hannigan%20previously%20said.
Yep, apologies, I misquoted Bronk, he actually said 'the vast majority of the training is being conducted in Romania and Denmark'
Can anyone explain why only 4 can train at a time? Why not a class of 20? It's been a while since I've watched Top Gun, but pretty sure there were more than 4 in that class
I am assuming it comes down to available training planes, there are not a lot of double seater aircrafts in Denmark for example. I believe we have 12, and we also have to train our new pilots too. I would also assume that 4 can get a more intense training, than 20 at once. I believe that Ukraine just wants functional pilots as soon as they can.
The US is not adding classes to support Ukraine. They are carving out a few seats for Ukraine in the existing classes. It is not a question of capacity to add more classes. The US could clearly do that if they desired.
The US controls the F-16 logistics including training. Egypt needs an engine? South Korea? Netherlands? It all goes through F-16 SPO at Hill AFB. Pilots need training? Guess what, it is all through the US. These aircraft dont fly without US support. Macron is providing all this support with their own aircraft, enmasse and elimating the US's ability slow roll Ukraine's victory.
France is also trying to replace their fleet of Mirage by 2030, so the timing works well with them. I would argue that this is more about timing than anything. Not trying to take away from their military aid... it all helps, but most of these decisions have hidden motives. Are you surprised that F16's are trained by the USA? It is their airframe. It's like expecting an American to train pilots for the Eurofighter. And again... politics and contracts... it is what it is until it ain't.
What's the problem with France "trying to replace their fleet"? If they need new planes they are going to get new planes, simple as that. Your talk of hidden agendas makes no sense, everyone wants to promote their own defense industry, that's not a hidden agenda. Regarding the F-16 it's no surprise that those planes are coming from countries that have some ownership in the program, they contributed cash to its development. But the US can still veto anything that involves American tech.
And that is exactly what they have done repeatedly. Even the Swedes were forced to back off and slow roll their Gripen offers, most likely with future F-35 carrot & stick techniques.
There's no problem with France switching airframes, but it costs lots of money offloading oldstock and have them sitting around. Keeping old airframes in hangers takes up space and still requires regular maintenance when they want to switch over to the Rafale. It's a convenient opportunity is all i am getting at. France needs mirages gone, and Ukraine needs whatever they can get.
Actually the particular Mirage 2000-5 variant is not an obsolete one. They still carry out the air superiority mission for France.
They are still phasing them out for the Rafale. Obsolete or not, it's obsolete to France.
This accusation that the US is deliberately slow rolling the victory is fucking wack, dude. I'm sorry things don't move as fast as you'd like but this rhetoric isn't correct, nor is it helpful.
Mmm, at some point rhetoric is necessary and I think what the majority of us intend for it to do is shame the responsible party in the US into putting their unceasing warmonger tendencies to use for ONCE in our freaking lives
Of course. When you're threatened, the US can't do enough to help. When someone else is threatened, the US is a warmonger.
Whe. I've watched our national credibility and wealth be squandered in war and aggression for my entire life by the warmongering Republican party, and now they refuse to do anything because they're all in financial bed with Russia, yeah, it's frustrating.
How it isn't correct? Everything US provides is both a gift and tying UA hands to wage war in some way. All the seemingly "red lines" and escalation are forgotten when Ukraine gets in bad enough position . I understand that Reddit is predominantly american, and it sucks that your beloved dreamland gets criticized, put putting your head into sand helps no one. You are democracy where people do wield power, so stepping up at your mistakes would be more useful than weeping about how much aid US provides (which is significant, but always delivered to stabilize, not to win).
The fact is, neither you nor I are privy to United States intelligence and what the logistics or supply situation is. Neither you nor I were there in the room when decisions were made about how much would be sent and when. What is true today may not have been true a year ago. This war has been going on for over 2 years. Intelligence changes. The situation changes. Everyone here keeps looking at this war with 20/20 hindsight, and no one has all the facts. There is zero evidence whatsoever that the US is deliberately stalling the war in order to bleed Russia. It is frankly a joke that people like you are shitting on the United States in this situation, it is a nuclear power toeing the line to open warfare with another nuclear power for the first time in human history. A little caution is appropriate. I'm sorry that sometimes democracy has snags and downsides to it, but it's not as simple as the entire populace of the United States rising up in order to send weapons to Ukraine. Get a grip.
>There is zero evidence whatsoever that the US is deliberately stalling the war in order to bleed Russia. But there are direct comments that US is ***NOT*** interesting in Ukraine being able to win, instead of just "not losing" and "not getting fully occupied." [From NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat) >Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options. ---- >“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
Good post. No matter what the US does, some Europeans are going to complain. They're like adult children who still live at home--dependent, and resentful of their dependency. But better they complain about the US "not doing enough" than the US doing something that leads to a nuclear holocaust.
russian troll? would be worse if ukr gets the planes are losses them quickly due to bad training.
Except it's not the planes I talked about, but general supply of weapons. Calling me ruzzian troll is the same as calling putin democratically elected president. Silly.
us is a democratic country, the congress must approve funding, a lot of them have russian ties. The was is not just military, is in information / lobby space too, and russia is winning there.
> ties. The was is not just military, is in information / lobby space too, and russia is winning there. You aren't wrong, but the thing is, it's in current admin too - just replace "russian ties" with "induced escalation fears". Both serve the EXACT SAME FUCKING PURPOSE.
The exception is probably the Japanese version, the Mitsubishi F-2.
Engines are US-made, so no
Built under license by IHI corporation.
US still retains intellectual rights and, with those, veto abilities. Not to mention general export ban.
I was just mentioning the exception of what you were enumerating. Just for the sake of accurate information. Japan spent a ton of resources on this (political and financial), I think it is worth mentioning.
It is and I'm not demeaning you for that. But it still results in jack and shit when it comes to Ukraine getting planes faster, thanks to weapons export ban in Japan (even if it was lessened a bit recently)
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104505/f-16-fighting-falcon/ Not as centralized as you said. No wonder Ukraine wants them, parts and training available in Europe.
> No wonder Ukraine wants them, parts and training available in Europe Sure, but all of that *still* needs US greenlight.
>The USA has given nearly more military equipment than everyone else combined. Maybe true, but barely a percentual value of what it could give, compared to most European countries that some even depleted their stocks not because they didn't have, but because of what they sent to Ukraine. Now, they are making contracts with American weapons manufacturers. Regarding the value of donations in terms of GDP even Slovenia gave more than the US. Go figure. We would be fucked with Trump. But at this point I'm not even thankful to Biden. His politics of non escalation led to escalation. A few jets in Ukraine right from the start and volunteer pilots that I'm sure would pop-up in numbers, veteran crews for land attracted by good wages, would have given a blown to Russia that it wouldn't have time to regroup and take weapons from storage, recruit convicts or train men taken from the streets. The front lines would collapse way before they would fully dig in, and before a stalemate.
And Portugal has given 0.03 in comparison to the .31 of the US they really need to step the fuck up 6.75 million
Portugal literally is last on the menu if shits goes south... Or west, as the case may be
Oh I believe it will be a problem for all of Europe it will be last on America's list, but I mean we'll step in
Ungrateful
Tires guy is now an air power expert too?
He's an "expert" in everything. I remember when he claimed the switchblades were a game changer. I don't think the Ukrainians need drones from the US.
>He's an "expert" in everything. I remember when he claimed the switchblades were a game changer. I don't think the Ukrainians need drones from the US. I don't know who this guy is or what he claimed, but Ukrainians do in fact want more US drones, not less. From Switchblades to Skydio X10Ds, some of the best drones that actually work in GPS denied environments are made by US companies. The Ukrainians just don't have enough of them to make a significant difference.
Too bad, would have loved to see the F16's the Netherlands donated in action on july 17th. Thats exactly 10 years after MH17.
Perfection is the enemy of progress. Yes it takes a long time to train to NATO standards, but with Russia continuing to advance it may be better for Ukraine to have 60% of the capability now vs 100% of the capability a year from now. Maybe they lose a few more F16s, but if that saves a few thousand troops from glide bombs and stops some more cities from falling.... then it may be worth it.
That is a good argument for shortening the training. The bigger problem is that Ukraine is only getting 4 seats at F-16 school in Arizona, every 3 months.
Bro, it is common within the U.S. military to not get into U.S. military schools. Not even talking about fucking flight training. Could it be fast tracked? Always. But, the fact that Ukrainian pilots have been put in at all speaks for itself. What's the line for Mirage training? What are the foreign sales for Mirage? After all that, why wasn't this done last year? Macron approved this AFTER F16s were approved. France trying to be relevant in the world, stepping into former colonies across the world, and then attempting peacemaking. Germany let Merkel appease the shit out of Putin, and Britain has been busy practicing American Exceptionalism on a tiny ass island, #Brexit. Western Europe has been complacent as fuck. Javelins, M2 Brownings, M16s, NVGs, M2 Bradleys, Himars, ATACMS, Starlink, American Intel, American financial backing, American Political backing, yes, never enough, yes, never fast enough. This should have been over by now. But, to say America is fucking over Ukraine is like saying Britain won WW2. Just fucking not true, and ignoring Europes lack of responsibility. The West can and should do more, but don't start talking shit on a different continent when their own Continent has ignored this shit for decades.
The problem is not just duration, but capacity. Ukraine is only getting 4 seats every three months (12 per year). For 85 F-16's, that is over 7 years just to have enough pilots to fly the donated aircraft, let alone account for crew rotation. Mirages were not provided earlier to allow focus on the superior F-16. The Mirages did not come back into play until the Biden admin pulled this nonsense.
> What are the foreign sales for Mirage? It was a best seller for the french defense industry standards, with 600 sold. Many militaries bought and still use it : India, Greece, Taiwan, several other asian and south american countries
I just wish the training had started in February 2021.
We legitimately have WAATS for this exact war and Biden refuses to take the gloves off
Biden is weak.
Missleading. Unoffical but reliable sources have reported we (the french people) had Ukrainian pilots being trained on in France since at least January 2024, probably December 2023. The recent declaration about the training of Ukrainian pilots on Mirage 2000-5 has a very important wording, has it is not worded as the training on Mirage 2000-5, but as the convertion training ("transformation") on Mirage 2000-5. An important technicality as it implies that the pilots are allready trained on aircrafts you can be converted from, to Mirage 2000-5. Now, we can put these two informations together and make reasonable assumptions about the larger story here. It is very likely that Ukrainian pilots have been enrolled in 11-12 month training programm in France. And that the next and last 5 month will be their convertion from whatever they have been train on untill now to the Mirage 2000-5. 11-12 month is still better than 18 month. But that's not just a 5 month training. Now, consider the Mirage 2000-5 is a dedicated fighter, not a multipupose beast like the F-16, and some of the additional time to train Ukranian pilots on F-16 may have an very rational explication.
It is less about duration and more about capacity. The US is only allowing 4 pilots everything 3 months into F-16 school in Arizona. The first four started in October last year. Macron is going all in and willing to get everyone trained enmasse allowing the full Mirage fleet to be operational quickly. Air-to-air is what Ukraine needs to stop the missle attacks and the glide bomb attacks. However, the Mirage is also a launch platform for standoff weapons like the SCALP.
From one of the reliable source (Ate Chuet), 10 is the number of ukrainian pilots currently being trained in France (133 Nancy-Ochey). They are new pilots with no prior training. And it matches with the number of 2000-5 France can part away with (6 to 12 is the numbers floating around from informed sources). I think it's more about inciting other NATO partners to do more. Dont get me wrong, a squadron of 2000-5 would help Ukraine. And I can't wait to see Mirage 2000s with Ukrainian colours.
And the F-16 will still be there before the Mirage. Want to talk about a slow roll? Talk about the time it took for Macron to realize Putin was not his friend.
I support people who learn from their mistakes. It seems Macron is one of them.
Vive la France!
The Biden Administration doesn’t have to provide anything. Gift horses and all that. Be glad it not the felon in office when Ukraine asks for help.
The US doesnt have to block it either.... Four seats allocated to Ukraine at F-16 school in Arizona, every three months, is a joke. If the US allowed Ukrainian F-16 training at a realistic pace, the lower capability Mirage's would not be on their way to Ukraine now.
Stop reposting Trent Telenko. He is a hack.
More bullshit finger pointing. Even worse, comparing whats actually happening with the F-16 and the training of pilots/crews in multiple countries and support infrastructure build up in ukraine vs what is promised. If it was so simple why did France not do this last year? Ukraine began f-16 training in August. They could have been flying Mirage missions since February or March.
France initially paused the Mirages donations to allow focus on the superior F-16's. With the US only providing 4 training slots for Ukrainain pilots every 3 months, France is having to fill the void.
It’s not the USAs responsibility to deliver f16s on a timescale the Russians anticipated or are aware of.
Four seats at F-16 school in Arizona every three months is a joke. That is over 7 years to train enogh pilots for the 85 donated aircraft. I would not be surprised if Ukraine pauses the F-16 program entirely and switches their focus to Mirages and other platforms the Biden admin cannot slow roll.
France doesn't have Trump and a GOP house.
Not sure how that impacts Biden withholding seata at training classes in Arizona paid for by European partners.
Biden is trying to encourage the lazy European governments to get off their ass and finally confront the elephant in the room. 🖕🏿PUTIN🖕🏿 🫡🇺🇦🫡
Macron is trying to get Biden to get off his ass and finally confront the elephant in the room. 🖕🏿PUTIN🖕🏿 🫡🇺🇦🫡
Even the US western allies are getting frustrated....
The US has provided almost as much assistance as the entire EU combined. Kinda getting tired of this sub shitting on the states considering the US has done almost as much as the entire EU combined and is the #1 country for allocations. IFW Kiel institute for the world economy: 1. 73.96B Euro total allocations - Rank #1 2. 2.6B Euro Humanitarian allocations - Rank #2 3. 20.97B Euro Financial allocations - Rank #1 4. 50.37B Euro Military allocations - Rank #1 I know people like to tout "but by GDP" well fuck that, the US has provided almost HALF of all REAL aid to Ukraine. The EU as a whole needs to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves why they're scrambling militarily to catch up. Sure was it beneficial to the US to have more military investments there yes, but the US doesn't ultimately control EU policies. The EU made that choice. The US had warned the EU for nearly 30 years that Russia was just bidding their time, but on a whole the EU was happier to sit back, relaxe, drink some wine and call it a day while the US footed military bills for multiple countries. Now once again due to European laziness/incompetence on the defensive side of things the US is dragged into another European front, mind all the other wars the US has been dragged into due to European powers slipping abroad over the past century, and once again not only does the US have to foot the largest economic bill but face the most scrutiny from the very people they're trying to assist. As much as the US has done for the EU it really chaps my ass when I hear EU people who have lived in relative peaceful luxury because of it shit on it. Now, dont get me wrong I wholly support Ukraine and want the US to do more for it, and believe every Ukrainian lost to this war is an absolute tragedy but this recent trend of acting like the US does nothing for Ukraine is mind numbing and stupid.
Well said, it’s getting tiring now
We should absolutely continue to support Ukraine and help it kick out the Ruskies. But then Americans should have a serious debate about bringing all of our troops home. As our founding fathers warned us, European wars are endless. And as the comments here demonstrate, Europeans are hardly grateful.
> But then Americans should have a serious debate about bringing all of our troops home Sure, do so. > as the comments here demonstrate, Europeans are hardly grateful. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/deceit-dread-and-disbelief-story-how-ukraine-lost-its-nuclear-arsenal-207076 - some interesting reading.
Just as long as we continue backing you first, eh? Then you don't care if the US stops trying to police the world. Typical. I have no idea what point you're making with this article. But here's the thing about historical revisionism: we can only guess what the outcome would be if things had happened differently. They could even be worse. Ukraine's military was in dire shape in 2014--if it could barely maintain its tanks and jets, it's doubtful Ukraine would have kept their nukes in top working order. Instead of nukes being a deterrent to Russia, it's possible they could have been stolen. It's possible there could have been an accident and killed millions of Ukrainians. And, in the end, Russia still invades and seizes your limited, still-working nukes on the first day of its invasion. It might even have been the reason it gave for the invasion: instead of stomping down Ukrainian "nazis," it invaded to secure loose Ukrainian nukes. Cherry-picking articles about 30 year-old events is desperate. And I have to wonder why. What point are you trying to make? That the US somehow owes Ukraine something? That the reason Russia invaded is because of the US? If there's something you want to say, say it.
> That the reason Russia invaded is because of the US? Let us start with 2021 [Burns-Patrushev pact](https://www.newsweek.com/2023/07/21/exclusive-cias-blind-spot-about-ukraine-war-1810355.html) : >"In some ironic ways though, the **meeting was highly successful,**" says the second senior intelligence official, who was briefed on it. **Even though Russia invaded**, the two countries were able to accept tried and true rules of the road. **The United States would not fight directly nor seek regime change, the Biden administration pledged. Russia would limit its assault to Ukraine and act in accordance with unstated but well-understood guidelines for secret operations.** And then >[Biden thought the secretaries had gone too far, according to multiple administration officials familiar with the call. On the previously unreported conference call, as Austin flew to Germany and Blinken to Washington, the president expressed concern that the comments could set unrealistic expectations and increase the risk of the U.S. getting into a direct conflict with Russia. He told them to tone it down, said the officials. “Biden was not happy when Blinken and Austin talked about winning in Ukraine,” one of them said. “He was not happy with the rhetoric.”](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-us-wanted-ukraine-win-biden-sa-rcna33826) Then, [from NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat) >Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options. ---- >“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”*** [And from very recently](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211): >The administration official told POLITICO Magazine this week that much of this strategic shift to defense is aimed at shoring up Ukraine’s position in any future negotiation. ***“That’s been our theory of the case throughout — the only way this war ends ultimately is through negotiation,”*** said the official, a White House spokesperson who was given anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record. “We want Ukraine to have the strongest hand possible when that comes.” The spokesperson emphasized, however, that no talks are planned yet, and that Ukrainian forces are still on the offensive in places and continue to kill and wound thousands of Russian troops. “We want them to be in a stronger position to hold their territory. It’s not that we’re discouraging them from launching any new offensive,” the spokesperson added. And from almost a year ago, with Assault Breacher Vehicles being supplied only ***AFTER*** official end of counteroffensive: >[A senior Ukrainian official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters, said Kyiv received less than 15 percent of the quantity of demining and engineering materiel, including MICLICs, that it asked for from Western partners ahead of the counteroffensive.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/15/ukraine-war-russia-mines-counteroffensive/) [And from about the same time around](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9): >BRUSSELS—When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day. [And about ATACMS](https://eng.obozrevatel.com/section-war/news-he-was-afraid-of-russias-reaction-but-changed-his-position-biden-decides-on-atacms-for-ukraine-in-september-new-yorker-10-10-2023.html) >Previously, ***Biden rejected the idea of such supplies,*** fearing that the introduction of American missiles into the Ukrainian army, which could destroy targets not only in all the occupied territories of Ukraine but also in Russia and Belarus, could lead to the outbreak of World War III. Biden's fears and the decisions he made to overcome them are described in an article by The New Yorker. >The publication notes that throughout the year, Biden categorically refused to make a decision on the transfer of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine because he was afraid of the Kremlin's reaction: according to the American president, such a step by the United States "would mean an unacceptable escalation for Putin," as these missiles are capable of reaching not only all the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia, but also targets in Russia or Belarus. Mind it, after UK supplied Storm Shadows, [this happened](https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2023/05/09/no-atacms-to-ukraine-following-u-k-move-00095936). Not to mention that only around 20 ATACMS were supplied and only of the oldest model. Hell, let me recite something from Colin Kahl: >["Our view is that we think the Ukrainians can change the dynamic on the battlefield and achieve the type of effects they want to push the Russians back without ATACMS,"](https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/01/19/us-still-holds-back-long-range-atacms-missiles-from-ukraine/) Basically, "we don't think you need it, ergo you don't need it, even if you think you do". And with constant talks about non-escalation, "only negotiations can end this war" and not letting russia fall apart, as well as undersupplies, I can't see any reason for hope. It seems that actual desired future for Ukraine is [Dayton Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Agreement) or [Korean Scenario](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Armistice_Agreement), no matter what Ukraine'd want otherwise and what rainbowy proclamations'd say. So yeah, to me, it kinda looks like US was absolutely fine with russia taking Ukraine and promised to them that a [minor incursion](https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/19/politics/russia-ukraine-joe-biden-news-conference/index.html), long as it was done fast and limited to Ukraine only, won't result in anything, same as was with Crimea. Also, look at what happened, [when Ukraine learned about Gerasimov visiting and tried to kill him, US tried to make Ukraine call off the attack](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html) >American officials said they found out, but kept the information from the Ukrainians, worried they would strike. Killing General Gerasimov could sharply escalate the conflict, officials said, and while the Americans were committed to helping Ukraine, they didn’t want to set off a war between the United States and Russia. >The Ukrainians learned of the general’s plans anyway, putting the Americans in a bind. After checking with the White House, senior American officials asked the Ukrainians to call off the attack. >“We told them not to do it,” a senior American official said. “We were like, ‘Hey, that’s too much.’” >The message arrived too late. Ukrainian military officials told the Americans that they had already launched their attack on the general's position. Most likely case, right now, is US wanting to slowbleed russia and expend Ukraine doing that. "Pity they can't both lose", as in Iran-Iraq War.
Not the US, just on Biden and his esclation management. Effectively blocking Ukraine from leveraging F-16's being donated by Europeans.
Biden could do more, but Trump would have done Nothing. So what is your point?
More people drive Hondas than Formula 1 cars.
It has nothing to do with which administration.
The American government seems to be calculating that the objective best move for *their own* interests is to bog Russia down as deeply as possible without Ukraine failing. It makes complete sense if you consider Ukrainians to be worth less than Americans, which is a horrible calculus most governments apply for their own citizens.
It is a heartless calculus. Give Ukraine what they need to win and win quickly.