Hacker News Reader

Comment by fwungy | Hacker News Reader

This is wishful thinking backed up by dropped standards.

Yes, a fighter pilot can quickly enough learn to fly another fighter in terms of basic flying functions, but a fighter is an advanced weapons system built to interact with a constellation of advanced weapons systems.

Not only does a fighter pilot need to learn the particular performance features of the plane, but also the weapons systems, and then combine them in real time to have a reasonable chance of returning the plane whole in a combat environment.

View on HN

But does a Ukrainian pilot need to train for all of the F16 missions?

I don't think so. Some of the most difficult training missions are "Wild Weasel" roles for example... IE: The F16 being used as anti-antiair. Its dangerous mission and difficult training.

But if the Ukrainians never plan to use the F16 as anti-antiair / Wild Weasel, then the training can be cut out of the routine entirely. Maybe the Ukrainians just wanna focus on missile interception, for example (IE: forming a missile shield to block out Russian rocket attacks on their cities).

The problem is that F-16s are rare and expensive. If a pilot screws up due to a failure that could have been addressed with training, it's a huge loss.

Rare? It's one of the most common fighters in the world.

And the cost of the airframe is moot during a war. Ukraine needs them, has pilots capable of handling it, and can learn to maintain them as needed. But the US is holding back for fears that Ukraine would use them to attack Russian territory.

This is the same thinking that held back tanks for so long (and continues to hold back ATACMs). We're scared of the Russians.

USA is holding back tanks because IFVs (like the M2 Bradley, German Marder, or Swedish CV90) are more important for this upcoming fight.

M2 Bradley is an excellent vehicle. No, its not a tank, but its the vehicle the Ukrainians need today. With over 100+ M2 Bradley donations, and 90+ Strykers (a lighter vehicle that serves a similar troop-transport / mechanized infantry role), its clear to me that the USA cares more about practical battlefield issues rather than the somewhat political "Tank" question.

Based on the reports of Trench-warfare, masses of Russian infantry, and satellite photographs... we can see that the 25mm autocannon on an M2 Bradley with 900 rounds stored is going to be more useful than the 120mm cannon of an M1 Abrams with only 40 shots.

Furthermore: the Stryker vehicles with Mk 19 machine-grenade launchers are obviously better for clearing enemy trenches at long range than any other vehicle.

Yeah, tank blasts are ferocious, but not the best weapon against the huge network of trenches Russia has setup. Grenades, heavy Mortars, self-propelled artillery, and IFVs / M2 Bradleys are whats needed.

M2 is an excellent system for Ukraine, but they need tanks too. Abrams will be able to take far more damage than a Bradley, and they really have different roles. If Ukraine tries to use the Bradley as a light tank, they will have issues. CV90 is an excellent IFV also, probably the best in the world.

While you're correct about that... IIRC, Ukraine actually has plenty of tanks. Albeit Soviet-tanks like T-72... but that's still a proper tank.

Its the IFV department where Ukraine was severely lacking in... and where we can get the best improvement to Ukrainian strength per ton-of-weapons shipped over.

Well, their tanks are shite compared to Western tanks. They've also captured a lot of the various BMPs, but again those are shite. As of Oct 2022, Ukraine has captured roughly 500 IFVs. I don't have the patience to go through all of Oryx's data to see how many they've lost to the Russians, but they seem to have a decent number.

I think that the Bradley will be a big help in comparison to the performance of a BMP-3, but the delta between a Challenger or Leopard (especially Leo 2A46) to any T series tank is huge.

There are maybe 25 F-16s that can be spared for Ukraine and not much more than a few thousand active airframes. Nobody wants to lose a $20M fighter to a $100k missile.

Combat flight missions are too dangerous to risk on a rush trained pilot.

1. These are not "rush trained pilots." Most of the candidates have seen more combat than USAF pilots. 2. The USAF has over 500 F-16 in service that are being replaced by the F-35. There are over 3000 F-16s in service worldwide, and it's still in production, so spare parts (and new airframes) are going to be available for a long time. 3. Ukraine doesn't need 100s. They need 24-36, enough to equip two full squadrons and have a small training squadron.

You take off, fly in a straight line for a bit and then hit a button to launch the missile which guides itself.

How is that complicated?

There are SAM's in the area and now you need to drop out of autopilot fly low through a mountain ravine and deploy countermeasures.

Once you pull up through the ravine two SU-35 are approaching from the northeast.

You have to ready for anything. A drone could do the mission you described.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com