US / Russia prisoner swap

[ryoder 1,590]

Funny how the Stable Genius couldn't get Whelan back from his buddy Putin...oh wait, that meant caring.

Russia agrees to free Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan in multi-country prisoner swap

[gowlerk 2,251]

6 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Funny how the Stable Genius couldn't get Whelan back from his buddy Putin...oh wait, that meant caring.

Russia agrees to free Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan in multi-country prisoner swap

Both of them? Multi-country? Ah.....the art of the deal!

[Phil1111 1,149]

One of the prisoners being swapped is a Russian FSB convicted murderer. "Vadim Krasikov released, the sources said. Krasikov was convicted in December of murdering a former Chechen fighter, Zelimkhan “Tornike” Khangoshvili, in Berlin’s Kleiner Tiergarten in 2019 and sentenced to life in prison. "

Reporting in the EU Politico suggest that Putin feels Biden is soft on such prisoner swaps. That Trump has said Russia will " Get nothing" in any exchanges.

It may be a pyrrhic victory to once again reward Putin for the taking of innocent hostages. Such that he can later exchange them for his murdering spies. This isn't the first time Putin has benefited from his hostage scams.

Edited August 1, 2024 by Phil1111

[gowlerk 2,251]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

This isn't the first time Putin has benefited from his hostage scams.

Yes, several nations of the axis of evil are doing this all the time. 

Edited August 1, 2024 by gowlerk

[JoeWeber 2,834]

Just now, gowlerk said:

Yes, several nations of the axis of evil are doing this all the time. 

Hey, I know! Don't go to Russia or other actor nations desiring a captive audience for prisoner exchanges. That would definitely include anyone wearing a magical and protective press badge or someone who maybe could use a few extra bucks to play exhibition basketball. That way we wouldn't need to give up murderous assholes or convicted spies to get your stupid ass back from crouching over a sewing machine in the gulag to please your stunned and huddling family members who only want to see you at Christmas again and screw the political costs.

[Phil1111 1,149]

12 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Yes, several nations of the axis of evil are doing this all the time. 

I see the political pressure to release the innocent. IMO the US should paint a F-16 in Ukrainian colors and camo. Name the F-16 "A present to President Putin from Innocent Prisoner ________" Then help Ukraine take out the Putin-Kerch bridge with some well placed 2000 pounders. Publish pictures of the successful  bombing mission(s) painted on the jets. A win all around.

Yeah, yeah I know the US isn't giving Ukraine any F-16s directly.

[kallend 2,106]

F-16 is a 45 year old design.  I'm sure we could find something more capable.

The Wright Bros. yet hadn't flown the "Flyer" 45 years before B-29s dropped nukes on Japan or Yeager broke the sound barrier.

[JerryBaumchen 1,442]

6 minutes ago, kallend said:

F-16 is a 45 year old design.  I'm sure we could find something more capable.

The Wright Bros. yet hadn't flown the "Flyer" 45 years before B-29s dropped nukes on Japan or Yeager broke the sound barrier.

Hi John,

I do not keep up with military aircraft.  Any thoughts on how that 45-yr old design would fare against current Russian aircraft?

Jerry Baumchen

[ryoder 1,590]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

F-16 is a 45 year old design.  I'm sure we could find something more capable.

The Wright Bros. yet hadn't flown the "Flyer" 45 years before B-29s dropped nukes on Japan or Yeager broke the sound barrier.

The B-52 first flew 72 years ago. They are still in service and USAF has plans to overhaul them beginning later this year.

Tinker Air Force base readies for B-52 upgrades as engines tested

These developments will mark critical milestones in the Air Force’s effort to upgrade its fleet of 76 Cold War-era B-52s with new engines, radar, avionics, and other improvements to keep it flying until perhaps 2060, about a century after the B-52H was first introduced. The planes’ 1960s-era TF33 engines are at the end of their working lives, and are to be replaced by Rolls-Royce’s F130 engine.

Just because an airframe design is old does not mean it is not useful.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

4 hours ago, kallend said:

F-16 is a 45 year old design.  I'm sure we could find something more capable.

The Wright Bros. yet hadn't flown the "Flyer" 45 years before B-29s dropped nukes on Japan or Yeager broke the sound barrier.

Well, there's roughly a gazillion F-16s in service across the world. 
That's why finding a bunch to give to Ukraine wasn't terribly hard.

And while the original design is quite old, there have been continuous upgrades as the years progressed. 
They're currently making the 'V' version (V as in alphabetical, not Roman numeral).

The ones going to Ukraine won't be that new, but they're going to be at least a match for the Soviet/Russian fighters that Russia can put up.

Besides, they likely aren't going to go up against the Russian Air Force.
They'll be used for SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) and ground attack.

One of the bigger things the F16 will give the Ukrainians is the ability to use just about any NATO armaments.
They've been using NATO arms on their own (Russian/Soviet built) aircraft, but there needs to be significant modification to do so.
Being able to use the stuff 'off the shelf' will be a big plus.

[JoeWeber 2,834]

23 hours ago, kallend said:

F-16 is a 45 year old design.  I'm sure we could find something more capable.

The Wright Bros. yet hadn't flown the "Flyer" 45 years before B-29s dropped nukes on Japan or Yeager broke the sound barrier.

No kidding, who would rest their safety or security on 35 to 65 year old airframes? Not happening.

[kallend 2,106]

21 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

No kidding, who would rest their safety or security on 35 to 65 year old airframes? Not happening.

Or even 737 Max's

 

On 8/2/2024 at 6:42 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

Well, there's roughly a gazillion F-16s in service across the world. 
That's why finding a bunch to give to Ukraine wasn't terribly hard.

And while the original design is quite old, there have been continuous upgrades as the years progressed. 
They're currently making the 'V' version (V as in alphabetical, not Roman numeral).

 

Surely we could find a few 27 y/o F-22s.   Or 35y/o B-2s

 

When the Nazis invaded USSR, Churchill didn't send Sopwith Camels to Russia.  He sent over 3,000 Hawker Hurricanes.

Edited August 4, 2024 by kallend

[ryoder 1,590]

The F-16 is in production today!!!

The fact is that dogfighting is a thing of the past. What matters today is who has the sensors and weapons with enough range they can shoot first, before the other guy can.

Look up what a "block number" is. It is analagous to a "model year" in the automotive industry. Every successive block has numerous updates, and older blocks sometimes are overhauled and rebuilt to the specifications of newer blocks.

Saying the F-16 is 45 years old is like saying the Ford Mustang is a 60 years old.

Full disclosure: I once worked at AIr Force Plant 4 in Fort Worth TX.

[JerryBaumchen 1,442]

33 minutes ago, ryoder said:

The F-16 is in production today!!!

The fact is that dogfighting is a thing of the past. What matters today is who has the sensors and weapons with enough range they can shoot first, before the other guy can.

Look up what a "block number" is. It is analagous to a "model year" in the automotive industry. Every successive block has numerous updates, and older blocks sometimes are overhauled and rebuilt to the specifications of newer blocks.

Saying the F-16 is 45 years old is like saying the Ford Mustang is a 60 years old.

Full disclosure: I once worked at AIr Force Plant 4 in Fort Worth TX.

Hi Robert,

And, today you can buy a brand new 1932 'Ford' roadster.

Brookville Roadster

These aircraft, like a lot of US Navy ships, are continually being upgraded.

IMO a rather ridiculous argument.

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,563]

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

The F-16 is in production today!!!

The fact is that dogfighting is a thing of the past. What matters today is who has the sensors and weapons with enough range they can shoot first, before the other guy can.

And there is an issue there. Provision of F16s is a huge positive for sure... but AFAIK the USAF would never contemplate sending a force of F16s into combat against genuine enemy air power without support from F22 or F15 heavy fighters. They have so much more power to spare, both to pump into much more capable radar and countermeasure systems and they can cruise much higher and much faster - particularly when heavily loaded. 

This means the pilots of those big boys have much better situational awareness meaning they can make better decisions sooner about what they're faced with, and when they need to they can shoot from much further away (the exact same missile performs much better with 10,000ft higher and 300mph faster head start). 

Now there's no way F22s are going there - there aren't enough and no-one else is trusted with them, even the Israelis and Japanese can't get an export licence and they've been begging. But F15s of a similar vintage would be a huge step up in capability, and would start to allow Ukraine to actually use some of the NATO doctrine we keep teaching them. F35 B/C models with stealth and far more flexibility on runway requirements would be good too, but they're still too new and too expensive to realistically expect anyone to be giving them away.

[ryoder 1,590]

46 minutes ago, jakee said:

And there is an issue there. Provision of F16s is a huge positive for sure... but AFAIK the USAF would never contemplate sending a force of F16s into combat against genuine enemy air power without support from F22 or F15 heavy fighters. They have so much more power to spare, both to pump into much more capable radar and countermeasure systems and they can cruise much higher and much faster - particularly when heavily loaded. 

This means the pilots of those big boys have much better situational awareness meaning they can make better decisions sooner about what they're faced with, and when they need to they can shoot from much further away (the exact same missile performs much better with 10,000ft higher and 300mph faster head start). 

Now there's no way F22s are going there - there aren't enough and no-one else is trusted with them, even the Israelis and Japanese can't get an export licence and they've been begging. But F15s of a similar vintage would be a huge step up in capability, and would start to allow Ukraine to actually use some of the NATO doctrine we keep teaching them. F35 B/C models with stealth and far more flexibility on runway requirements would be good too, but they're still too new and too expensive to realistically expect anyone to be giving them away.

You are totally missing my point.

Each block gets upgraded functionality. Make generalities comparing two different fighters is meaningless unless you specify which block of each you are comparing.

And that is assuming we are talking only about USAF a/c. Every country that buys a fighter from the US, specifies its own equipment. And don't assume they are getting the full capabilites that USAF gets.

As an interesting bit of trivia, here is a photo of 2 Israeli F-16's. Note the 2-seater in the foreground has a raised compartment extending from the cockpit back to the vertical stabilizer. That was a custom addition just for the Israeli's. I was told they were shipped to Israel with that space empty, and we did not know what they were putting in there.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2024 by ryoder

[Phil1111 1,149]

Ukraine has received 10 F-16s so far. According to the Economist they are equipped with active Link-16 support from NATO.

So each F-16 should know the whereabouts of Russian missiles and A/C within about 100km inside Russia. Since they have restrictions about use inside Russia all Ukrainian territory should have Link-16 coverage. Ukraine does have AIM 9X  but i don't know if they have longer range AA.

[jakee 1,563]

13 minutes ago, ryoder said:

You are totally missing my point.

Each block gets upgraded functionality. Make generalities comparing two different fighters is meaningless unless you specify which block of each you are comparing.

You totally missed where I said 'of a similar vintage' then, didn't you? 

Furthermore - the enemy isn't going to calibrate their force based on which generations of your own fighters you're comparing - they're using the best they've got. And whatever weaknesses they have - the fact remains that the USAF wouldn't contemplate sending a force of any type of F16s alone against enemy airpower without support from heavier fighters. That's the bit that matters, not some game of Block whatever vs Block whodjamaflip top trumps.

[Phil1111 1,149]

33 minutes ago, ryoder said:

You are totally missing my point.

Each block gets upgraded functionality. Make generalities comparing two different fighters is meaningless unless you specify which block of each you are comparing....

As an interesting bit of trivia, here is a photo of 2 Israeli F-16's. Note the 2-seater in the foreground has a raised compartment extending from the cockpit back to the vertical stabilizer. That was a custom addition just for the Israeli's. I was told they were shipped to Israel with that space empty, and we did not know what they were putting in there.

You may find this of interest. Israel is the only country receiving Lockheed support for the amendments to F-35 codes.  Subsequent to the Oct. 7th attack by Hamas they got "emergency" F-35 updates

F-35s were a key component in the Israel attack on Yemen last month

[ryoder 1,590]

8 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

You may find this of interest. Israel is the only country receiving Lockheed support for the amendments to F-35 codes.  Subsequent to the Oct. 7th attack by Hamas they got "emergency" F-35 updates

F-35s were a key component in the Israel attack on Yemen last month

That does not surprise me. An Israeli liaison officer had an permanent office there in the F-16 plant. I had to go see him one day to get approval for some paperwork.

[Phil1111 1,149]

3 minutes ago, ryoder said:

That does not surprise me. An Israeli liaison officer had an permanent office there in the F-16 plant. I had to go see him one day to get approval for some paperwork.

This funny looking pregnant A/C is one of yours then? I wonder when it's delivery date is.

 

[ryoder 1,590]

That plane

4 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

This funny looking pregnant A/C is one of yours then? I wonder when it's delivery date is.

 

That plane has the Israeli "tunnel" along the spine, and the "conformal" fuel tanks.  Info on the tanks:

Conformal Fuel Tanks for Advanced F-16 Block 50/52/60

[nigel99 569]

13 hours ago, ryoder said:

That does not surprise me. An Israeli liaison officer had a permanent office there in the F-16 plant. I had to go see him one day to get approval for some paperwork.

I worked a little bit on Block 60, was definitely interesting.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

15 hours ago, jakee said:

You totally missed where I said 'of a similar vintage' then, didn't you? 

Furthermore - the enemy isn't going to calibrate their force based on which generations of your own fighters you're comparing - they're using the best they've got. And whatever weaknesses they have - the fact remains that the USAF wouldn't contemplate sending a force of any type of F16s alone against enemy airpower without support from heavier fighters. That's the bit that matters, not some game of Block whatever vs Block whodjamaflip top trumps.

The US wouldn't send tanks and armored vehicles into battle without heavy air support.

US doctrine is based on virtually unlimited logistics. Which is why the US works so hard on being good at that.

Ukraine doesn't have that luxury. They have to do what they can with what they've got.

They've done a masterful job of improvising and innovating. 

Having F-16s is going to be a big help.
Not a 'silver bullet'.

Kind of like getting Abrams tanks and Bradley IFVs.

They found out pretty fast that tanks aren't the ideal tool on the sort of battlefield they're operating on.
They get a lot of attention, and are targeted first. Being big and 'not super fast', there have been a bunch hit (mostly damaged, a couple destroyed).

The Bradleys have similar, if a bit lesser vulnerability, but they have a lot more of them.
So a damaged or destroyed Bradley isn't as 'big' of a loss. 
The Ukrainians have developed tactics that take advantage of the Bradley's abilities.
And are using them fairly well.

On a slightly different note, the survivability of both the Abrams & Bradley have been a HUGE plus.
When you see a destroyed Russian designed tank, very often the turret is a distance away. If you see that, the entire crew died in the explosion. 
The number of deaths among Abrams & Bradley crews has been very low.

That is a big plus for crew morale (knowing you are likely to die if you get hit isn't a 'good thing') and for effectiveness (experienced crews are a lot better).

[riggerrob 643]

On 8/3/2024 at 11:57 AM, JoeWeber said:

No kidding, who would rest their safety or security on 35 to 65 year old airframes? Not happening.

Back in 1977, I did mu first skydive from a straight-tailed Cessna 182 airplane that was built the same year as me: 1957. Last month I did a few jumps from its brother. I am now 67 years old.

Similarly, World War 2 surplus Beech 182 and Douglas DC-3s hauled skydivers until they wore out during the 199s, meaning that they were 50 years old by the time they retired.