OT: Pick a Fighter for Ukraine

[Raellus]

Inspired by this article, and recent discussion in the Putin's War thread...

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-pilots-on-now

Setting aside in-kind replacements for Ukraine's current fighter fleet, what would be the best Western fighter with which to relatively quickly reequip the UAF fighter force?

-

[swaghauler]

The Mig 29 because they can already service and fly it. Give them ALL of NATO's PACT fighters and give our NATO PARTNERS F16s or F15s for their contribution to Ukraine's fight.

[ToughOmbres]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

The Mig 29 because they can already service and fly it. Give them ALL of NATO's PACT fighters and give our NATO PARTNERS F16s or F15s for their contribution to Ukraine's fight.

Given the poll's parameters I voted for the F-16. If I had my choice your suggestion makes more practical sense from my standpoint-they are already familiar with it. In an idea world we would expedite and facilitate more East Bloc hardware with upgrades for them.

[pmulcahy11b]

They already have (or more probably had) the MiG-29, and I think small numbers of the base Su-27 and Su-25. Their mainstay fighter was the MiG-29. So most of their fighter pilots already know how to fly it, and will just have to be trained on any possible mods or upgrades they're not used to.

I think the original plan was good: trade Poland's Mig-29s for late-Block F-16Cs and Ds. (The Poles decided to throw an unnecessary complication into the works, but...). Then give the former Polish MiGs to Ukraine, along with some ordnance. Simple.

[Raellus]

My dudes, I agree, but your responses ignore the poll question.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Setting aside in-kind replacements for Ukraine's current fighter fleet, what would be the best Western fighter with which to relatively quickly reequip the UAF fighter force?

Emphasis added.

If you're going to play the game, ya gotta follow the rules.

-

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Raellus

My dudes, I agree, but your responses ignore the poll question.



Emphasis added.

If you're going to play the game, ya gotta follow the rules.

-

And you're ignoring the fact that 4 NATO countries (including the US with 3 dozen flying) fly the Mig 29 and one of them built Migs. Poland's Mig 29s ARE "Western Fighters" as far as I'm concerned.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

And you're ignoring the fact that 4 NATO countries (including the US with 3 dozen flying) fly the Mig 29 and one of them built Migs. Poland's Mig 29s ARE "Western Fighters" as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not ignoring anything. I agree with you. I've said so.

The poll asks respondents to pick a fighter other than the MiG29/SU-27. That's the premise of the article I linked. If you don't want to read it, cool. If you still want to pick the MiG29/SU-27, cool. Fair play. I'm not telling anyone what to think. I'm just clarifying the poll premise and parameters in case there was some sort of misunderstanding.

-

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

And you're ignoring the fact that 4 NATO countries (including the US with 3 dozen flying) fly the Mig 29 and one of them built Migs. Poland's Mig 29s ARE "Western Fighters" as far as I'm concerned.

I wonder just how many non-US aircraft they have out there at Nellis...

[pmulcahy11b]

OK, I read the article. Unlike most of The Drive's articles, I thoroughly disagree with this one. And there's no way a pilot will gain even the tiniest level of proficiency in a modern fighter in 2-3 weeks, unless he was already proficient on a version of the same aircraft. (Hell, it took me almost three months to become proficient enough to solo in a glider.) And I reiterate my point.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

@Swag, I agree, but your response ignores the poll question.



Emphasis added.

-

It can take as much as a year for a pilot to be trained to proficiency on a new type of aircraft. Barring check flights and joyrides, none of the aircraft in the poll will be usable by Ukraine's pilots until the war is well over. So sorry, I have to ignore the poll rules in favor of what's possible.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

It can take as much as a year for a pilot to be trained to proficiency on a new type of aircraft. Barring check flights and joyrides, none of the aircraft in the poll will be usable by Ukraine's pilots until the war is well over. So sorry, I have to ignore the poll rules in favor of what's possible.

Fair enough. Did you read the article? It probably does a better job of establishing the premise than the OP did.

-

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Fair enough. Did you read the article? It probably does a better job of establishing the premise than the OP did.

-

OK, let scroll down and find it. I'll admit I didn't read the whole thread. But I think my point is valid.

[Nyrond24]

Mig 29, they can fly without retraining.

[Tegyrius]

My vote is for the F-16, despite not personally being a fan of it. It's common, multirole, and there are likely to be a bunch on the market in the coming years as more current operators adopt the (sigh) F-35. Also, one non-NATO alliance proposal I've seen discussed is the introduction of Ukraine into the Visegrad Group, and the F-16 is the only listed fighter currently operated by Visegrad Group members, so commonality there would be an additional selling point. While the Visegrad Group is not a militar alliance per se, it does engage in rather a lot of defense cooperation.

Going beyond the poll's parameters (because apparently that's the theme of this thread), I also would consider the Gripen a candidate. While its disadvantages in cost and ubiquity have been amply discussed in another current thread, it has the political advantage of coming from another non-NATO nation, which may be important if Ukraine clings to its ostensible neutral posture in the postwar years (and it's also in Visegrad Group member service).

- C.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Going beyond the poll's parameters (because apparently that's the theme of this thread), I also would consider the Gripen a candidate. While its disadvantages in cost and ubiquity have been amply discussed in another current thread, it has the political advantage of coming from another non-NATO nation, which may be important if Ukraine clings to its ostensible neutral posture in the postwar years (and it's also in Visegrad Group member service).

Oh, it's definitely within the poll parameters. It was mentioned in the article and included amongst the poll options. The Gripen would probably be the most politically acceptable option to Moscow, coming, as it would be, from a nominally neutral nation. This could be important, as Putin will probably baulk at an infusion of US-made fighter aircraft.

Another benefit of the Gripen is that it's designed to operate from ad hoc airstrips like highways, and to be maintained by conscripts. Given the tactics that the UAF is using in the current conflict (see Post #17 in this thread), those capabilities could be a boon in a future one.

I'd be happy to see Ukraine get significant numbers of any of the western fighter types mooted (except for the Mirage 2000, which is the least capable and closest to obsolescence).

-

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

e.

I'd be happy to see Ukraine get significant numbers of any of the western fighter types mooted (except for the Mirage 2000, which is the least capable and closest to obsolescence).



-

Substitute Rafale for Mirage 2000. But Rafales are more expensive than Typhoons, which are more expensive than Gripens, which are more expensive than F-16s.

[Raellus]

By now, we all know that Ukraine will soon be receiving some ex-NATO F-16s and, fairly recently, France announced that it will be donating Mirage 2000s.

And now Super Etendards, of all combat aircraft, from Argentina, of all countries? I don't think anyone saw that one coming. Would you classify the Super Etendard as a fighter?

https://www.twz.com/sea/argentinian-...ukraine-report

-