Ukraine

[kerick]

The most logical thing is to resupply with equipment the Ukrainians are familiar with. MiGs from other countries would be the fastest way. Other aircraft will be long term no matter the type. There is really two problems. Get them more aircraft right now then transitioning to something else in the future. Same with tanks and artillery. I do like the idea of F-18s, preferably C and D models. Just my recent ramblings.

[Wardukw]

Right I don't know do do about flying and maintaining aircraft but I do know armour and artillery and talking with some ol mates I served with who are still in the game gave me some quite interesting info and the training of Ukrainen tank and artillery crews..mainly cause we were talking about it 
These lads went from no idea to extremely proficient with the M777 155mm artillery system and less then 4 weeks...the same thing which is happening is their not talking troops with no training at all on armour or guns.
The troops are already very well trained on the weapons they use and it's talking them very little time to figure out how these systems work without a huge amount of training.
As it is right this minute US and UK troops are training Ukrainian tank crews on the Abrams and Challenger 2 MBTs and it seems these boys are no dummies and are learning very fast indeed.
So if their pilots are the same which it wouldn't surprise me that they are pretty damn good it might take them a short time to learn these planes..the only thing I can see really slow things down is the maintenance side...a F-16 is a bloody complicated plane.

[AeroplaneDriver]

a F-16 is a bloody complicated plane.

For techs used to MiG 29s and SU 27s its not that complicated.  Different, yet, complicated, no.  It's an aircraft that at its core, first flew in the early 70s.  An F-35 it aint. 

[Wardukw]

That it did ..just like the F14..F15 and the F18 ..there all old but having been quite close on occasion to destroyed russian aircraft you would be very surprised at how antique these are compared to a F16..
They still have computers but it's like windows95 compared to windows2000 pro operating systems and hell what shocked me was the remains of a AN 22 where the brake lines on the main rear landing gear was held in place with resin coated string.
Makes ya wonder what else is like that .
Oh you'll love this..Mig31 with a off the shelf GPS unit tapes to its instrument panel 
Seen the pics...funny as hell 

[AeroplaneDriver]

The F-18 is not too much later, but it was. significant jump over the others.  And I have work buddies who flew A-10's in combat with Garmin OTS GPSs.  It's all relative.  It's becoming clear that fighting Russia doesn't need top of the line equipment. 

I have several whiffy ides in mind but leaning towards F-16 or Mirage 2000 as the most likely.  Also worth bearing in mind that F-16s have been in service in eastern Europe for a little while now.  Opens the door for "mercenaries" to sneak in to keep them flying. 

[Wardukw]

Always been a fan of the 2000..such a great looking plane and I wish that someone had done a 48th Mirage 4000...would've been most happy about that.
I like the merc idea and in today's world it would be a most plausible idea especially with the PMCs we have to deal with.

[AeroplaneDriver]

Always been a fan of the 2000..such a great looking plane and I wish that someone had done a 48th Mirage 4000...would've been most happy about that.
I like the merc idea and in today's world it would be a most plausible idea especially with the PMCs we have to deal with.

Agree very much with the 1/48 4000.  So much Whiffery potential. 

[Wardukw]

Always been a fan of the 2000..such a great looking plane and I wish that someone had done a 48th Mirage 4000...would've been most happy about that.
I like the merc idea and in today's world it would be a most plausible idea especially with the PMCs we have to deal with.

Agree very much with the 1/48 4000.  So much Whiffery potential. 

Oh bigtime matey  ..god I'd have some fun with that 

[kitbasher]

It's becoming clear that fighting Russia doesn't need top of the line equipment.

During the days of the Cold War NATO - in terms of its equipment - generally enjoyed a not inconsiderable qualitative advantage over the Warsaw Pact.

However the Pact enjoyed a significant numerical advantage.

Assuming of course everything (on both sides) would have been serviceable had the 'balloon gone up'.

[Pellson]

Training a MiG or Sukhoi pilot on any western type, in particular one from an older generation (looking at the American teens), will be a lot like training someone driving a car to drive a sports bike. While both are road vehicles, everything else is different.
This is mainly due to the entirely different pilot interfaces in the respective types. Nothing sounds the same, sits in the same place in the cockpit, or reacts the same way to input. And in combat, there's really no time to think. You have to just "do".

Again, the Gripen has an advantage here, being designed to minimise the need for specialised training of pilots as well as ground crew, likely making it an easier transition. In particular, being a full swingrole design from the start, the aircraft has unique "help"-features in weapon delivery, basically making it easier to shoot.

But - I also think that the fastest way to support Ukraine would be to stop fiddling about, hand over everything Russian built we can find, and then simultaneously start the training on any western type Ukraine can focus on as a next step. Despite the Gripen being simpler and cheaper to operate, and despite it also not having any need whatsoever for regular "FOD-sweeps" of runways, taxiways and aprons, I would guess that the reasonable mount still would be the surplus F-16's from any of the F-35 countries in Europe. The knowledge, parts and support are all there, and the political weight of flying something American shouldn't be underestimated. Also, any alternatives, such as the Hornet, the Typhoon or the Rafale, will all be significantly more expensive to operate, and also available in smaller numbers.

[AeroplaneDriver]

At the risk of sounding pompous, who here has experience training pilots as they transition between vastly different types of aircraft?  I'l raise my hand, because I do.  Granted it is in an airline environment, but if an MD-80 pilot can learn to operate an A320 in an air carrier environment in 6 weeks I think a MiG-29 pilot can learn to fly an F-16 in a similar timeframe, especially against an existential backdrop.  Yes, learning to fly vs learning to fight are two different things but I would bet a paycheck that a motivated Ukrainian MiG driver can learn to fly an F-16 and effectively pop off AIM-9s and AIM-120s in short order.  Will they be the best in the world?  No.  But they are also facing an enemy that is by no means the best in the world.  With a BoB mentality I'd wager a MiG-29 driver can convert to an F-16 effectively in under 6 months.  These folks know how to fly.  Aerodynamics don't change across borders, and from talking to MANY coworkers and students who flew F-16s, it is a very forgiving platform.  Learning switchology is a not a huge ordeal.

[kitbasher]

Absolutely agree with Aeroplanedriver's comments, but would add it's not just type conversion.  There's warfighting tactics to consider as well.

Underpinning all of that is the issue of warfighting doctrine, and in this area Ukraine has enjoyed a decade or more of exposure to NATO military thinking, a significant push to eradicate corruption within the military, and the establishment of professional NCO and junior officer corps capable of - and empowered to apply - their tactical judgement and leadership skills as and when necessary.  Something their opponents do not enjoy to the same extent.

And as for quality, I know a member of the Baltic Defence College staff who has nothing but praise for the Ukrainians passing through the college.

[AeroplaneDriver]

Great point.  Ukraine has decade of exposure to western doctrine. 

[Pellson]

I have my input partly from reading, but also from friends and relatives in the Swedish, Finnish and Danish air forces, so there's experience from at least three different systems and fighter types. From what I hear, going from an MD80 to an A320 would be like going from a Phantom to a Viper, and having set that, the step from a Russian platform is expected to be bigger.

But, as the Gentleman is pointing out, he's the flying teacher here, and I'm certainly hoping he's correct. And that various politicians get their act together and actually supply something, almost regardless what.

Skipping that subject, I also like the M2000 a lot. First because it is probably the prettiest first line fighter since the Hunter, and second because it was probably the best air superiority platform in its day, if you weigh in affordability. Not far from the F-15 in performance, but at just above half the price, it certainly delivered a hefty punch for its pay, and had you just been able to integrate the ubiquitous western missiles, it would have been a magnificent platform for Ukraine. Also, I think it deserved a bigger customer base than it got IRL.

[Nick]

Jordan has recently retired 400 Challenger 1 tanks, many of which have been upgraded.

They may be 40 years old and well used but you'd think that sending just 50 of the better ones would be a good idea. That or supplying them to a third country who then passes their T-72s to Ukraine.