Zelenskiy begging for Russian airplanes

[Oozlefinch]

He can ask European countries for it. Why does the US always have to pay for stuff?

How many other countries do you think have a lot of military aircraft that are sitting around unused?

And this goes right back to my last post. Even I am shocked at how far our surplus systems were scrapped in the last decade.

Davis-Monthan Commissary · 5455 E Comanche St, Tucson, AZ 85707

âââââ · Grocery store

www.google.com

Welcome to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, the "Boneyard" for surplus US military aircraft. Now the first time I went there was in 2008, and the place was damned near overflowing. The last time I was there was in 2011, and I could see the big holes where a lot of the aircraft there had been scrapped.

Today? Maybe 1 in 5 of what had been there before is still there anymore. And most of the aircraft are nowhere suitable for what is going on there now. Some BUFFS, I see some BONEs, and a ton of cargo haulers. Some fighters scattered here and there, and what seems to be a half0dozen CH-53s, and two dozen what seem to be CH-47 Chinooks (possible CH-46 Sea Knights, impossible to tell without one next to the other). Seeing this really hits me in the gut, because this is exactly what our long term boneyards like this were made for.

It is not so much the US would be "paying for stuff", it is simply that for decades we had it laying around in places like this. So that if needed, we could reactive it ourselves or send it off to allies either as emergency replacements or outright sales. And yes, a hell of a lot of it since WWII we have sold. And made a lot of money doing so.

What, you think if we sell a dozen F-15 to some country we build them new ones? Nope, most times we pull one out of a boneyard, give it a top to bottom overhaul then rebuild it. Most get our old ones like what you see above.

But this (like BRAC 30 years ago) is where I start to really want to kick the crap out of our politicians. This stuff is not just sitting around as scrap, it literally is an important part of our military. Not only for us, but for any allies that might need say 20 fighters or a half-dozen cargo aircraft. And you can see those giant holes where DM used to have tons of them. For the very purpose of what is being discussed now. Pull them into the hangars, a week or two to restore them to operating status, and then fly them off to where they are needed.

But we can't, they are not there anymore. The "Great Obama Scrap Purge" apparently had most of them destroyed, just as he did the ships. And with the way that China is eyeing Taiwan like a hungry dog and it is a bone, we (and they) might really be able to use those ships in the future. But they are gone, ironically most of them got sold off to China for scrap. I wonder if future generations will laugh at our short-sightedness.

 

[Oozlefinch]

There are numerous links all over the news with claims by the us govt they retain most of their aircraft, and about zero evidence they actually do. For all they claims ukraine can't seem to get anything in the air except drones.

Because on the first day and every day since then Russia has been plastering their air bases. A few dozen cruise missiles a day can keep most of them shut down so they can't launch anything.

Drones are OK, as they can take off from just about anywhere. But a modern fighter needs an airport or air base to operate out of. And until they can secure an air base and keep it safe from attacks, sending them fighters would be damned near worthless. You have to do one before you can do the other.

And where are our "drone lovers" now? All those screaming that drones can replace fighters, and we no longer need to send up pilots to die in combat? Well, this goes right back to what I have been saying in here for over a decade. Drones are completely unsuited for operating in this kind of environment where they might be expected to take part in air combat.

Now they have been using their Bayraktar TB2 drones so far, but they started with less than two dozen of them, and I think they might have around a dozen left. And those are only barely adequate for actual combat. Ukraine seems to be using them mostly for recon, and hitting logistic trains. But they only have 4 hardpoints each, so that is not a lot of hate to throw on the ground before they have to return to base. I think three aircraft like the A-10 can deliver a hell of a lot more ordinance than their entire drone force combined (before the war, today a single A-10 can do it).

 

[Fishking]

How many other countries do you think have a lot of military aircraft that are sitting around unused?

And why is that? Because we've always carried that burden. Right now is the best time to force other countries to step up and actually be responsible for their own security. If they don't do it now, they most definitely won't do it during more stable times and then that leaves us right where we are now, carrying the bag.

And this goes right back to my last post. Even I am shocked at how far our surplus systems were scrapped in the last decade.

It is not so much the US would be "paying for stuff", it is simply that for decades we had it laying around in places like this. So that if needed, we could reactive it ourselves or send it off to allies either as emergency replacements or outright sales. And yes, a hell of a lot of it since WWII we have sold. And made a lot of money doing so.

What, you think if we sell a dozen F-15 to some country we build them new ones? Nope, most times we pull one out of a boneyard, give it a top to bottom overhaul then rebuild it. Most get our old ones like what you see above.

We're still paying for it. We can get money back from scrapping our outdate equipment. And much of that equipment would need to be maintenance and then shipped, which will also be something that we will have to pay for and that isn't cheap.

 

[Oozlefinch]

And why is that? Because we've always carried that burden. Right now is the best time to force other countries to step up and actually be responsible for their own security. If they don't do it now, they most definitely won't do it during more stable times and then that leaves us right where we are now, carrying the bag.

Let's circle back to this when there is not a war going on. Because at a time like this, the only thing available for anybody to send there is what surplus they have lying around. Nobody is going to be pulling aircraft out of their active inventory no matter what. And it takes months to start new production, no matter who it is.

We're still paying for it. We can get money back from scrapping our outdate equipment. And much of that equipment would need to be maintenance and then shipped, which will also be something that we will have to pay for and that isn't cheap.

Actually, we get little money back from scrapping because most is of no value to anybody other than other countries. When sitting in the boneyard it is either spare parts for the US or allies that still operate those aircraft, or potential sales.

Scraped, it is damned near worthless. Literally pennies on the dollar.

And no, there is damned little "maintenance" needed on those aircraft. They went through an extensive pre-storage phase, where all fluids are drained and most of the aircraft is covered so they do not deteriorate. And once that is done they can be stored for decades. To return them to service, just do the reverse, it takes about 1-2 weeks to return one to service, mostly because it then has to be test flown again and certified to go back into service. But the actual time to be ready to fly, less than a week.

And this is not just the military. Welcome to the Mojave Boneyard.

Mojave · California 93501

California 93501

www.google.com

This serves the same purpose, but for civilian aircraft. Many held for spare parts and scrapped, others you see in here will eventually be either returned to service or sold off to somebody else.

But once again, this is largely seen only in the US. Where we have hot and dry places like Mojave and Tucson to store things like this in. The climate at these places is perfect for decades long storage of things like aircraft and ground vehicles. Something you just do not find in many other places outside of the Middle East. Here, the very climate works against Europe, where they just can not operate facilities like this.

Now please, can you actually discuss the facts and factors of long term storage, or just spout gibberish? Have you ever seen or worked in a military boneyard? Or seen what they store there? Or how many items stored are done in a way that they can be quickly returned to service?

Because in reality, we make far more by selling our surplus military equipment to others. But that is kind of hard to do when you do not have it anymore.

 

[Fishking]

Let's circle back to this when there is not a war going on. Because at a time like this, the only thing available for anybody to send there is what surplus they have lying around. Nobody is going to be pulling aircraft out of their active inventory no matter what. And it takes months to start new production, no matter who it is.]

No...now is the best time to do it, full stop. It's exactly what I said. If we don't do it now, when there is a sense of urgency it won't happen during more peaceful times. It's not our circus until, at the very least, Europe throws money and bodies at the situation. If they do that, and it still doesn't resolve, then maybe the US can step in.

Actually, we get little money back from scrapping because most is of no value to anybody other than other countries. When sitting in the boneyard it is either spare parts for the US or allies that still operate those aircraft, or potential sales.

Scraped, it is damned near worthless. Literally pennies on the dollar.

A penny saved is a penny earned, and we wouldn't be paying for shipping and maintenance, and their WOULD be. There ALWAYS is. For anyone who has ever served in the military you know that shit breaks and/or doesn't work CONSTANTLY.

Because in reality, we make far more by selling our surplus military equipment to others. But that is kind of hard to do when you do not have it anymore.

I'm fine with that. Cash on delivery. 100% full costs, no discounts. I don't care who pays for it so long as it's paid for up front.

 

[Oozlefinch]

No...now is the best time to do it, full stop.

This is why I really do not bother to discuss things logically with most Loosertarians. They simply do not live in the real world, and only in a fantasy world of their own creation.

Got it, you can not discuss facts and only what is in your own mind.

 

[Fishking]

This is why I really do not bother to discuss things logically with most Loosertarians. They simply do not live in the real world, and only in a fantasy world of their own creation.

Got it, you can not discuss facts and only what is in your own mind.

^---lol...who can't discuss facts? Looks like you, once you were backed into a corner.

 

[Oozlefinch]

^---lol...who can't discuss facts? Looks like you, once you were backed into a corner.

Oh, so funny. I discuss as usual actual things, actual places. What is involved in the real world, and why some things apply and other things do not.

You actually think you backed me into a corner with your mindless loosertarian coprolite? Go and read some Ayn Rand, it has more to do with real life than your silly beliefs.

And the thing is, I do not mock all libertarians. Only those so lost in their fantasy world that they have lost contact with the real world that most of us actually live in.

 

[fortune]

quite obvious to me is Ukraine has more qualified pilots of Russian built aircraft than Russian built aircraft. They are asking for aircraft they can fly right away.

why does this begin WWIII?

this is what happens when you sleep with your head in the sand

 

[PirateMk1]

At this time, doing so would be stupid.

Russia has grounded most of their Air Force and has overwhelming air superiority. And can hit any airport in the country with ease.

Unless they can get basing in another country that Russia can not hit, any aircraft there would just be destroyed. It would be better first to send them air defense systems, so they can try to eliminate the large Russian air superiority.

But the best we could probably do at the moment is to give them something like the HAWK missile system. We and our allies all have a ton of those in inventory, as well as AVENGERs. Use those, knock out a big chunk of the Russian air forces and secure at least a few bases from attack. Then sending them jets will start to make sense.

Actually the Ukrainian Air Force Still exists and is functioning piecemeal. They are operating off of grass strips and roads.

 

[Fishking]

Oh, so funny. I discuss as usual actual things, actual places. What is involved in the real world, and why some things apply and other things do not.

You actually think you backed me into a corner with your mindless loosertarian coprolite? Go and read some Ayn Rand, it has more to do with real life than your silly beliefs.

And the thing is, I do not mock all libertarians. Only those so lost in their fantasy world that they have lost contact with the real world that most of us actually live in.

Of course you were backed into a corner. That is why you abandoned your failing point and went with rhetoric and attack. The sad thing is, I'm also better at that than you as well, so it's not going to work out better for you and your flaccid and floppy attempts at being clever.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Actually the Ukrainian Air Force Still exists and is functioning piecemeal. They are operating off of grass strips and roads.

Which is not good for pilots or aircraft, and probably greatly reduces their ordinance loads.

The Av*b can do the same thing, but can not carry as much ordinance as it can on a standard runway.

 

[fortune]

here is what is happening in the background I think:

US and its allies are making deals with other countries who still operate usable Russian fighters to trade them in to still other countries based on very high air frame usage (read on the cheap) and then getting back door discounts on top end NATO/EU product in its place. I can then see how Ukraine can make a profitable offer to the third world countries to buy the fighters back asap.

they have the pilots... lots of them... and I'll bet they are pissed to as they remember the an-225

 

[Jredbaron96]

Have you looked at the weather at all? At best it has been cloudy for the last two weeks. And this next week, is mostly heavy overcast with partly cloudy for a few days. With only two days of sunny weather at the end of the week.

Kyiv, Ukraine 10-Day Weather Forecast - The Weather Channel | Weather.com

Be prepared with the most accurate 10-day forecast for Kyiv, Ukraine with highs, lows, chance of precipitation from The Weather Channel and Weather.com

weather.com

You see, some of us pay attention to things like weather in warfare. And when talking about aircraft, the weather is of primary importance. This has forced them to use less accurate systems to hit the ground, or helicopters that can operate under the cloud cover. Why do you think they have been relying so heavily on missiles?

The Russians have been using ballistic missiles to strike Ukrainian targets because they lack the air-to-ground capabilities in sufficient capacity to do so through air power.

 

[Oozlefinch]

and I'll bet they are pissed to as they remember the an-225

Am not a pilot, but I am one of them. I saw it many times as it was often hired to move equipment to Qatar.

 

[Oozlefinch]

because they lack the air-to-ground capabilities in sufficient capacity to do so through air power.

And it is damned near impossible to do so in low overcast.

 

[PirateMk1]

Which is not good for pilots or aircraft, and probably greatly reduces their ordinance loads.

The Av*b can do the same thing, but can not carry as much ordinance as it can on a standard runway.

The Russian planes are better equipped for operations from austere conditions notice the size of the landing gear tires, the US air force must use highways to take off with any sort of payload.

 

[Jredbaron96]

And it is damned near impossible to do so in low overcast.

No, it's not impossible.

 

[beerftw]

Actually, the Hawk would be great for both.

Especially as they are highly mobile, a dozen HMMWV or similar vehicles can move an entire Battery of launchers. And even better, as they operate by RADAR.

And more than that, simply by being there the RADAR demands that any aircraft in the area pay a lot of attention to them. Hell, just sending them a few dozen RADAR systems and little else will start to drive the Russian Air Force nuts. Not unlike what Saddam was doing in 1990-1991 and 2003 with the "SCUD hunts". Set up a RADAR someplace, and start radiating with 2 or 3 more a mile or so away each. As soon as an aircraft is detected, it powers off and moves then another fires off just outside of the range of the aircraft.

Rinse and repeat.

The beauty of HAWK is that it is highly mobile. Literally it can be ready to move in under 10 minutes. Just send them a lot of FOCA fiber optic cable, so when they can abandon it and move to the next location.

And that is the biggest problem with the larger and more capable systems like S-300, PATRIOT, etc. It is "mobile", in the sense that a CASH (modern variant of a MASH) is "mobile". It can be moved, that is about it. Roughly an hour at each end to set up and tear down, not counting movement time. And with the size and weight, restricted to main hardpacked roads. Something not really very available in the current area where much of it is soggy.

You must remember, we are now talking about my specialty. They can have dozens of S-300 left, but that will do them little to no good at this time because the things are not well suited to this kind of operation. This is indeed almost an insurgency kind of setup, and not a major battlefield which is where GRUMBLE-PATRIOT was designed to be operated in.

You have to realize, for those systems it was expected that the side using them would likely have either overwhelming airpower, or they would be operating in an environment where aircraft would be so busy operating against other aircraft that they simply defend select positions and not have to worry much about moving or being attacked other than for SEAD missions. Let's just assume that this was really a WWIII situation, and the target was not Ukraine, but Germany.

There, the US could not be sending aircraft to "Germany", because they would not be operating them from there. The aircraft would be operating out of France and other nations, and flying to and from Germany to do their attacks and defenses, then returning. Safe from Russian air attacks themselves at bases removed from the front lines. And even better AWAC aircraft so the air defenses can spend a lot of time powered down, undetectable to enemy forces.

But Ukraine has none of this. No early warning aircraft, no friendly bases to operate out of that are out of reach of Russian forces.

You are talking "unified system", and so am I. But the question is, do you know how such are set up and run? I do.

And in reality, HAWK has largely been retired for decades. But many countries still keep them for reserve forces, or for deployed forces. And the US has many hundreds of them still sitting in boneyards across the country.

The problem is the west will not hand them the hawk, I fully know the difference, the hawk was a fast and highly mobile system, while the patriot and s-300 were still mobile but not as fast. The s-300 is still highly mobile, however it was setup more as an integrated air defence system, one designed to shuffle around daily or weekly so the enemy never knew the position until it was too late.

The problem with the hawk is that the west will not hand them over, America retired them, and other nations using them love them to death. It would be ideal though as it could be modified to work with with any heavy trucks ukraine has.

 

[yankintx]

Give him the jets.

Say "you want proxy? Here is proxy."

Some Lend Lease is in order. Though Ukranian pilots are not trained in the F-15 or F-16, so MIGS it is!!

 

[Oozlefinch]

the US air force must use highways to take off with any sort of payload.

Well, we do have the AV8B Harrier, and the B version of the F-35. But those are exceptions, and both owned by the Marine Corps.

 

[Oozlefinch]

No, it's not impossible.

For precision targeting things on the ground, yes it is. Too dangerous to go below the cloud cover, and not real accurate above it. Which can account for a lot of the damage in civilian areas.

 

[PirateMk1]

Well, we do have the AV8B Harrier, and the B version of the F-35. But those are exceptions, and both owned by the Marine Corps.

The Ukrainians can't fly those.

 

[Jredbaron96]

For precision targeting things on the ground, yes it is. Too dangerous to go below the cloud cover, and not real accurate above it. Which can account for a lot of the damage in civilian areas.

The S-300s the Ukrainians are using can shoot at aircraft beyond cloud cover and the Russians have PGMs that can be fired in spit of cloud cover.

The reasons the Russians are doing more damage to civilian infrastructure is because their previous efforts at winning this war predominantly through lighter infantry have failed, and they're resorting to the gridsquare destruction that they used against the Ukrainians in 2014 and 2015.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The S-300s the Ukrainians are using can shoot at aircraft beyond cloud cover and the Russians have PGMs that can be fired in spit of cloud cover.

Yes. And the S-300 is not mobile at all, and is easy to avoid if you know it is there (or know how to defeat it).

And it is not that easy for an aircraft to fire with precision in a zero visibility situation.

That is why things like cruise missiles are so great. They operate via inertial navigation and GPS, and only need a hard fixed location of the target. As an aircraft is always moving in three dimensions, they rely upon the final visual targeting for the final phases. Unless they also have a team on the ground that is using a LASER targeting device to paint the target.

Do not forget, I know how this works. And if you look at most of the video coming out, they have been using a lot of helicopters. Those can safely fly bellow the cloud cover. They are targeting specific locations, the conventional aircraft are more getting area targets.