We design the F-16 with our own needs, capabilities and doctrines in mind. It's a warplane designed for us. While it comes with all the bells and whistles you could want, it's also extremely demanding to field and maintain. You need a large, secure airbase to use them from. This means Russia is always going to have an idea where the F-16s are, because there's only so many places they can possibly be.

The Grippen was designed as more of a guerilla warplane. You can hide it in a forest, keep it maintained with a handful of guys and a truck, and launch it from a random highway. You never know where a Grippen might be.

This heightened flexibility is exactly what Ukraine needs right now in a warplane. And we (Americans) just never bothered to design one like that for ourselves, because it wouldn't do us any good. What would we use them for, asides giving them to Ukraine? Sweden already has one, designed, produced and tested.

[–] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sure, in an ideal world they'd use Gripens instead of F-16s but in our actual world, where there are about 15 times as many F-16s as there are Gripens, availability matters more than fit.

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Ideal and actual are drifting a little closer together after Sweden dangling their recent offer.

Ukraine can only work with so many F-16s, if we somehow gave them 50,000, you would not see large wings of them flying Ukrainian skies, because the planes and pilots just aren't enough. There's a whole infrastructure around them that is completely necessary and that takes years to build up.

So, don't get me wrong. F-16s are great and I'm glad they're going, but they are not a viable solution to Ukrainian problems. They'll help some. The Grippen could be an actual solution, even in fairly small numbers due to its highly unique capabilities.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

What if Ukraine landed the planes inside NATO?

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

If they landed (in a non-emergency) in NATO countries and more importantly took off from there, then that country would obviously be an active participant in the war. Also voiding NATO Article 5 protection because you can't claim to be attacked when you voluntarily joined the fight.

[–] NAFO_69th_Sniffing_Brigade@mastodon.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix The decision about who is actively taking part in this war, is done by russia every other week. How many times did they already claim, that some country is involved enough, to attack it? Or was it only their media doing that?

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And you do realize that nobody gives a shit about Russian bullshit claims in comparison to actual international law? Which is indeed the reason nobody sends NATO soldiers to to fight in Ukraine as it wouldn't be some none-sensical claim then but reality.

[–] NAFO_69th_Sniffing_Brigade@mastodon.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix Which law are we talking about, that forbids NATO to stop a genocide in Ukraine happening? I mean actively by sending troops? Which law is that?

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Are you seriously asking me to cite the law saying that attacking Russian troops as a non-involved party is an attack? I guess someone should start poking you with pan until you can show us the law that clearly defines being poked by pan as an attack.

But jokes aside... international law (especially in regards to armed conflicts) is customary law going back hundreds of years. And even back then they weren't stupid enough to need a defintion of attacking and defending. Because some people believe in humans to have a brain.

An uninvolved country attacking Russian troops is an illegal act of war by definition, declaring the attack beforehand is still an act of war. It doesn't matter if it's in Ukraine, in Russia in free international waters or anywhere else. The actual only exception is when doing it by madate of the UN to restore peace.

Are you really so dense to think NATO countries can attack other countries, then claim to be attacked when that country shoots back by pretending their attack was actually defense? Sorry, but back to above's pan it is...

[–] NAFO_69th_Sniffing_Brigade@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix Ok let’s start at the end of this chaos. I Wonder with how many excuses somebody can come up with. If Ukrainians would be ⚽️-less like that, russia would already be in charge there. First thing: where is the UN mandate? Is the situation not severe enough? Is the organization useless, corrupted, can’t act even in life-threatening situations? Second: Budapest memorandum. Do the security guarantees for Ukraine only mean the delivery of weapons and no troops? /1

[–] NAFO_69th_Sniffing_Brigade@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix Third: There is a criminal offense called: denial of assistance of help to a person in danger. It means prosecution in case of proven violation of that law. Does that law lose its significance on the international scale, when it comes to the relation of nations? Forth: What Does This War Mean for the Future of Mankind and Today’s Civilization?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bu9BWMFFqNc&pp=ygUZdmljdG9yIHBpbmNodWsgZm91bmRhdGlvbg%3D%3D

A brief explanation of what is at stake here, and why Ukraine can’t lose the war. /2

[–] NAFO_69th_Sniffing_Brigade@mastodon.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix #5: Since when, since when, is the help to protect a nation from a unjustifiable attack on its sovereignty and survival, interpreted as an attack on the aggressor-country? I can only wonder about the mental state of such an interpreter. Ukraine is, as terrifying and sad as that is, close to collapse and extinction, because of the scale of that attack. It isn’t even sure if Ukraine can shoulder that situation, with our help. Do you understand that? /3

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sorry, but you are just completely lost. Denial of assistence on state-level instead of indivuduals? What are you dreaming? And Security guarantees in the Budapest memorandums? There were none! Just read them, they are openly available. And some confused ramblings of how countries might have hinted at help in exchange for signing those are worthless. Just as worthless as for example Russias claims that NATO countries have hinted on gunaranteeing to not enlarge NATO after the German reunification and soon after creation of again independent eastern European countries after the desolution of the Soviet Union. Oh... and even if there were actual security guanrantees... how are people constantly managing to claim these from countries not even signatories?

[–] NAFO_69th_Sniffing_Brigade@mastodon.social 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix And another thing: If you really insist, not to understand why you HAVE to do EVERYTHING to save Ukraine, even with foreign troops, then good for you. The whole world is watching a bully being treated like fine porcelain, while the victim needs to beg for help? The impact on every citizen in the free world, who learns that lesson, can not be overestimated. With such actions you undermine your authority in your own countries. You don’t get this?

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yes, you are absolutely correct. I (and the whole world) do not get your bullshit.

Should Ukaine lose, then Russia will totally attack ANTO countries. So you need to give them all your weapons because being defenseless makes it much better and wqill keep you safe!

How brain-damaged do you need to be to believe in that bullshit? Are you really that brain-washed to believe in all those helpless and weak idiots in NATO that don't know how to use their own weapons and will just lay down to die if they are not defended by all the Ukrainian geniuses that magically can operate everything much better by just taking a look at it wihtout proper training? C'mon...

Oh, and do you want to know how to actually destabilize if not outright destroy democractic countries? By having democratic leaders say "Yeah, I have sworn an oath to not harm my country. But fuck it, go die in Ukraine. We are all sending our weapons there anyway so you will not be able to defend yourself anyway. What? This is a democracy and you are against that? Again: Fuck you. I am right! And if not I don't care that you died. You might be dead but you were morally right." Hmm... I might understand how guys like you (and rediculous as it is Ukraine officials) are constantly pushing narratives against democratically elected governments.

And that's basically at the core of all your "You need to send anything, because fuck you and only someone else is important". Oh, and have you looked at polls and elections in Europe recently? I guess you also believe that this is the result of us degenerated and insane Westerners living out our inherent stupidity and totally not the result of people not wanting to hear your fucking propaganda of how demilitarizing ourselves is magically making us safer and how those mighty fairy tale heroes in Ukraine can totally use our equipment so much better while actually losing stuff because of their very limited training and capabilties.

Hmm... were have I seen this type of propaganda before where multiple contradictory things are all true att the same sime... Oh, yeah. In the Soviet Union, then in Russia and nowadays also by right-wing populists. Guess I know where that brain-damage is coming from.

Also: Yes, I know you hate reality. But you can in fact just google the Budapest Memorandum if you are interested. There is probably even something on Wikipedia nowadays telling you in easy to understadn words what's actually in there... Oh, look what I found investing valuable 5 seconds of my time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#Content

There you have your security guarantees: All signatories are called to consult about issues. And once Russia throws nuclear bombs at Ukraine the others are even obligated to tell the UN Security Council immidiately.

[–] NAFO_69th_Sniffing_Brigade@mastodon.social 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix I stopped reading after a few words. The bucket was already full. The situation in Ukraine was created with the strong support of the western governments. They earned money with russia and never told their own citizens about the massive threat, russians are posing to the security of everyone! It is not a choice if and how much to support Ukraine. It is an obligation to do it. If Ukraine was allowed in Nato, there would be no bloodshed.

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Then I will make this shorter this time:

You are lying. You lie to us and to yourself. You can look up who actually financed Russia as trade data is publically available. Spoiler (because I know you will not look up actual facts, just like you never looked up the Budapest Memorandum and stopped reading when I even gave you a link to it's content): the countries that you pretend financed Russia actually cost them money, those smart countries opposing Russia actually financed them, often even delivered weapon to them -and yes, that includes Ukraine up until 2020-.

If Ukraine would be allowed in NATO now, that would be just an excuse for a defensive union to go fight a war. If they would have been in NATO earlier, yeah that would have worked. But then again you will simply lie and tell the fairy tale of how evil Western countries blocked them. When in reality Ukraine made several U-turn if or if not they want to join within less than 2 years while also having no support for joining in the country (how many months did the parliament go on strike to protest against a pro-NATO move again?).

But you are right, constantly explaining you the reality and why you are just bubbling none-sensical proipaganda makes no sense indeed. So welcome to my blocklist.

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

... I have no fucking clue. lol

[–] anachronist@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I think they need Vipers for SEAD. Gripens may be able to mount HARMs but effective SEAD is way more than just a missile. During Gulf War 1 they had to use phantoms and intruders for SEAD because vipers and hornets couldn't support the mission yet.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago

Once again, we wait on Turkey.

[–] bigFab@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This made me laugh. Slap on the face for those who believe the west want the conflict to really end.

[–] Ooops@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You also make me laugh. For you are so drunk on hating the west that you can't even fathom (or care to look up) that these are their actual air force with the first replacements coming in only beginning this year.

Sure, all these stupid Westerners not giving their armies away is really despicable... if you are an idiot.

[–] bigFab@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Glad made you too laugh 🙂 have a nice day