3 ms·

I don't think _anything_ about flying the F117 would transfer over from the F16 other than "the stick at your legs moves the ailerons". They are completely dif

I don't think _anything_ about flying the F117 would transfer over from the F16 other than "the stick at your legs moves the ailerons". They are completely different aircraft and the F117 as I understand is notorious for being difficult to fly and control. Not to mention the stealth advantage has been defeated by modern AA systems like Russia's S400 SAM, so you're really just getting a heavy and difficult to fly aircraft that only carries two 500 lb bombs. There's much better stuff that should be sent before you start scrounging up mothballed F117s.

jjkeddo199 3y ago
F117 supposedly shares many components with F16, more than you'd think. F16 is extremely vulnerable to GBAD and won't be able to safely fly close to the front lines. Ukraine is struggling because it cannot strike Russian supply lines safely like USA did to Iraq in 1991. It is unproven that an S400 could defeat a well-operated F117 -- We cannot say the same for something like F16. I think it is questionable ethically to "lead Ukraine on" in terms offering military support, if that support is intended to only be just enough to manage a bloody and protracted stalemate. We should either pressure them to settle, or genuinely offer enough weapons to help them succeed (pushing Russia to accept some kind of "'conditional' defeat 'with honor'"). Letting both countries bleed themselves out like its WW1 should not be an option.
- ArnoVW 3y ago
  If a bloody stalemate were the objective, that would not be questionable. It would be immoral, neigh evil. However. There are many less nefarious reasons possible. Sending more (capable) equipment costs money. It decreases your own readiness. It increases the possibility of proliferation. It risks the russians getting hold of it for analysis. It definitely has proven to irritate the Russians, risking escalation. More capable equipment requires more training and logistics that Ukraine does not have. Note that for nations other than Russia and Ukraine, this conflict is strategic but not (yet) existential. We have not, and politically cannot, converted our economic output to the war effort. This lack of political and societal will explains why we're not fully comitted.
  - jjkeddo199 3y ago
    Your points are valid. But its also valid to say there may be a narrow path towards stopping bloodshed sooner rather than later. The only reason Russia is still fighting in Ukraine is because they believe they have a chance to outlast Western social willpower. Russia would be more willing to accept defeat if NATO gave more open support to Ukraine. Increasing carrot (sanctions relief, oil deals, Crimea compromise, etc.) and stick (supplying more advanced weapons, NATO membership) at the same time might end the war sooner and stop pointless death.

jjkeddo199 3y ago

F117 supposedly shares many components with F16, more than you'd think. F16 is extremely vulnerable to GBAD and won't be able to safely fly close to the front lines. Ukraine is struggling because it cannot strike Russian supply lines safely like USA did to Iraq in 1991. It is unproven that an S400 could defeat a well-operated F117 -- We cannot say the same for something like F16. I think it is questionable ethically to "lead Ukraine on" in terms offering military support, if that support is intended to only be just enough to manage a bloody and protracted stalemate. We should either pressure them to settle, or genuinely offer enough weapons to help them succeed (pushing Russia to accept some kind of "'conditional' defeat 'with honor'"). Letting both countries bleed themselves out like its WW1 should not be an option.

ArnoVW 3y ago
If a bloody stalemate were the objective, that would not be questionable. It would be immoral, neigh evil. However. There are many less nefarious reasons possible. Sending more (capable) equipment costs money. It decreases your own readiness. It increases the possibility of proliferation. It risks the russians getting hold of it for analysis. It definitely has proven to irritate the Russians, risking escalation. More capable equipment requires more training and logistics that Ukraine does not have. Note that for nations other than Russia and Ukraine, this conflict is strategic but not (yet) existential. We have not, and politically cannot, converted our economic output to the war effort. This lack of political and societal will explains why we're not fully comitted.
- jjkeddo199 3y ago
  Your points are valid. But its also valid to say there may be a narrow path towards stopping bloodshed sooner rather than later. The only reason Russia is still fighting in Ukraine is because they believe they have a chance to outlast Western social willpower. Russia would be more willing to accept defeat if NATO gave more open support to Ukraine. Increasing carrot (sanctions relief, oil deals, Crimea compromise, etc.) and stick (supplying more advanced weapons, NATO membership) at the same time might end the war sooner and stop pointless death.