old salt wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 3:45 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 11:08 am...with lots of anti-aircraft and anti-tank weaponry flowing. Salty's been making this case...I don't see it as an either/or, so am hoping that they get it done in the next few days....
I wouldn't get my hopes up. This is what I was waiting to hear :
Militarily, however, the number of planes offered would make it unlikely to be a game-changer. And MiG-29s are inferior to more sophisticated Russian aircraft and could be easy prey for Russian pilots and Russian missiles.
A senior U.S. defense official has said Ukrainians are flying relatively few of their existing aircraft, for relatively little time, as it is. The defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the U.S. assessment, said it’s possible that Ukraine does not need more planes and would benefit most from more of the weapons it uses effectively every day, including anti-aircraft Stinger and anti-tank Javelin missiles.
The official also said that Russia currently has the capacity to reach almost the entire country of Ukraine with its surface-to-air missiles, including from within Russia and from ships in the Black Sea.
That resolves my risk v reward question. (btw -- AP found that source credible enough to quote)
imho -- "qame-changer" is the magic word. Those Migs are not throw away items. They're not just old airplanes sitting around waiting to be replaced. They are still front line interceptors & a critical part of NATO's integrated air defense at the most vulnerable part of NATO's E flank.
You'd be breaking up existing, effective front line squadrons with no assurance that the jets would ever get into the fight over Ukraine.
If we get drawn in, we do not yet have the necessary NATO & US air assets in place to effectively contest Ukraine's airspace, which would require suppressing air defense sites inside Russia. We do not currently have enough jets deployed to effectively defend NATO's E flank. We need to deploy more, asap, no matter the fate of those Migs.
Ukraine's Mig-29's & SU-27's are still effectively grounded because Russian S-400 air defense systems, just across the border in Belarus & Russia, cover all of Ukraine's airspace. US &/or NATO forces would be challenged to take them out, given the forces we have in range & the likely Russian missile counter attacks on the countries of any base from which they launched or whose airspace they transited.
Not so sure that where these MiGs would need to go couldn't be safely reached, but the argument about how effective they'd be for the actual fight could be accurate...but...they don't do anything valuable if never used in combat and they'd be facing the same caliber of opponent regardless of whether in Ukraine or in defending Poland.
100% agree that we should be getting as many capabilities forward deployed as possible. I don't see Putin stopping if he perceives any vulnerabilities or shaking of will.
I just think the best way to get him backpedaling is defeat in Ukraine and clear unity among NATO in support of such. I agree that the handling of this particular possibility feels really awkward...but that goes away with whatever other moves are made that do lead to success for Ukraine.
I'm also wondering whether there may be enough losses in the Russian military, including those in command, that the military turns on Putin...maybe that's just wishful thinking...