Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

ukrainetoday.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

861–870 of 1001 posts

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#861

Post by bambax »

moduspol wrote: post #390
ta988 wrote: post #228

And the story continues. This means that no country will want to buy F16s. If you don't get support they are useless. They are eroding really fast the US shine and trust in the world. This is going to have a massive effect on the US economy, internal consumption will not save it. This is the end of an empire while its rich kings are golfing every weekend on the taxpayer dime using federal and local resources. I am re…

Actually we just want the war in Ukraine to end. Hope that helps. There's a lot of bloviating from the chattering class about cozying up to Russia, but I've yet to hear a cogent alternative. And no, I don't think "endlessly funding Ukraine to a forever stalemate" qualifies.

The alternative is to destroy Russia. Destroy its economy, kill their soldiers until there isn't one left standing, ravage its cities. Set fire to its oil fields. Sink its ships. It's a good alternative. A pleasant sight and a nice thing to look forward to.

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#862

Post by toomuchtodo »

graeme wrote: post #858
toomuchtodo wrote: post #854

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any other compatible engines for the platform?

None at present to my knowledge. The French Rafale is the only western jet fighter without any US components.

Thanks. This leads me to the conclusion reverse engineering and production of these GE engines is a priority.

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#863

Post by louthy »

nosianu wrote: post #763
tw2347288 wrote: post #114

I'm glad that this discussion finally takes place, even though the discussion is of course flagged. You can flag here, but the mainstream press has picked up the issue: "Can the US switch off Europe’s weapons?" https://www.ft.com/content/1503a69e-13e4-4ee8-9d05-b9ce1f7cc... "Such is the concern that debate has turned to whether the US maintains secret so-called kill switches that would immobilise aircraft and weapons…

I just read here a few days ago how very dependent on regular US maintenance the British nuclear weapons are. "US support to maintain UK's nuclear arsenal is in doubt (theguardian.com)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43299011

The Economist gives a more nuanced view [1]. Essentially saying the deterrent is independent and if support was pulled by the US that there wouldn’t be a ‘cliff edge’, which would potentially give time to replace.

The UK has produced its own nuclear weapons in the past and has weapons grade processing at Sellafield. There’s ~140 metric tons of separated plutonium stored there.

It is apparently enough material to build tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. Not every warhead has to be a billion megatons to be a deterrent.

[1] https://archive.is/Qz2lI

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#864

Post by bambax »

silvestrov wrote: post #366
mmcnl wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether there is a kill switch or not is somewhat irrelevant. There is a larger than nonzero chance that there is a kill switch, and the US cannot be trusted anymore. So we have to assume there is a kill switch.

Lack of maintenance parts is just a kill switch with a timer. Jet Fighters need a lot of maintenance, they are not like cars. So a kill switch in software is not needed. If the US stops shipping parts, then it is only a matter of time before the Jet Fighters is an expensive paper weight.

Exactly. There probably is a kill switch (the temptation to add one is just impossible to resist), but it's not even needed. Stop maintenance, and in a matter of days these things can't fly.

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#865

Post by lostdog »

lolinder wrote: post #258
samcheng wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best explanation I've heard is that this (almost) half of the US population doesn't care if it hurts a bit, as long as it hurts the other half of the US population more.

No, that's not it. I'm writing this from rural America in deep Trump territory, and people here are already struggling and have been for years. From their perspective they've been left out of the benefits of the global economy—the big cities and the coasts might be better off, but the middle of the country wants to go back to when they had opportunities and jobs for working class Americans. They're almost certainly w…

The saddest part is that Biden's infrastructure, manufacturing, and chips work would benefit them a ton. They cannot see cause and effect, and in the end they will get hurt the most.

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#866

Post by bambax »

knubie wrote: post #364
sorokod wrote: post #158

The Danish air force is likely experiencing a buyers remorse about their batch of F35s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Danish_Air_Force

Yes I'm sure the Danes are wishing they had purchased their fifth generation fighters from China or Russia instead.

There's zero chance the F35s will even be able to take off when the US attacks Greenland, while the chance of Chinese planes defending Denmark from the US is non-zero.

Also, they could have bought European planes (Rafale).

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#867

Post by arkensaw »

realo wrote: post #71
jopsen wrote: post #65

I'm not sure Denmark is going to cancel our F35 orders. From a security perspective, it's certainly in our interest to pretend this isn't a big deal. And that everything is normal. But I'm not surprised that our prime minister recently did not leave out the possiblity of hosting nukes on Danish territory. Given the theatre in the US one could even say we'll need nukes to defend Greenland.

The Donald wants Groenland ... After that, why not Denmark itself ?

I wouldn't presume to understand the bananas ideas of Trump and his kindergarten kronies, but I imagine they're looking at an inaccurately large landmass on a mercator projection map and hearing about the oil underneath and seeing dollar signs.

On a map, it looks to be bigger than all of North America, although in reality its only about 1/5th of the size of the US.

(although granted that's still a very large area that they probably see as 'up for grabs' since Denmark is small and far away and the US already have airbases there)

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#868

Post by artem2471 »

jpadkins wrote: post #655
Waterluvian wrote: post #216

I think this from French senator Claude Malhuret sums it up: This is a tragedy for the free world, but it’s first and foremost a tragedy for the United States. [President Donald] Trump’s message is that being his ally serves no purpose, because he will not defend you, he will impose more tariffs on you than on his enemies, and he will threaten to seize your territories, while supporting the dictators who invade you.…

[flagged]

I’ve thought that bio weapons is a definite nutcase reference

Re: US Ends Support For Ukrainian F-16s

#869

Post by gooboo »

Chance-Device wrote: post #286

I think I’ll use this thread to make a prediction. At the end of Trump’s term: - Europe will still be using F-16s and F-35s - The US will still be in NATO, and will still be actively committed to the alliance - European defense spending will be massively higher, with manufacturing and supply chains that are far less easily disrupted - The US forces deployed to Europe will still be there, but will be bolstered by more…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN