Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Mysterious-Lion-3577 t1_j6ec9cc wrote

What fighter jets? Germany doesn't have any jets Ukraine needs.

82

DoorHingesKill t1_j6eor4v wrote

It would appear as if the Ukrainian deputy minister of foreign affairs and previously ambassador in Berlin disagrees with you, /u/Masterious-Lion-3577

> I have a creative proposal to our German friends. The Bundeswehr has 93 Tornado multirole combat aircraft that will be decommissioned soon & replaced by F-35. Though it’s an old jet fighter, but still very powerful. Why not to deliver these Tornados to Ukraine @Bundeskanzler?

--

At another point he asked for F-16s, F-35s, Eurofighters, Tornados, French Rafales and Swedish Gripen jets.

Germany has two of those.

28

Fettideluxe t1_j6fhzde wrote

He is a pure populist it's not worth to Listen to him

23

CrimsonShrike t1_j6g7cb1 wrote

The German tornados are very old and kept around to carry nukes and a couple specialist roles.

Also that man is a dumbass who also asked for frigates

19

fly_drich t1_j6gc2oi wrote

Whose nukes?

4

lordqaz t1_j6gyl3v wrote

America, France, and the UK. They are able to be utilized by other NATO members if those three decide it is necessary.

>A number of NATO member countries contribute a dual-capable aircraft (DCA) capability to the Alliance. These aircraft are central to NATO’s nuclear deterrence mission and are available for nuclear roles at various levels of readiness. In their nuclear role, the aircraft are equipped to carry nuclear bombs in a conflict and personnel are trained accordingly.

[July 2022] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50068.htm

>Currently, seven Allies voluntarily participate in the NATO nuclear mission by contributing DCA. As implied by its name, DCA serve two roles. The first is to provide conventional air power capabilities, such as air policing and combat support, on a day-to-day basis. The second is to operationally deploy nuclear weapons in a conflict, following a political decision by the NPG. DCA are also a visible and valuable instrument for strategic communications. In a crisis or conflict, DCA could be used to send deterrence signals about operational readiness or to demonstrate resolve.

[PDF February 2022] https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/2/pdf/220204-factsheet-nuclear-sharing-arrange.pdf

11

HurryPast386 t1_j6hgern wrote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

> As of November 2009, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey are hosting U.S. nuclear weapons as part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy.

> There are 20 B61 bombs stored on the base for delivery by German PA-200 Tornado IDS bombers of the JaBoG 33 squadron. By 2024 Germany's Tornado IDS aircraft are due to be retired, and it is unclear what nuclear sharing role, if any, Germany will then retain.[3][17] In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Germany announced that it would buy 35 F-35 jets to replace the Tornado in its nuclear sharing role.

3

massada t1_j6fikxl wrote

I mean, if the spare parts for maintenance intervals don't exist, they might as well but a shitty RC controller on the flight stick and launch them off like cruise missiles. That's the real problem with these older planes. You live or die by parts availability. That's why the British navy got so hosed by the F35 delay. They were more or less out of harrier parts by the time the first F35B showed up.

6

zomgbratto t1_j6g4wp1 wrote

It's not so simple. Fighters need trained ground crews to operate and pilots need to be trained in one. From what I have heard, Ukrainian pilots are currently training to fight in F-15s and F-16s. Training the Ukrainian Air Force to operate on yet another different fighter is going to take even more time.

3

DoorHingesKill t1_j6hndji wrote

From what I heard Congress approved money for their training like half a year ago, not that they're being trained. It wasn't on request of the WH either, so I'm not entirely sure Biden jumped in on it back then.

Also hearing how long the US believes its gonna take till the Abrams are operational (including supply line and training for soldiers/engineers) I kinda have to doubt the whole "we planned it all a year in advance but just held back the actual hardware (e.g. fighter jets) for now."

1

OldMork t1_j6gkfu9 wrote

Sweden have at least 20 Jas Gripen in storage, another 30 also in storage but in worse condition, could some of them be put in operative status again?

2

jlaw54 t1_j6gv49n wrote

You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.

1

tomassino t1_j6ho6fk wrote

Probably they had any mig 29 in a forgotten warehouse

1

kmurph72 t1_j6ej6wg wrote

This is all a game called mission creep. They said the same thing about tanks. They are playing Putin and his supporters. Everyone will be sending fighter jets eventually.

35

crabmuncher t1_j6ewbve wrote

Either that or the dudes compromised.

−18

BurnTrees- t1_j6hdnrp wrote

So compromised that he already sent the second highest amount of aid to Ukraine globally, and cut off the cash flow to Russia…

7

crabmuncher t1_j6hw8xh wrote

So compromise that all he can be perceived as supporting is sending aid.

−3

BurnTrees- t1_j6hwmus wrote

And weaning Germany off Russian fossil fuels, which is a huge long term loss for their economy. And taking in 1 million + Ukrainian refugees.

5

crabmuncher t1_j6hymjc wrote

Whatever it takes to make it look like he's doing something without hurting his buddy.

−3

BurnTrees- t1_j6i2id5 wrote

All of this is hurting Russia a lot and it’s much more than any other countries with very few exceptions have done. This is lame bait bro.

3

Reselects420 t1_j6ebfjk wrote

Misleading headline. He did not say that. (At least not in this article, or any others I’ve read so far)

26

Profrog888 t1_j6eceo4 wrote

he did not say it in the article, but right after the leopard announcement he said that both him and biden agree that jets shouldn't be sent and that it will not change

5

Reselects420 t1_j6ecgti wrote

Can you link that?

2

Profrog888 t1_j6efo6k wrote

https://switzerlandtimes.ch/news/scholz-no-fighter-jets-and-ground-troops/ . here he stated that troops, no fly zones, and jets or other stuff that threatens russias internationally recognised territories is a red line that will not change

1

Reselects420 t1_j6ehx4h wrote

> “I made it clear very early on that it’s not about combat aircraft and I’m doing that here too,”

I don’t get it. What’s not about combat aircraft? This article also claims that Germany has ruled out sending jets, but does not provide enough of the quote / context as evidence.

The rest of the article is about ground troops and no fly zones.

14

Mayor__Defacto t1_j6gsltm wrote

Germany doesn’t even have any functional jets really so it’s a bit of a moot point

4

Tokyogerman t1_j6gryji wrote

I saw his speech in the Bundestag, that we are not talking about Jets right now (to the question of the AFD guy) and said, there will no no-fly-zones or NATO troops in Ukraine and that Biden agrees there.

Another typical misinterpretation, either willfully or accidentally, as has been the case since the start of the war.

3

Tokyogerman t1_j6gscxl wrote

As always, despite being on a sub called worldnews that is supposed to inform about news and all, these are some of the most truly uninformed and outright childish/simplistic comments one could imagine, it's astonishing.

11

egotim t1_j6eka8p wrote

germany only has typhoons and eurofighter, only fighter jet that was discussed before was f16

10

Disastrous-Order7587 t1_j6lh1c1 wrote

I read Germany has about 90 ready to be decommissioned but capable Tornado fighters being replaced by F-35’s. If they are serviceable capable jets why not send them all to Ukraine at the very least it would save him having to trans get them to the aviation junk yard. NATO will send fighters eventually but to late Scholz will make sure of that dragging his feet and wasting as much time as possible, that man is a total Dick Head.

1

egotim t1_j6mjqsr wrote

these aircrafts are highly specialized to transport nuclear bombs. unless you plan to transport nukes you cant use them.

2

Greg1817 t1_j6f3qs6 wrote

Germany also has Tornadoes, which are multirole aircraft. While very old, Germany could still send those if Ukraine wanted.

−11

CrimsonShrike t1_j6g7nh1 wrote

Tornados are for the nuclear deterrent and a couple roles eurofighter cannot currently perform.

8

BurnTrees- t1_j6hdkbd wrote

Next to logistical issues for such old jets, the tornadoes are used in the nuclear sharing program. So by delivering them to Ukraine, Germany would give up its (already limited) nuclear deterrent in a time where risk of nuclear escalation is higher than it has been in many decades.

Let’s be honest, no country would do this.

2

alter_ego t1_j6evp0o wrote

One month later: "Boris, zend ze fighterz!".

4

westdl t1_j6fnzg0 wrote

That’s ok. We can send the F16s Turkeye was bargaining for before they backed out of the vote for Sweden and Finland joining NATO.

4

Speculawyer t1_j6g3ksv wrote

Okay. Germany doesn't make fighter jets.

Just support the Leopard 2 tanks fully.

2

Ruin-Known77 t1_j6eegkd wrote

I'm honestly questioning the utility of fighter jets. What can they do that can't be done with missiles? They might be obsolete.

1

CurtisLeow t1_j6eixvt wrote

Modern fighter jets mostly launch missiles. They can be used for air superiority, or for striking ground targets, or for electronics warfare. EG a fighter jet might fly near an area, detect a radar, then launch a missile towards that radar. The fighter jet is mobile. It greatly extends the range of many missiles, compared to launching those same missiles from the ground. Then the fighter jet has a gun as backup, for shooting down drones or dogfighting.

10

afops t1_j6ekgh8 wrote

The most useful missiles would be air launched cruise missiles like JASSM or Storm Shadow (SCALP). Those can be launched from F-16 or Mirage/Tornado respectively. The planes would just be the launch platforms for the missiles. Without those, missiles would need to be shorter range ballistic (ATACMs) or ground launched cruise missiles which are harder to come by.

8

MATlad t1_j6gam3b wrote

I feel that if the US wasn’t willing to provide long-range ATACMS missiles for the HIMARS on the basis that they could be used to strike into Russia (and despite Ukrainian guarantees over target selection) cruise missiles (whether air- or ground- launched) would be completely off the table.

I’d think that F-16s in volume (especially with more HAARMS, or even EF-16s) could enable the Ukrainians to win air superiority. And with that, enable close air support and even combined arms in the US / NATO mode. But unfortunately, that’s not going to happen any time soon.

Unless even getting the edge in the air is enough...

2

afops t1_j6gzpaq wrote

Yes, so long as the ATACMs holdup is that reason, then US air launched missiles are also off the table.

But that’s why Storm Shadow is interesting as it’s not requiring US approval (formally). Rumor has it they are trying to adapt it to Su-24

2

Maximum-Cranberry-64 t1_j6eiwfc wrote

Not super knowledgeable on that, but I'd think close air support for the upcoming Ukrainian offensive would be the main point of it. For the vast majority of applications though, yeah I'd assume missiles would be just as useful.

2

massada t1_j6firgd wrote

For this use case?
You can more or less use them as missile launchers, where the afterburner on the jet is the "first stage" of the missile.

1

jlaw54 t1_j6gvgyj wrote

They give you options. Options are amazing to have in battle. And it massively scrambles both potential launch points and possible targets.

1

[deleted] t1_j6epmv2 wrote

[deleted]

1

Ooops2278 t1_j6fjea2 wrote

>Wasn't the same said about large weapons ? Then heavy weapon and vehicles, then mid range artilery, then longer range artilery, then tanks ...

No, there was a single line about only sending anything as part as a coordinated NATO decision. Everything else is media bullshit you ate up.

>Somehow i don't believe this anymore

Wait? You plan to stop believing every propaganda narrative you read?

>Then we will see all countries all of the sudden sending jets at the same time again.

Oh... of course, you will stop to believe any actual statement because propaganda is just so tasty and addictive... while did I suspect anything else?

13

fulcrum_rebels t1_j6f0zst wrote

If the war last long enough the trained f16 pilots will be there soon.

1

Mirathecat22 t1_j6g375r wrote

Won’t send Leopards either but here we are

1

bannacct56 t1_j6hxh78 wrote

German chancellor in his best, German accent " I will not share with you any of the things I do not have"

1

Law-of-Poe t1_j6j1pxj wrote

Did anyone check to see if he had his fingers crossed behind his back?

/s

1

goBoss98 t1_j6fez8j wrote

He doesn't have any that can fly

0

Tokyogerman t1_j6gs33q wrote

Eurofighters have a really good readieness rating in German reports. But they don't have F16s.

3

Ree_m0 t1_j6hzt1m wrote

A readiness rating in German reports is questionable at best and delusional at worst, just look at when we tested the Pumas a few months ago, not a single one passed.

−1

Tokyogerman t1_j6kgf6t wrote

Another one who didn't hear about the follow up report, that all "issues" with the Puma were minor. Which is the real issue with the readyness statistic just the other way around, that even really minor things make the machine count as not combat ready, even though it would be in a real war.

2

LiliNotACult t1_j6g5y5j wrote

I'm just waiting for Israel and Germany to team up

0

Dbean199 t1_j6k7271 wrote

He's still back door dealing with putin. Only way to change it is to expose him and all the other greedy ones

0

yeahokguy1331 t1_j6ezeke wrote

We've sent them armor, now they need air cover. Send them aircraft!!!

−1

Nervous_Top7531 t1_j6jdhr7 wrote

Classic Germany. Meanwhile the US, the UK and France are thinking about fighter jets.

−1

mandalorian_guy t1_j6f8dcr wrote

Not to worry I'm pretty sure the US is going to cover the western Aircraft replacement with F-16's (and maybe 15's).

While that's all well and good it lacks the raw power and performance needed to skullfuck the RuAF into submission. I'm just saying it would be nice if the F-22 had at least one combat A2A kill before it's retired. Just give like 6-8 of them alongside a fuckload of AMRAAM's and AIM-9x's and have the Ukrainians promise to only fly them over their own airspace. I'm sure Congress can have their arm twisted to sign off on it.

−4

Apprehensive_Bus575 t1_j6fyovc wrote

Fighter jets are necessary to cover tanks in an assault. If the tanks are about to break through Russian lines, I'm sure Russia would commit every aircraft it has to stop the attack. The Battle of Kursk during World War II is known as one of the greatest tank battles in history, but it was also one of the greatest air battles.

Instead of a "fighter jet coalition", it would be better for Ukraine to have just one type of fighter. It would be simpler to train on and maintain. Since the US is reluctant to supply ATACMS, it should supply GLSDB.

−5

CrimsonShrike t1_j6g7rt4 wrote

Neither side has the air superiority to use jets for CAS effectively. Too many sams and manpads around.

5

JuicySantra t1_j6gpb1w wrote

That’s until the US armtwists them into giving it as they did for their leopard 2 tanks Just normal Vassal behaviour

−6

BlobBeno t1_j6hcxrf wrote

https://georank.org/economy/germany/india

Population of 83mln. versus 1.3bln and still an economy that's 44% larger.

If we are vassals what is India?

1

JuicySantra t1_j6jh1zj wrote

At least India is sovereign and does not have foreign military bases on its soil and not some lapdog of the U.S. as Germany is

0

BlobBeno t1_j6jo34h wrote

You mean like the bases in half of Europe as part of a strong defense military alliance that noone wants to fuck with?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive

Yeah I take that security over being proud of standing alone

1

JuicySantra t1_j6mci74 wrote

The consequences of which you won’t understand in a short run

1

jlaw54 t1_j6gv16x wrote

*Yet

Won’t send fighter jets…..yet. Good talk. See you out there. Watch for snipers.

−7

[deleted] t1_j6fe9ny wrote

[removed]

−8

GMFPs_sweat_towel t1_j6g932r wrote

Modern air warfare requires a staggering amount of training on each type of aircraft for pilots and ground crew. Not to mention specific spare parts for each model of aircraft.

3

wnvyujlx t1_j6gu3a2 wrote

True, there's a whole world of difference. I can learn to drive a tank and even hit something with it all on my own if I have the time a bit of fuel and ammo. A fighter jet... That's a whole other battlefield, I need someone to tell me what to do, when to do it or that thing crashes into the ground before it leaves even leaves the airfield. Training for an airplane is intense, time consuming and very costly. For everyone involved.

1

figlu t1_j6f4us4 wrote

They need some A-10 warthogs. Those things would smash through Russian defenses easily along with the Challengers, Leopards, M1As, and Bradleys

−15

CrimsonShrike t1_j6g83g2 wrote

They would not. The A10 was outdated during first gulf war already

2

dogeimistic t1_j6f5x0a wrote

Germany does this dance every time. We won't send lethal aid....sends lethal aid. We won't send tanks....sends tanks. We won't send aircrafts...I reckon they'll send aircrafts eventually.

Also why not just get loads of Saab's fighter jets, granted they ain't super high tech but they are cheap and would give Ukraine some strike capabilities.

−17

Ooops2278 t1_j6fim0r wrote

No, Germany has exactly one single like "we will not send anything unless as part of a coordinated NATO decision". Everything else you made up by gobbling up propaganda and lying to yourself.

Which also includes this statement about jets that simply doesn't exist (the actual answer when asked about jets was btw: There's no discussion in Germany about jets at the moment... followed by how we should look after delivering the promised tanks right now, instead of making up a narrative about the next demand just a day after that announcement...).

10

dogeimistic t1_j6fkxbv wrote

Lol no, Germany is literally dragging their feet with everything because they don't want to get singled out by Russia once this is over. They want all that cheap gas to run their manufacturing. They need to get those tanks delivered asap and start being a world leader. Jets will be on the table in the next 8 months.

−16

wnvyujlx t1_j6gte4l wrote

When it's a combined NATO effort, yes. Just Ukraine begging for it, no. Unity is the keyword.

6

Some-Ad9778 t1_j6erkdq wrote

Wow germany emboldened russia by having russia supply all of their energy with that pipeline and now they aint owning up, wtf

−25