Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

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

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

Reselects420 t1_j6ehx4h wrote

Replying to Profrog888 (#1,588,497)

> “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

Maximum-Cranberry-64 t1_j6eiwfc wrote

Replying to Ruin-Known77 (#1,588,281)

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

CurtisLeow t1_j6eixvt wrote

Replying to Ruin-Known77 (#1,588,281)

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

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

egotim t1_j6eka8p wrote

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

10

afops t1_j6ekgh8 wrote

Replying to Ruin-Known77 (#1,588,281)

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

DoorHingesKill t1_j6eor4v wrote

Replying to Mysterious-Lion-3577 (#1,587,906)

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

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

alter_ego t1_j6evp0o wrote

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

4

yeahokguy1331 t1_j6ezeke wrote

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

−1

fulcrum_rebels t1_j6f0zst wrote

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

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

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

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

goBoss98 t1_j6fez8j wrote

He doesn't have any that can fly

0

massada t1_j6fikxl wrote

Replying to DoorHingesKill (#1,589,895)

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

Ooops2278 t1_j6fim0r wrote

Replying to dogeimistic (#1,592,745)

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

Ooops2278 t1_j6fjea2 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,590,046)

>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

dogeimistic t1_j6fkxbv wrote

Replying to Ooops2278 (#1,594,966)

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

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

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

Mirathecat22 t1_j6g375r wrote

Won’t send Leopards either but here we are

1

Speculawyer t1_j6g3ksv wrote

Okay. Germany doesn't make fighter jets.

Just support the Leopard 2 tanks fully.

2

zomgbratto t1_j6g4wp1 wrote

Replying to DoorHingesKill (#1,589,895)

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

LiliNotACult t1_j6g5y5j wrote

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

0

MATlad t1_j6gam3b wrote

Replying to afops (#1,589,242)

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

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

Tokyogerman t1_j6gryji wrote

Replying to Profrog888 (#1,588,497)

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

wnvyujlx t1_j6gu3a2 wrote

Replying to GMFPs_sweat_towel (#1,600,577)

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

jlaw54 t1_j6gv16x wrote

*Yet

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

−7

lordqaz t1_j6gyl3v wrote

Replying to fly_drich (#1,601,144)

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

afops t1_j6gzpaq wrote

Replying to MATlad (#1,600,885)

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

BurnTrees- t1_j6hdkbd wrote

Replying to Greg1817 (#1,592,355)

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

HurryPast386 t1_j6hgern wrote

Replying to fly_drich (#1,601,144)

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

DoorHingesKill t1_j6hndji wrote

Replying to zomgbratto (#1,599,698)

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

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

Ree_m0 t1_j6hzt1m wrote

Replying to Tokyogerman (#1,604,214)

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

Law-of-Poe t1_j6j1pxj wrote

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

/s

1

Nervous_Top7531 t1_j6jdhr7 wrote

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

−1

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

Tokyogerman t1_j6kgf6t wrote

Replying to Ree_m0 (#1,612,740)

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

Disastrous-Order7587 t1_j6lh1c1 wrote

Replying to egotim (#1,589,215)

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