It totally depends on the river and specific local conditions.

It is complicated because of how kinetic energy can manifest.

You can have an increase in velocity, an increase in mass, or a combination of both.

The exact combination is dependent on a massive amount of variables like LWD, Manning roughness coefficient, channel longitudinal profile, channel cross-section geometry, amount of precipitation, amount of time precipitation occurs over, antecedent soil conditions (saturation excess vs infiltration excess flow), aquifer and other groundwater dynamics, hyporheic exchange rates… the list goes on and on.

Contractors would still be a huge no go.

Especially with the fuel guzzlers that are F-16s, you either need significant upgrades (ie the export F-16Vs with CFTs to operate for meaningful periods of time as CAP).

There is also the issue of mission roles.

The F-16 is a pretty decent multi role fighter, but is really still an interceptor at heart. One, these things aren’t going to be used in ground support if they do go because they only really excel at that role in absence of air defenses or air assets.

The one argument would be SEAD/DEAD, but we have already been able to upgrade the Ukrainian MIGs for use of the HARM, the F-16 offers little more in that spectrum. They also still lack the range needed to allow for safe operation in the current anti air regime that exists.

Basically, we would send them and they would stay on the ground, just like most everything else is right now.

Not really.

A lot of folks have absolutely no idea how impractical sending a completely new type of aircraft is.

The huge issue isn’t that we can’t send them, it is the training pipeline.

It takes months to years to convert pilots, maintainers, infrastructure, weapons, training programs, logistical supply, etc.

My local Air National Guard is currently in month 9 of their conversion from the F-16 to F-35 right now for instance.

It is just too long to be practical and would require planning on the conflict continuing for years for these to see combat. Sending new fighters takes away pilots from current training and combat and would hamstring the Ukrainian Air Force. It always was a dumb idea and is a good thing it isn’t happening.

Honestly, the USMC should switch to the Army method of camo out rolling.

It makes the roll look better (eliminating your concern) and has been proven to be superior in case of CRBN attack (you can roll down the sleeves much faster).

The Army's timing of reintroducing camo out rolling is also quite interesting as it coincides with several ISIL chemical attacks, specifically with blister agents like sulfur-mustard in what at the time was not considered a chemical warfare environment .

Gen. Mark Milley approved "camo out roll" Sep. 27, 2016

Mustard Gas attack on USMC near Mosul Sep. 23, 2016

The timing is either one hell of a coincidence or directly related. My guess is the latter, especially given that Milley's memo had significant portions redacted, which is odd for something so seemingly benign as saying "you can roll your sleeves differently".

They still use it, it is just that it is not rotated as the required summer uniform.

This is to better align with the reality that most of the world isn't a desert, it was only really a thing because of Iraq and Afghanistan. Once we got out, we realized how ridiculous wearing desert camo around in summer in most places actually is.

The background on this is that the vast majority of landmass in the world is temperate forests to grasslands where woodland MARPAT works best. This is especially true in littoral zones where the USMC is refocusing its operational envelope to right now.

That aside, the USMC's approach to having desert on in the summer and woodland on in the winter was more than a bit backwards. Lets put it this way: they had green on when everything was white or brown, and tan/brown on when everything was green. No matter the season, they never blended in with anything.

The new directive matches better with the US environment, and explicitly allows for commanders of overseas bases to make their own determination based on the local environment.

It makes a ton more sense than just arbitrarily wearing desert in the summer and woodland in the winter. The biggest controversy I have heard of is why didn't we do this sooner.

That isn't even remotely how classification or declassification works.

The NGA did not confirm nor deny (typical Glomar response) the nature of the image or if it was the full resolution or downsampled.

We now know it was not sanitized (downsampled) and is from a KH-11 satellite. We also now know both the location of said satellite and some extremely important info like its sensor sensitivities, spatial, radiometric, and spectral resolution, focal length, nadir swath, and even things like lens diameter.

The reason they are declassifying it is because the current assessment is that this particular satellite was burned as an intelligence asset. Everyone knows how it works and where it is orbitally, so can plan around it.

It is a $2 billion asset that was just washed down the drain.

Contractors also do not assess documents for declassification.

Source: a lot of my colleagues have either worked at the NGA or at NGA imagery analysis contractors. I personally do a lot of work using properly declassified KH-7 and KH-9 imagery to extend records of observation for infrastructure development impacts on ecology.