Sending tanks to Ukraine

wing2000 · Jan 31, 2023

Aldebaran said:
Provide cover? What does that even mean?

It simply means Germany didn't want to provide it's tanks unless the United States did.

wing2000 · Jan 31, 2023

timewerx said:
If I'm not mistaken, the M1's turbine engine is multi-fuel and can also use diesel. And if I'm not mistaken again, the Leopard 2 is multi-fuel also.

They can both use diesel fuel so that shouldn't be a problem in fuel logistics.

I've read that as well. However, more recently, a US military person stated the M1 would need to be fueled by jet fuel. I was surprised to hear that.....and if that is the case, it obviously complicates fuel logistics for Ukraine.

wing2000 · Jan 31, 2023

timewerx said:
The operational cost of flying F-16's in combat, firing its weapons is most certainly far more costly than the cheap suicide drones Russia is using against Ukraine.

Why can't the west think think like that? Field effective but inexpensive weapons. Is throwing obscene amounts of money to a problem the ONLY way they know how to solve any problem?

Ukraine is the one pushing for the F-16's to replace it's Soviet era fighters. Drones have been used effectively, however, they are not a complete replacement for fighter aircraft. In any case, Biden was quoted as saying "no" when asked if the US will send F-16's.

Whyayeman · Jan 31, 2023

Jet fuel is not very special. It is just paraffin, or in American, kerosene. It is just a fraction of crude oil, like diesel.

Arcangl86 · Jan 31, 2023

wing2000 said:
I've read that as well. However, more recently, a US military person stated the M1 would need to be fueled by jet fuel. I was surprised to hear that.....and if that is the case, it obviously complicates fuel logistics for Ukraine.

It's possible that the multifuel engine is only in the newer models, which wouldn't be what the US sends.

timewerx · Jan 31, 2023

Whyayeman said:
Jet fuel is not very special. It is just paraffin, or in American, kerosene. It is just a fraction of crude oil, like diesel.

Yes, ground-based gas turbines and the M1 should be able to run on kerosene.

But kerosene is not available in large quantities due to low demand. Jet fuel ironically is available in much greater quantity but I doubt Ukraine would have great quantity of jet fuel due to war. Diesel might be more available.

RocksInMyHead · Jan 31, 2023

Aldebaran said:
If they get the F15s and F16s that we used to say was not even a consideration before, they won't be used for defensive purposes. They'll be used to attack inside Russia. American F15s and F16s flying into Russian airspace and attacking targets inside of Russia will be seen as an attack by the United States against Russia regardless of the nationality of the pilot.

I don't think F-15s have ever been requested, let alone proposed to put on the table - they're very much the wrong aircraft for the job. They require a lot of runway, they're primarily an air superiority fighter (aside from the latest E/EX models), and they're expensive. We also don't really have any spares. On the other hand, F-16s are cheap (as fighters go), well-equipped for both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, can take off and land on short, rough landing strips, and there are plenty of them lying around.

The primary issue with sending aircraft is that the air environment is still very hostile - both sides have a high concentration of SAMs and AA guns that make it very difficult to fly effective air missions. In order for the planes to be effective, Ukraine would first need to conduct a large-scale air defense suppression campaign, which they lack the airframes, munition, personnel and training to perform.

timewerx · Jan 31, 2023

Arcangl86 said:
It's possible that the multifuel engine is only in the newer models, which wouldn't be what the US sends.

The M1's engine itself is classified as 'multi-fuel'. There's absolutely no doubt the M1 is multi-fuel capable. However, I think this capability isn't meant to be routinely utilized. Probably in times of emergency only or severe shortages of it's primary fuel.

Additionally, the M1 have poor fuel efficiency compared to other tanks and using alternative fuels might make it even worse.

However, The M1 Abrams tank have been designed to accept alternative engine types and it can accept diesel engines although there are no production diesel engine 'powerpacks' available for M1's yet. Diesel engine powerpack prototypes have been tested successfully on the M1 but no plans for production yet.

Aldebaran · Jan 31, 2023

RocksInMyHead said:
I don't think F-15s have ever been requested, let alone proposed to put on the table - they're very much the wrong aircraft for the job. They require a lot of runway, they're primarily an air superiority fighter (aside from the latest E/EX models), and they're expensive. We also don't really have any spares. On the other hand, F-16s are cheap (as fighters go), well-equipped for both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, can take off and land on short, rough landing strips, and there are plenty of them lying around.

The primary issue with sending aircraft is that the air environment is still very hostile - both sides have a high concentration of SAMs and AA guns that make it very difficult to fly effective air missions. In order for the planes to be effective, Ukraine would first need to conduct a large-scale air defense suppression campaign, which they lack the airframes, munition, personnel and training to perform.

They've been requested, but hopefully won't happen. Ukraine Aims High with Request for F-15 and F-16 Jets. Here's Why It Probably Won't Happen

Aldebaran · Jan 31, 2023

Whyayeman said:
(Biden has just stated that F16s will not go to Ukraine.)

So now we just have to wait for his "spokesperson" to walk back that statement in her attempt to "clarify" that he meant the exact opposite of what he actually stated.

RocksInMyHead · Jan 31, 2023

Aldebaran said:
They've been requested, but hopefully won't happen. Ukraine Aims High with Request for F-15 and F-16 Jets. Here's Why It Probably Won't Happen

Fair enough, though that was nearly a year ago in the early days of the war (article is from April 2022). F-16s have been the only US fighters that have been discussed recently and are the only ones that we could reasonably send, for the reasons I mentioned previously.

Aldebaran said:
So now we just have to wait for his "spokesperson" to walk back that statement in her attempt to "clarify" that he meant the exact opposite of what he actually stated.

"He meant that we would not be sending any F-16s at that time. The situation has changed and we have re-evaluated our options."

Happens all the time - not sure why you feel the need to be snide about it.

Pommer · Jan 31, 2023

RocksInMyHead said:
Happens all the time - not sure why you feel the need to be snide about it.

Odd comment seeings as how our friend cannot even bring themselves to capitalize the President’s surname.

perpendicular_bisector · Jan 31, 2023

Seeing German tanks rolling over the Steppes again, that'll put the wind up the commie Russians!

wing2000 · Feb 1, 2023

...meanwhile:

Two U.S. officials said a new $2 billion package of military aid to be announced as soon as this week would for the first time include Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs (GLSDB), a new weapon designed by Boeing. (BA.N)

The cheap gliding missiles can strike targets more than 150 km (90 miles) away, a dramatic increase over the 80 km range of the rockets fired by HIMARS systems which changed the face of the war when Washington sent them last summer.

It would mean every inch of Russian-occupied Ukraine, apart from most of the Crimea peninsula, could soon be in range of Ukrainian forces, forcing Moscow to shift some ammunition and fuel storage sites all the way back to Russia itself.

Boost for Ukraine as U.S. expected to send longer-range rockets

News that the United States could soon send rockets nearly doubling the firing range of Ukrainian forces gave Kyiv a big lift, even as its troops were being pushed back by a relentless Russian winter offensive in the east.

www.reuters.com

Aldebaran · Feb 1, 2023

RocksInMyHead said:
Fair enough, though that was nearly a year ago in the early days of the war (article is from April 2022). F-16s have been the only US fighters that have been discussed recently and are the only ones that we could reasonably send, for the reasons I mentioned previously.

"He meant that we would not be sending any F-16s at that time. The situation has changed and we have re-evaluated our options."

Happens all the time - not sure why you feel the need to be snide about it.

Well, it happens all the time that he says something as if he's knowledgeable about what he's saying and means it, only for KJP to end up having to do some "clarifying" to indicate that he really isn't all that knowledgeable, and didn't really mean what he said. In the end, we really can't expect much transparency from this administration, and that doesn't really help to inspire confidence in it.

Sending tanks to Ukraine

E pluribus unum

E pluribus unum

E pluribus unum

Well-Known Member

Newbie

the village i--o--t--

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

the village i--o--t--

NCC-1701-A

NCC-1701-A

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Active Member

E pluribus unum

NCC-1701-A

Similar threads