NWS Nieuws & Achtergronden
Discussieer hier diepgaander over de actualiteiten.
Rustig nachtje in Oekraïne, slechts 4 kruisraketten. Aan de andere kant, rusland claimt maar liefst 114 lange afstand drones en 6 zeedrones te hebben neergeschoten.
Er is volgens russische bronnen (bijv: Milinfo) een KA-29 marine helikopter neergehaald door friendly fire (Pantsir):
Er is volgens russische bronnen (bijv: Milinfo) een KA-29 marine helikopter neergehaald door friendly fire (Pantsir):
Oja, er zijn nog een paar andere vliegtuigjes neergestort, honderden russen vergiftigt met botulisme, nog eens 3 generaals aangeklaagd (afgezien van Ivanov en Popov), etc, etc.quote:“The Ukrainians used new tactics. Simultaneous attack by naval kamikaze drones and UAVs.
To fight off naval kamikaze drones, you need to raise helicopters; to fight off hundreds of UAVs, you need air defense to destroy aerial targets. And one thing doesn’t go well with the other.
This tactic was expected. For a year and a half, Ukrainians have been hitting the ground with missiles at the moment when our front-line aviation enters the launch/drop zone. An overload of channels is artificially created with the hope of an error and less efficiency and freedom of action for air defense operations.”
Offertes voor het betere stucwerk.quote:
Perhaps you've seen it, maybe in a dream.
A murky, forgotten land.
A murky, forgotten land.
Ruska Kurwa lalala. Wat betekent iets van Rusland hoer. Kurwa betekent hoer in het pools maar het wordt ook gebruikt als gvd of om iemand uit te schelden. Vroeger nog wel is gegamed met een groep Polen en dan vlogen de Kurwa's ook om je oren als het niet goed ging.quote:
Business Insiderquote:Ukraine got the go-ahead to hit Russia with F-16s, but doing so could be a waste of a good jet
NATO member Denmark has given Ukraine permission to use the F-16s it receives to hit military targets within Russia.
It is unclear if Ukraine has any intention of using its F-16s in this way, or if doing so would mean the jets themselves enter Russia or just their munitions, but military experts told Business Insider it may not be the best use for them regardless, at least right now.
Denmark's decision is part of a wider and influential shift in NATO oversight of the weapons sent to Ukraine, a loosening of the restrictions on how Ukraine is allowed to fight the war.
Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, partner nations have prevented Ukraine from hitting military targets within Russia, giving Moscow a safe space to stage attacks and putting Ukraine at a huge disadvantage. Over the course of the war, many attacks have been launched from inside Russian territory. Analysts have described this situation as Ukraine fighting a war with one hand tied behind its back.
But some of Ukraine's international partners have been changing their approach over the past few weeks. And now Denmark is the first country to give the go-ahead for the coming F-16s. Just because it can, though, doesn't mean it should.
A big danger
Ukraine is expected to get its first F-16s this summer. George Barros, a Russian military expert at the US-based Institute for the Study of War think tank, said "it doesn't make a lot of military sense" to use the American-made fighter jets to "strike into Russia at this time."
"Because the deeper you go into Russia and the closer you get to the border, the more dangerous it is for you to fly," and it's more likely that you lose high-end equipment and trained pilots not easily replaced, he said.
Barros said that in the future, particularly with more jets, that would be a great use for them, "but that's not where we are now."
Ukraine's ability to use other weapons to hit Russia is a big boost for Ukraine, but it's not necessarily the best thing for a fairly small fleet of F-16s.
Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel and a defense strategy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that he suspects "that the F-16s will stay back from the front lines to avoid the Russian air defense envelope."
F-16s, when armed with anti-radiation missiles like the AGM-88 HARM missiles provided by the US, can be used to target air defenses in suppression and destruction missions, but those can be challenging, high-risk operations.
F-16s are big targets
Tim Robinson, a military aviation specialist at the UK's Royal Aeronautical Society, said the F-16s could be useful for hitting targets that are in Russia but out of range for other weapons. The aircraft has that capability, but striking into Russia is a risky mission, particularly for a fourth-generation aircraft that first flew in 1974.
He suspects that Ukraine, having "finally got them," will want to ensure "they don't lose them straight away."
Ukraine has been fighting hard to get F-16s since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion, but the US prohibited other countries operating the jet from sending them to Ukraine until it changed its mind in May 2023.
Peter Layton, a fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute and a former Royal Australian Air Force officer, said that Ukraine will want to keep its aircraft "safe."
Ukraine will have to be more cautious with its F-16s, as it is not getting a lot, experts say.
The exact number of F-16s Ukraine will get to begin with is unclear, but it's not expected to be many. Ukraine has been promised a total of an estimated 85 jets by Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Belgium. And France is sending an unspecified number of its Mirage 2000-5 fighters. This is a boost, but Ukraine can't afford to suffer tremendous losses.
A problem is that Ukraine is expected to receive more F-16s than it has trained pilots. A lack of available training spots in Arizona, Denmark, and Romania means that only around 20 Ukrainian F-16 pilots will be trained this year, Politico reported, thus limiting the number of jets Ukraine can fly into battle.
The number of warplanes aside, there's also a political aspect to Ukraine needing to keep its jets in the air.
Professor Michael Clark, a Russia and Ukraine expert and a British national security advisor, said Ukraine has been managing expectations over how effective the aircraft will be. Ukraine has suggested that the aircraft will be extremely useful against Russia, but there is a risk of backlash over losses or failure to secure a major breakthrough.
He said that while analysts "know that warfare is full of setbacks and things that don't go right first time and so on," a "manifest failure of an F-16 offensive would be politically very damaging for the Ukrainians," especially among some US Republicans and groups that are reluctant to back Ukraine.
As a result, Clark said, the Ukrainians are likely thinking that for its F-16s, "it'd be better to hold them back until they can be more confident rather than throw them in quickly, hoping that they'll be okay, because the chances are they won't."
Cancian said losing F-16s, particularly with so few promised to Ukraine, would be seen as "a big deal."
He said some expectations put on Ukraine's F-16s are unfair. US air strength, for instance, can come from the employment of "hundreds of aircraft with extensive support systems on the ground," the air fleet and ground infrastructure that Ukraine's embattled air forces lack.
Avoiding Russia
The experts said that the jets likely won't go into Russia because of the dangers there. If they do, it would like be rare. Even flying over Russian-occupied territory is dangerous.
Cancian said there may be "one or two deep raids maybe over Crimea just for the symbolic and psychological effect, but as a routine use, no, it's just too dangerous."
Notably, though, Ukraine has been increasingly targeting air defense systems on the occupied peninsula and elsewhere.
ISW suspects "Ukrainian forces may be conducting an organized effort to degrade Russian air defenses, which could enable Ukraine to more effectively leverage manned fixed-wing airpower (namely using F-16 fighter jets) in the long term."
And Ukraine has demonstrated a willingness to make bold plays.
Layton acknowledged Ukraine might attempt something daring, noting that they have conducted some other risky moves that have given them big wins, like taking down Russian aircraft.
"Tactically, they are very smart," he said. "So while I think they wouldn't do it, if they did it, it would be very carefully organized and fairly quick." But in general, he said, going into Russia "makes them far too vulnerable."
"I personally think that the Ukrainians will be foolish to put their aircraft in quite small numbers across the border because I think that the Russians will outnumber them," he said.
Robinson noted Russia has a "massive air defense network" that would target the jets, which lack stealth characteristics like fifth-gen jets. Ukraine has a network like this too, and it's why Russian jets have barely entered Ukrainian-held airspace. But in Russia, Ukrainian aircraft can also expect to battle the Russian Air Force in addition to enemy air defenses.
"The problem is that there's not going to be very many F-16s, and they will be very vulnerable as they fly over Russian territory," Mark Cancian said.
F-16s may hang back
Instead, Cancian said, he expects them to be used mostly defensively — used away from the front, protecting cities and infrastructure from Russia's drones and missiles. The F-16 can play defense well and has been prominent in the post-9/11 Noble Eagle mission defending US and Canadian airspace.
He said F-16s "aren't going to be flying over the front lines, but they don't really need that," as other weapons can hit into Russia and defend the front lines.
Layton agreed the best use for Ukraine's first F-16s would be defensive, staying in Ukrainian territory in an air-defense role to shoot down Russia's drones and cruise missiles.
But he was more bullish on Ukraine hitting targets in Russia, saying that it could do it without flying the aircraft into Russia, as he suspects that Ukraine will likely get the right intelligence to do such a hit without taking too much risk.
A key aspect of what kind of missions the F-16 can fly is what kind of missiles and bombs the jet is carrying. Ukraine does not currently have the full range of capabilities.
Ukraine's pilots could, however, be able to master defensive action the fastest, and it would likely be the most effective thing Ukraine could do without a greater number of aircraft, the experts said. It would also bolster a capability that has been heavily strained by relentless Russian attacks, and that's air defense.
Experts said they don't expect the F-16s to make a massive difference in the war by themselves, particularly without more of them. But they said these fighter jets will be useful for Ukraine by replenishing lost aircraft, deterring Russian jets, and acting as defenses.
"Whenever they arrive," Cancian said, "that's a good time for Ukraine because they will add to Ukraine's military capability."
Robinson said the F-16s will "make Russian pilots there a little bit more kind of wary, a little bit more careful about what they're going up against."
https://www.aivd.nl/onder(...)et-het-westen-zoekenquote:THEMAVERHAAL: Rusland bleef ook in 2023 de confrontatie met het Westen zoeken
Rusland ziet zichzelf in een existentieel conflict met het Westen.
In 2023 probeerde het land voortdurend westerse landen in een kwaad daglicht te stellen en de onderlinge eenheid te ondermijnen.
Nederland bleek een belangrijk spionage doelwit, onder meer vanwege de steun aan Oekraïne.
Een Russin en daarmee waarschijnlijk automatisch van een bepaalde professie.quote:Op vrijdag 21 juni 2024 17:22 schreef Adrie072 het volgende:
[..]
Iets in de trant van je moeder is...... nou ja, je snapt het wel.
Een specialistequote:Op vrijdag 21 juni 2024 17:34 schreef spicymchaggis het volgende:
[..]
Een Russin en daarmee waarschijnlijk automatisch van een bepaalde professie.
Zweden gaat een AWACS vliegtuig aan Oekraïne doneren.quote:
Die gaat Russische vliegtuigen die glidebommen dragen detecteren.
Vervolgens wordt er een F16 gescrambled.
Die schiet vanaf 100 km met een BVR raket het Russische vliegtuig uit de lucht.
Veruit de beste inzet voor F16's.
Want de Russen hebben geen BVR missiles?quote:
[..]
Zweden gaat een AWACS vliegtuig aan Oekraïne doneren.
Die gaat Russische vliegtuigen die glidebommen dragen detecteren.
Vervolgens wordt er een F16 gescrambled.
Die schiet vanaf 100 km met een BVR raket het Russische vliegtuig uit de lucht.
Veruit de beste inzet voor F16's.
Daarbij, die Russische glide bombs hebben een bereik van 70+ km, als die op het front worden ingezet moet je met je F16 al tot op 30km van het front komen, ruim binnen het bereik van de Russische luverd dus.
2quote:
[..]
Zweden gaat een AWACS vliegtuig aan Oekraïne doneren.
Uiteindelijk zijn het vooral vervanging dan wel aanvulling voor hun huidige vliegtuigen. Niet per se een nieuw wapen.quote:
Maar wel beter dan hetgeen ze vervangen.quote:
[..]
Uiteindelijk zijn het vooral vervanging dan wel aanvulling voor hun huidige vliegtuigen. Niet per se een nieuw wapen.
Russische BVR raketten zijn poep.quote:
[..]
Want de Russen hebben geen BVR missiles?
Daarbij, die Russische glide bombs hebben een bereik van 70+ km, als die op het front worden ingezet moet je met je F16 al tot op 30km van het front komen, ruim binnen het bereik van de Russische luverd dus.
En het gaat om Russische bombardements vliegtuigen.
Dat lukt bijna niet zei Patrick Bolder bij Boekestijn en De Wijk van de week. Ze zouden alleen goed de vliegvelden en de toestellen zelf daar kunnen bombarderen, maar real time glijbommen is haast onmogelijk.quote:
[..]
Zweden gaat een AWACS vliegtuig aan Oekraïne doneren.
Die gaat Russische vliegtuigen die glidebommen dragen detecteren.
Vervolgens wordt er een F16 gescrambled.
Die schiet vanaf 100 km met een BVR raket het Russische vliegtuig uit de lucht.
Veruit de beste inzet voor F16's.
A Robin Redbreast in a Cage Puts all Heaven in a Rage.
quote:
Alsof de bombers niet geescorteerd worden door een stel fighters...quote:En het gaat om Russische bombardements vliegtuigen.
Maar goed, die glide bombs worden niet door TU-95 en TU-160 achtige toestellen afgeworpen he.
Strak verhaal.quote:
Misschien wel het belangrijkste effect dat de F-16's -nu al- hebben, is dat ze een afleiding vormen voor andere strategische doelwitten.
Er is een groot verschil tussen pro-Rusland en pro-Rusland propaganda net als dat er pro-Oekraïnse bronnen en pro-Oekraïnse propaganda is.quote:
[..]
Suriyakmaps zit ook in de Pro Rusland kamp met Weeb Union en History legends. Al zou het kunnen dat hij gewoon verkeerde vrienden heeft natuurlijk. Maar na wat googlen zie ik dat er een consensus op Wikipedia is dat hij geen betrouwbare bron is (in de tijd van zijn Syrië kaarten in elk geval).
Het publiek bij deze live show is in elk geval grotendeels pro Russia, wat vaak al veel zegt.
Al ken ik zijn kaarten van de oorlog in Oekraïne verder niet, dus geen idee hoe hij daar mee om gaat, maar ik zal er later vandaag eens gaan rondkijken.
Ik zal dat filmpje van de koning later vandaag ook bekijken. Ben wel benieuwd of het was is.
![[ LIVE ] HistoryLegends, SuriyakMaps, WeebUnion, NWE WarReports, THETI Mapping & DPA](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fi9EajfqbF0/0.jpg)
Weeb Union, Deepstate en Surikaya zitten wat in het midden en zijn qua informatie zelden incorrect. Ze gebruiken ook allemaal dezelfde bronnen en bijvoorbeeld weeb union zit tussen Deep State en Surikaya in en gebruikt beide als bron. Het is ook lastig werk denk ik, honderden filmpjes en hij bijhouden van brigade telegrams, dan ben je denk ik wel een uur of 6 per dag bezig.
Wat ook nog onderscheid maakt is hoe snel men de kaarten aanpast, Deep State ligt meestal 2-3 dagen achter, ISW 3-4 en Weeb 1-2. Surikaya is het snelst en daarom per definitie foutgevoeliger.
Ceterum censeo Turciam delendam esse.
