this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
235 points (98.4% liked)

Ukraine

8310 readers
772 users here now

News and discussion related to Ukraine

*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.

*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.

*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title

*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW

Server Rules

  1. Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
  2. No racism or other discrimination
  3. No Nazis, QAnon or similar
  4. No porn
  5. No ads or spam
  6. No content against Finnish law

Donate to support Ukraine's Defense

Donate to support Humanitarian Aid


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 58 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It’s important to cover the eyes of birds when transporting them so they think it’s night and sleep through their journey.

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago

The hawks need to rest their eyesight before going straight for prey

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 25 points 3 months ago (5 children)

I'm delighted we're sending these over to Ukraine (though it should have been done a long time ago).

Question: the F-16s are planes. Is there some reason we're loading them onto other planes for transport instead of flying them over?

[–] BatrickPateman@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Ease of transfer (one pilot vs multiple for a looooong flight, probably no refuel on the Antonow, and if so it eats less specialised stuff than the F-16s) and maybe even fuel efficiency, I would guess.

Also, one cargo plane raises less eye brows than a flock of fighters.

[–] ItWasTheDNS@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

AN-124’s are extremely inefficient - it’s probably stopping 2-3 times on route, but still easier to arrange than flying each plane.

[–] Alienmonkey@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Think they'd go west over the pacific or back across the US?

[–] ItWasTheDNS@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Back across the US - Portland Maine is a popular tech stop for the AN124’s and then probably someplace in the UK

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Both aircraft types will almost certainly be running Jet A1, or whatever the military version of it is.

[–] Dicska@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

The others here answered everything already, I just would like to use one analogy: 6 sports cars on a trailer.

[–] Zoidsberg@lemmy.ca 16 points 3 months ago

Same reason new cars aren't driven from the port to the dealership.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

The maximum range for the F16 in "ferry" mode (max fuel, no weapons, pee before takeoff) is something like 4000km. The distance from Belfast (Maine) to Belfast (the original) is 4500km.

That would mean air to air refueling, which is expensive and risky. It would put major wear on the planes, which are not the newest to start with. And unlike the Antonov, the F16 comes with neither legroom nor bathrooms.

[–] Lupus@feddit.org 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

pee before takeoff)

Iirc the factor that limited early nuclear submarines the most from continuous dives was the toilets, they have limited storage for sewage and it turns out that draining those with a greater outside pressure is a pretty difficult task, at least if you want to stay undetected.

Now that they have figured that out the limiting factor is food.

[–] Sizzler@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You didn't explain how they sorted it out so I'm assuming compost toilets or some form of slow torpedo that makes it look like the sub is pooing.

[–] UFODivebomb@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago
[–] GenosseFlosse@feddit.org 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

the F16 comes with neither legroom nor bathrooms.

But at maximum speed, it could in theory cover the 4500km in just over 2h (but probably with worse fuel economy and less range)

[–] dlatch@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

There's no way it can get anywhere near that range at full speed. Fighters need to use afterburners to get up to max speed, and F16s run out of fuel in about 10 minutes when using afterburner.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sourly 6 hours flight time is not significant wear.

[–] TheOneCurly@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You might be misunderstanding that statistic.

That's something like, this Squadron had n hours flight time and consumed n*17 hours maintenance.

That doesn't mean a 1 hour flight increases required maintenance by 17 hours.

[–] LaFinlandia@sopuli.xyz 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's safer for long distances, plus they won't have to worry about refueling.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

That, and 6x the flight hours for a F16 is expensive. The flight hours with accompanied wear and tear are better used over Ukraine.

[–] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)

*Some assembly required. Batteries not included.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Batteries not included.

One of my absolute favorite 80s movies

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I absolutely hope not. The emergency battery on the F16 is a hydrazine generator. Here's a A picture of two guys about to work on one.

[–] Steve@startrek.website 3 points 3 months ago

Holy shit badass

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh hell yeah, are we pulling some stuff out of AMARG? I didn’t realize we were doing that!! Thought it was just a handful of European countries donating airframes they were decommissioning.

[–] Tramort@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What is AMARG?

and what implications does it have? Greater number if aircraft available?

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The boneyard: http://www.amarcexperience.com/ui/index.php

Has tons of mothballed airframes that technically serve as a strategic reserve in the event that we suddenly need a few hundred more military aircraft for some reason.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I've seem what happens to shit that sits for a while. It breaks in ways beyond comprehension.

[–] vanontom@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I have, too. Maybe I'm still in denial over this dark magic, but I still think just about anything can be successfully stored, using proper tested procedures. Regarding fluids, fuel, batteries, tires, etc. Can't imagine how complicated it is for a million dollar fighter jet, though. But they're probably built tough, and not full of cheap materials that disintegrate (unlike my old car).

[–] GenXLiberal@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

I had to look it up as well “The 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (309 AMARG) is a one-of-a-kind specialized facility within the Air Force Materiel Command structure.“

Dunno if it the only one or not

https://www.dm.af.mil/About-DM/Units/Mission-Partners/309-AMARG/

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 months ago

Give Ukraine hundred more tanks and jets and throw in some navy ships too.

[–] Marduk73@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago

Singing america n ukraine fuck yeah!!!