If the Ukraine war could be fought over again, from start to finish. What improvements would occur in hindsight so that Ukraine wins the war and in fast time?

The mistake made by NATO and allies was a slow feed of aid for ground troops finally to air defense and tanks and some intermediate range missiles.

That was a mistake of 2 years.

What should have been done on day 1 of the war-- train pilots for the F-16, and get F-16s into the theater of war as fast as possible.

The Ukraine war if the F-16 were already in Ukraine the day Russia launched the invasion, that the F-16 would have destroyed all of Russia's ground force, along with any jets Russia put in play.

And if the West had been super super smart, seeing Russia steal Crimea, and started making F-16s in their arsenal just after Russia stole Crimea, there would not have been this fighting along the borders and in fact, Kiev could have bombed the Russians
out of Crimea in 2014.

What this book is about is to convey what Modern War is all about

1) ICBM ultimate weapon
2) best fighter jet wins the war if no ICBMs are involved
3) everything else is antique and only for mop-up of what the F-16 neutralized.

I feel NATO armies are too much antiques of tanks and howitzers and missiles.

If a war theater is not a ICBM one, then the best fighter jet is what wins that war.

WW2 was actually decided by 1940 in the Battle of Britain, those brief 3 months where the Spitfire won the war, and forecast that Germany would lose the war for Germany was inferior air power.

Same thing for Ukraine, in that the F-16 is superior over any Russian plane, and perhaps 30 F-16s patrolling the skies over Ukraine destroys all the Russian trenches and its army on the ground.

AP

AP's 300th book of science:: What the Ukraine War teaches us-- best fighter jet wins the war if that war has not gone ICBM--tanks ground troops are phased out

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

So the big question at the moment is whether China has a superior jet fighter over the US F-16. If war broke out, save a ICBM war, but just conventional like Russia-Ukraine, who has superiority of the sky??

Perhaps the F-16 is still the most advanced and powerful due to electronics. It can spot the enemy better and has superior missiles to destroy the Chinese jet fighter.

And superiority needs to be known before a clash ensues.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Now another important question to ask.

Can Atomic Missiles be carried on a jet fighter such as a F-16 or any of its upgrades. A jet that can fly close to the ground and avoid enemy fire and be a substitute for a ICBM.

I am looking into the logical question of a ICBM war and where jet fighters are more reliable than the ICBMs.

So I see present current NATO forces spending too much time on antique military weapons and means when they should concentrate on ICBMs and jet fighters.

There could well be the case where launched ICBMs are dud failures, whether land or submarine, and then the F-16s the only successful weapon.

There has been much news about supersonic missiles, and supersonic ICBM. Here again the failure rate is likely to be high in a actual Atomic ICBM war, and what is percentage wise the best weapon is a F-16 carrying a Atomic bomb.

Perhaps many of the ICBMs are duds at launch or take a wrong course, or are shot down in defense systems. It is here that a F-16 carrying a atomic warhead may be the best weapon.

So often is the case in atomic deterrence that we blindly without logical reasoning build weapons and waste time and money on what will be dud weapons.

If the Ukraine war ends in victory for Ukraine with 30 F-16s patrolling the skies. The NATO and allies need to have hard thought game plans of the blending in of ICBM with F-16s.

AP

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)