this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
298 points (99.0% liked)

World News

38970 readers
2662 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • The US has purchased 81 Soviet-era combat aircraft from Kazakhstan, the Kyiv Post reports.
  • Kazakhstan, a historic ally of Russia, is engaging more with Western nations.
  • The planes could be used for spare parts or deployed as decoys in conflict regions, the Post said.

The US has acquired 81 obsolete Soviet-era combat aircraft from Kazakhstan, the Kyiv Post reported.

Kazakhstan, which is upgrading its air fleet, auctioned off 117 Soviet-era fighter and bomber aircraft, including MiG-31 interceptors, MiG-27 fighter bombers, MiG-29 fighters, and Su-24 bombers from the 1970s and 1980s.

The declared sale value was one billion Kazakhstani tenge, said the Post, or $2.26 million, equalling an average value for each plane of $19,300.

The US purchased 81 of the aged, unusable warplanes, said the Ukrainian Telegram channel Insider UA, per the Post.

The motive behind the US purchase remains undisclosed, said the Post, but it raised the possibility of their use in Ukraine, where similar aircraft are in service.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 90 points 6 months ago (6 children)

NCD in shambles over the fact that they missed out on getting combat aircraft for the price of a cheap car.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 35 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I'm actually pretty upset.

I assume this was a bulk discount, but still. If they'd asked I bet there could have been a hell of a GoFundMe.

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

I’d join a time share for that and could maybe turn a profit flying it at airshows (edit: scratch that)

But Ukraine deserves it more

[–] Alteon@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago (3 children)

You'd go bankrupt in maintenance costs and upkeep within the first month. You'd be looking at about $9,000 per hour of flight time in maintenance and component costs, and about $7,500 in fuel costs (JP-8).

The are going to strip these for spare parts. I guarantee it.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Altofaltception@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

What does NCD stand for in this context?

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 24 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Non-Credible Defense, a shitposting community about international military affairs. The running joke is how everyone there is desperately horny for literal jets. Like, dress the jet up in a bridal gown and go to town on the thrusters level horny.

[–] variants@possumpat.io 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Dance-fighting the Sharks in the streets of New York City?

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 10 points 6 months ago

ONCE YOU'RE A JET
YOU'RE A JET ALL THE WAY

FROM YOUR FIRST CIGARETTE
TO YOUR LAST DYING DAY!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 children)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 8 points 6 months ago

Hell, you can't even get a Cessna 172 that's as old as these planes for $20k. Add another zero to the end and people will start talking.

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Even if the thing doesn't get airborne anymore, it'd be one hell of a way to build up a flight simulator for gaming. Probably not what's going on here but it's what I'd do.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 62 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the reason is as simple as buying them so Russia can't.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 59 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The missiles we'd use to shoot down these flying tubs of shit probably cost more than buying them lmao

[–] Thrashy@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago

The "I'm gonna give you $100 to fuck off" school of military strategy.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 17 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Look up the Soviet era Night Witches.

They had the worst possible aircraft, and managed to use them to become a feared weapon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well aware, I've seen one of their planes in person actually. Nobody worth talking to needs convincing that crummy planes are still dangerous, I was mostly just joking about how expensive American munitions are.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 7 points 6 months ago

I see and concede the point. Have fun.

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

This is one of those stories that Hollywood could use with female leads, no need to shoehorn a female cast into other plots.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 8 points 6 months ago

That's actually one of my Hollywood pet peeves.

There are plenty of heroic folks whose stories haven't been told. No need to recycle James Bond as a woman when you have Virginia Hall

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Hall

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 39 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The article frames them as garbage, but they're still 4th gen fighters. Same vintage as the F-16 and F-15, and the US still operates tons of those. 4th gen stuff is a whole lot cheaper to run than 5th gen, and that will probably keep 4th gen stuff flying for a long time.

Granted, they're probably not very well maintained, and the F-16 and F-15 have gotten upgrades over the decades and these probably didn't. The US doesn't have spare parts to keep them maintained (except by cannibalizing one plane to keep the other one running), and any weapon hardpoints would need to be adapted to US missiles. There probably isn't any interesting intelligence to be gained from them anymore. So, yeah, spare parts for Ukraine seems most likely.

[–] Buelldozer 27 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

To say that the F-16 "got upgrades over the decades" is quite the understatement. A block 1/5/10/15 F-16 would get straight up destroyed by a Block 52 or 60. The airframes may be the same but every major system ON that airframe has seen continuous improvements over the years. Engines upgraded to improve power and reliability, control surface upgrades to improve handling and safety, avionics upgrades to improve flight controls, FoF performance, weapons targeting and on and on. As technology progressed we spent tens of billions keeping the F-16 current.

I highly doubt that Russia or Kazakhstan made those same investments so while those MiGs and SUs are 4th Gen they wouldn't fare well at all against "Modern" 4th Gen.

Edit: That ignores the upgrades that COULD be put on an F-16 too. There's at least some of them now flying around with Stealth Coatings and 3D vectoring engine nozzles!

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Holy shit, thrust vector nozzle on a 16? I’ve been watching them overhead daily my entire life and the Falcon is still going strong. I’ll just look at the Wikipedia…

”System for Autonomous Control of Simulation (SACS) will be added in order to operate X-62A as a Skyborg”

Oh shit.

[–] Buelldozer 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The Skyborg has 3d Thrust Vectoring. If you're on YT you can see a brief video clip of it on "Sandboxx News". Also Skyborg and it's SACS, with 3D vectoring, has already flown! :)

Edit: Here's the link to the video I'm talking about.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 31 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Pepsi could’ve finally given that kid a jet and had a PR boost on the cheap, although not a Harier

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 24 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Probably for spare parts and then used as dummy aircraft after that, all for Ukraine. For less than 20k per plane, that's pretty damn good. And Ukraine could certainly use the parts. Though I hope we also donate a considerable amount of our aging out planes and tanks. They'd serve Ukraine well and get second, well-deserved life overseas.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DaCrazyJamez@sh.itjust.works 18 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Theyre gunna be rented out as props in a forthcoming "Top Gun" prequel.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

You're joking, but the movie industry and the military have been working hand-in-hand for a very long time, which includes giving Hollywood military equipment and vehicles to work with. Top Gun itself was given access to Navy ships, planes and other assets in exchange for making a movie that rehabilitated the Navy's image in a post-Vietnam world.

And it worked too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93entertainment_complex

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's gonna be called Bottom Gun and be all about his career in shirtless beach volleyball

[–] DaCrazyJamez@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago

"Top Gun: Power Bottom"

[–] Windhover@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago (5 children)

How hard would it be to turn these into drones?

[–] toddestan@lemm.ee 29 points 6 months ago (1 children)

When the US retired the F4, a number of the planes were converted into target drones. Probably the bigger hurdle would be to get these planes airworthy again.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago

The goal was to remove Soviet era planes, and thus a customer to Russia, and open up space and provide a budget for Western arms.

[–] misophonium@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The article calls the planes unusable, so I don't think Ukraine has enough spare parts to fix up 81 outdated planes just to blow them up. They'll probably strip out everything usable and use the more modern husks as decoys. That being said, I have a feeling Ukraine will scrape together enough parts to get some of the older models flying and cause some embarrassing security incidents and IFF shenanigans. Finally, there's the possibility that other former Soviet countries can pool the resources to refurbish at least a few aircraft, which would be good timing after the latest US aid package and donated F-16s entering service in the next year.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Agreed, you put these suckers out on the airfield and they’ll be great decoys. Probably cost less than the missiles that hit them.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

They did that sort of thing in WWII all the time. Fake airplanes, inflatable tanks, all kinds of stuff. My grandfather worked for De Havilland in WWII as an aircraft inspector and the roof of the factory had fake bomb damage painted on it.

[–] breetai@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

Considering they don’t fly. Pretty hard.

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Harder than just making regular drones, I would think.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Probably. Even if they were airworthy, they're going to cost maybe a bit less than an equivalent purpose-built drone, not counting in R&D to figure out how to do it. There's a lot of extra systems in there for the pilot, and you can make an 80s-level radar way, way, cheaper and lighter with modern tech, so all of that is wasted.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Considering that Congress just (fucking finally) handed the President a whole lot of money in "Presidential Drawdown Authority". I suspect the conversation is going to go a whole lot like:
US DoD: We bought all these former Soviet shit-boxes to prevent them being used by Russia and to build goodwill with Kazakhstan.
US President: Hey, look at all these former Soviet shitboxes the DoD has sitting in inventory. We don't need these. I'm giving them to Ukraine who can find a use for them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 months ago

Makes sense, don't want Russia to get their hands on them.

[–] Pat_Riot 6 points 6 months ago
[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

How the hell did Eric Prince not get in on his first?

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 6 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Given Ukraine's continued reliance on Soviet-era weapons, the aircraft could either serve as a source of spare parts or be strategically deployed as decoys at airfields, said the Post.

But the Central Asian country's efforts to upgrade its military capabilities coincide with its increasing engagement with Western nations, signaling a shift away from historical ties with Moscow, per the Kyiv Post's analysis.

Kazakhstan and Western nations are showing increasing cooperation, with recent diplomatic engagements including a visit from UK Foreign Minister David Cameron to Astana, the capital.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited the central Asian country in March 2023, where he said that the US "strongly supports Kazakhstan's sovereignty, its independence, its territorial integrity," according to news agency AFP.

One notable Russian TV commentator, Vladimir Solovyov, said that his country "must pay attention to the fact that Kazakhstan is the next problem because the same Nazi processes can start there as in Ukraine."

Agreements on trade, education, environment, and mineral supplies reflect the deepening ties between Kazakhstan and Western nations as they navigate geopolitical challenges posed by neighboring countries like Russia, China, Afghanistan, and Iran.


The original article contains 446 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›