Is there anybody here who could explain the facts to ORAC (or try to make his case for him).

I'm with ORAC on that one.
Really modern aircraft were ~300 out of these. And that was before the war. How many of the rest are serviceable at all is questionable at best as is their real combat value.

Revealed: How Ukraine Blew Up A Dam To Save Kyiv:

In early March 2022, as Russian troops approached Kyiv, marines built three pontoon bridges to gain a foothold across the Irpin River. But by blowing up a dam, Ukrainian forces flooded the area -- and pushed back the Russian troops who abandoned their armor in the flood waters.

You Tube

If you want to argue numbers of available air craft for the Ruskies give me a source please. I got the 1,300 number from Justin Bronk, but if you just Google for the number of Russian aircraft you get many thousands at every source. Yet the exact numbers are not critical. The fact is that Russia has many radars and AWACs on the frontlines and no matter how you count them they have a lot more fighter types than Ukraine will ever be able to field. USAF AWACs are hundreds of miles away from the front and will not be as useful to the Ukrainian AF as they are to the USAF. As it is, Ukrainian fighters have to stay low to be undetectable to the Russians, if they see a target they have to fire their missiles at low altitude which greatly decreases their range. It wouldn't be much different with more modern fighter types unless Ukraine had numbers of them closer to equal of the Russian AF and AWACs along with dedicated ECM capability. The USAF could challenge the Russian AF but Ukraine is a long long way away from being able to do that.

As for the F-16 being the wrong plane, that subject has been covered many places and the informed conclusion is that the F-16 would require runways that don't exist in Ukraine. The F-18 Hornet would be a much better choice, it has much stronger landing gear and twin engines, so it is a better airplane for the job. The Grippen is even better, it has been designed from the ground up for the exact mission Ukraine needs to employ.
Here's Ward Carroll and Justin Bronk discussing aircraft types available for Ukraine:
I hope you're going to give this subject thought and research and not just argue as so many do here.

Interesting article on the JDAM-ER learnt a fair few things from it

https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_and...m_er-5838.html

Wow, puts material losses into perspective, it also shows why Ukraine want aircraft.


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....57cd6c162.jpeg

If that is factual this is huge. I downloaded the Feb-26th map update from the Georgian Foundation this morning (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...382595349&z=12) and thought (hoped) the Ukrainians might have been baiting the Russians to overextend themselves and would now attack the flank of the Russian salient. But a pincer from north and south is almost too good to believe.

If this Twitter post is true, the Russian offensive at Bakhmut is history and so probably is the Wagner group.

Looks like Stormer is making a name for itself

​​​​​​​

Ukraine has blown a dam near Bakhmut.

That blocks the escape route south from the salient the orks are now trapped in and shortens the line that the Ukrainian forces have to man while they squeeze the pocket.

The role of and need for the F16 (or perhaps other choices) is not just to counter Russian air. But a significant force of FJ could provide air defense, close air support and interdiction, particularly to defend UKR ground forces, infantry, armor and artillery. And I believe, in concert with other air defense assets, provide a measure of air superiority over Ukrainian territory. Furthermore, the air defense role could save some civilians from the criminal Russian attacks.

The larger challenge to equip UKR with F16 in the near term is pilot training, ground support and other logistics.

I'm really curious what happens when the Abrams and Leos start showing up in strength. It was painfully apparent during both Gulf Wars that the Russian T-72 and related tanks were absolutely no match for the Abrams, and I'm assuming the Leos are in the same league as the Abrams.
Are we going to see something like when the German Tigers started showing up against the Allied Shermans where 10 and 20 to one kill ratios were the norm? The Allies were able to prevail due to overwhelming airpower and massively superior numbers (over 50,000 Shermans were produced, as compared to less than 1350 Tigers). I don't see the Russians as being able to provide that level of airpower or tank numbers.

OK I'll go back to square one for you. The F-16 is unsuited for Ukraine as things stand currently because it has comparatively weak landing gear and lacks anything that could be called STOL takeoff ability; another undesirable feature it has is the intake duct for the engine is mounted low - close to the ground. That intake has a lot of suction associated with it when the engine is at full throttle.

The USAF has had a lot of problems with FOD (foreign object damage) about everywhere it has flown outside of US airbases. Host countries have needed a lot of training and new equipment to keep runways clear of foreign objects. Currently Ukraine has no runways long enough for an F-16 to operate from, that means that they would have to extend something they already have, which will stick out like a sore thumb to Russian satellites; thus the Russians will know exactly where to target their ballistic or cruise missiles.

This host of problems make the F-16 an unworkable solution for Ukraine right now. later, after the war the situation will be different and F-16s will probably be integrated into the Ukrainian air force. But not now.
I left this link above ( ) Ward Carroll and Justin Bronk are two well known and respected military aviation experts; they discuss the above topics and more, you need to bring your self up to date on the subject you are pontificating on, you need to listen to their discussion if you want to know what the issues are. Otherwise you're just throwing things off the top of your head.

Ground air support is out of the question for the Ukraine airforce. Russia has multiple S-400 and S-300 SAM sites close to the front lines as well as air superiority, they have AWACs capability; Ukrainian ground attack aircraft will have a very short lifespan if they try to engage on the front lines. The most Ukraine can hope for with any kind of modern air assets they realistically can obtain, would be to deny the same for the Russians. It's just a fact of life, Russia has over a thousand fighter types they can use against Ukraine and Ukraine will be very lucky if they can get a single squadron of modern fighters (F-18s or Grippens) in the air. Russia has and will continue to have air superiority. But if their area of dominance can be pushed back 5 or 10 miles behind the front lines that would be a significant help.

I look forward to an informed discussion with you.

BTW
Ukraine already has area denial of Russian aircraft over Ukraine's territory. They have achieved that mostly with SAMs.

It is very unlikely that there will be any significant tank battles in Ukraine. The ATGM has changed that dynamic. Most likely the Leos will be used at the spearhead of an offensive drive and mostly used to take out bunkers and other hardened defensive positions. The Abrams might not show up in time for this war.

During the Gulf war, more Iraqi tanks were taken out by Bradleys with their TOW missiles than by Abrams tanks.

One of the biggest surprises is that the Russian economy has been quite resilient in the face of the shock and awe sanctions.

From VOA earlier this month: Russian Imports Rebound as Economy Looks Set for Growth
"An International Monetary Fund report issued this week said the Russian economy would likely grow by 0.3% in 2023, rather than shrinking by 2.3% as it had previously projected....
....the possibility that widespread shortages within Russia will force the Kremlin to give up on its invasion of Ukraine in the near term looks increasingly remote."

As Russia and China re-align in the face of "western hegemony", and other countries tag along or straddle the divide, it may prove harder than we thought to put enough of a squeeze on the Russian economy such that it can no longer finance its war efforts.

I tend to agree with you, that even the 'West' has shown on paper superior tech. But in the land of physics, it might not be crash hot.
I read - on this forum - the landing ground strength requirements and prep work to get a F35 into the air. It was a diabolical lengthy routine.

Sure, once these 'Western' craft are in the air they are ok. But from my readings, it takes a long time to pr3ep and the conditions for a quick war response time coupled with where they are is IMO, limited.
The F35 can't land (in an emergency), anywhere basically as for FOD issues and blasting away the landing pad.

Anyway, I'm sure the Ruskies, have similar issues...

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a78852c6d.jpeg

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....64f3eb425.jpeg

Two (or one) of those "explosions near Minsk" may be this:

https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/...royed-belarus/

A-50 "Mainstay" AWACS-type aircraft.

Appears to be anti-Lukashenko partisan action, with armed drones (but fog of war and all that.....)