dan/california

I do not think that is a possibility.
The problem with Russian glide bombings is that the bombing run ends 50-70 km before the front line, and only the bomb continues to fly from that moment on. Trying to intrecept the bombs is futile, they are a difficult target, relatively cheap and very numerous. However, in order to even try and intercept the bombers, Ukrainian aircraft would have to fly on the front line or even over on the Russian side of it - the range of available AA missiles limits them. Assuming the Ukrainians can degrade RUS GBAD sufficiently to allow this, there is still the issue of RUS air-to-air capability. Russians have much longer range missiles (R37),  as the development of such seems to have been neglected in the west (under the mistaken assumption, that long range AAMs must be by definition lumbering monsters, incapable of shooting down anything but big bombers - either that, or the Western Air Forces' more important concern was that changing their role to drivers of long range missile trucks will deprive them of the "Top Gun" mystique and easy chat up lines). RUS air force is actually optimised for AA. Therefore  I don't think that the Ukrainians will be able to Freie Jagd their F16 over the front  in a way necessary to affect the glide bombings, ever or at least until RUS situations deterioriates overall. I hope I am wrong, of course.
On the other hand, I think that the Ukrainians are trying to do the second best thing, i.e. acquire the capability of making long range glide bombing runs themselves. There was information a couple of days ago abt GBU 39 being integrated with MiGs. The recent evidence of ATACMS attacks on RUS SAM batteries also suggests, that degradation of RUS GBAD is  now a priority for UKR fire planners, so they probably expect UKR aircraft to start flying soon
 

https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2024/05/militart-stodpaket-16-till-ukraina--ny-formaga-som-starker-ukrainas-luftforsvar-och-stod-som-moter-ukrainas-prioriterade-behov/
 

I respect the right of my elders to be grumpy curmudgeons, but if a statement about how the Western refusal to allow Ukrain to act according to international law makes other people doubt how many other terms of international contracts some Western nations would adhere to makes you want to sit idly by and watch an invasion with genocidal or at least culturally genocidal intent, then it crosses the line into "boomer tantrum".
Here are my reasons of why we support Ukraine.
a) it supports the UN charta, which has practical legal benefits
b) the ethical and moral arguments fall more in favor of it than against it
c) in a Machiavellian sense we are destroying the military capacity of an enemy that has been actively working on destroying the West for at least 15 years (albeit with non-conventional means), which support international terrorism and would be a potential ally / supporter / provider of military goods to another active enemy of the West in another war, like China, and it is done at the minimum cost imaginable
d) it allows to massively improve our own military potential via observation and remote learning as well as investments in production facilities, which have been woefully neglected despite active enemies building up their own potential and messaging their clear intent of careless murder on a global scale
That's why we are bankrolling it. 
And yes, the AD ambushed across the border were the best thing since sliced bread for Ukraine and Western politicians throwing a tantrum over it is neither legally not militarily nor politically rational.
 

A good point about the dissipation effect. Though I would also argue in turn that the gradual acquisition of NATO standard kit into the UA arsenal might produce a similar if less pronounced effect as the use of various kit culminates together in use. 

Think of what Ukraine had in 2022 vs what they have now. They have been provided capabilities in areas that simply did not exist or were extremely limited for them at the outbreak of war. This in effect has only made Russia's advantages more difficult to leverage, all while Russia suffers a steady and keen attrition of what makes its own strengths so potentially powerful.

As I mentioned before, the key is inflicting enough strain on pressure on key points of the Russian system that the whole apparatus begins to fail. Examples include wearing down Russian artillery which is a major strength and relied upon factor for Russia to leverage results with. 

I think we have seen ... I dunno ... standoff close air support?
I think both Ukraine and Russia has used glide bombs from a distance to hit tactical targets, tho Ukrainians also strike strategic targets and Russia does terror bombing. And Ukraine seems does it by jury-rigging Western bombs on Sukhois and MiGs so it seems to be worth quite a bit of effort for them.
I don't think the current (months long) Ukrainian campaign against Russian air defence (including the AWACS they shot down) was just for making their refinery targeting drones go further. It makes me think they're betting on the F-16s.
At the very least, it would allow them to keep more safely and effectively doing what they're doing with the planes they currently have, which are probably very much past their shelf life.

While no magic bullet, 85 F-16s is actually of a lot of planes. Sweden for which it was said "they will greatly expand NATO air capabilities with their powerful air force" has 71 Gripen. My country has 12. Finland has 50 F-18s and Germany has 140 Eurofighters. Poland has 36 F-16s.
That makes me think 85 new planes can do a lot of work. Of course the other question is how many missiles and bombs do they come with.

With half a million Russian casualties, and every square kilometer that Ukraine has given up looking more cratered than the Somme, this is the single dumbest bit of Russian propaganda you have spouted. That is a strong statement, too. You are spouting nonsense at a group of people who have been paying attention since the beginning. Try harder, or go away.

In this case I think, Bild like a broken clock, which shows true time twice for a day. 
Probably you are about this (in Ukrainian retelling):
When Ukraine used Patriot missiles agains Russian flight order as far as on 13th of May 2023 in Bryansk oblast and shot down two EW Mi-8, Su-34 and Su-35, Berlin and Washington were angry. They threaten to stop supply if this repeat. Unbelievable, but this explains a lot. This is proves one more, how wrong decisions making in western capitals prolongs this war. Russia is vulnerable, it can be defeated, but they don't allow Ukraine to give proper repulse, so Russian bombs still hit Ukrainian malls and kindergardens.    

Looks like this is true, because since this attack there wasn't any similar successes. Ukrainian General Staff didn't recognize this success neither there not now, though AD battalion command vehicle, which unit conducted this attack has markings of these aircrafts. 
And here some more:
NATO is discussing participation in sky guarding over western Ukraine, Bild reports. 
This idea supports Estonia, UK, Poland, Canada, Lithuania, France
Against: USA and Germany
 
We have a joke: any US statement now starts with words: US concerning about... , US afraids that... , US considrers it premature..., US do not support. 
Putin made serious mistake. To restore influence of Russia in the world like USSR, he had to attack NATO directly through Baltic states. Spineless western democracies would drown in endless discuissions and offers "immediately to listen other side to achieve compromisses" when Russian tanks rolled further west. 
It's good the West is gradually healing itself from own phobias. But the remedy is prohibitely expensive - the blood of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. And we are paying it cost  

Careful.  F-16s are no more of a magic bullet than the M1s/Challies/Leo2s. And they die a lot more visibly.

Ok, but do we have to lower the bar in here?  “East of the Rhine” is the rest of the planet, including both Ukraine and Russia. Lets not promote a Western European-centric view anymore than we are already trapped into by popular culture and skewed history books.

I also think that before Bucha many believed the Russians would act with some semblance of legal restraint.  The idea that they would line people up in the street and execute them, or that the level of war crimes would reach these heights was simply not believable.  It definitely is now, and we know from captured plans and documents that the Russian actually planned systematic torture and executions as a form of stabilization and control - likely thinking to get out ahead of an insurgency.
I also think most thought the most likely COA was a Russian land grab in the south as an extension of where things got left off in 2014.  A full country invasion was still an outside option.
I think it is fine to come here and criticize Ukraine when merited (I just did on the strikes on nuclear radars).  But then there is being completely upside down on the issues.  Russian occupation horrors are still to fully come to light.  We already know about children being forcibly deported and men pressed into service.  God knows what hellish stories are still out there.  For Ukraine this war is existential in just about every sense of the word.  Putin is a spiteful little dictator that was pre-planning brutality before this war.  How do people think he will react after getting pants by Ukraine and made to look the fool?  And how do people Russia is going to behave after losing 100k troops?  Ukraine cannot lose this war because what will come next will likely be medieval for them.
 

The tankettes need to be truly small, and expendable. The minimum set of tracks that can carry a 40mm AGL, and a thirty caliber machine gun. You might even want to go light enough that they carry either a grenade launcher or a machine gun., not both. With some semblance of electronic fire control the 40mm would even provide a modest indirect fire capability. That is enough to take out most unarmored targets and force anything bigger to shoot back. Anything bigger that does shoot back, and as many other targets as possible should be referred to the fires complex. The task of the tankettes is recon by some combination of fire, and death. They need to roll off of production lines that require almost zero human labor in the direct production processes. The tankettes themselves should be thought of as munitions, not a piece of capital equipment.

Viko, I think you are mistaking things.  This person was blaming murder victims for their own murder.  That's not an 'opinion' it's just ridiculous propaganda.  Maybe he thinks life would be just great under Putin -- he can choose that any time he wants.  He can go to Poland then Belarus then RU or the occupied territories.  Of course, he would immediately be thrown into the front line of Putin's war of aggression and he'd probably be dead pretty quickly.  Which he would deserve.
Anyone who showed up on this site and said "at some point UKR will probably be facing a stalemate where further war is just not worth it".  That would be an actual opinion a person could back up. Saying that UKR should have or should now capitulate because it's Ukraine's fault for all the ongoing murders is sick and twisted and only shills and RU nationalists could possibly believe such nonsense.  It's basically like saying the jews were responsible for the holocaust because they didn't leave europe in time.  
I think that there's a really good chance UKR never gets its land back and will someday have to negotiate a treaty giving Putin lots of land.  And guess what, I won't be banned for that.  Or mocked or abused.  It's really hard to see how UKR gets its territory back without some level of RU collapse or military mutiny.   But I remain hopeful while also seeing just how improbable a complete UKR victory looks right now.  
 

The tankettes need to be truly small, and expendable. The minimum set of tracks that can carry a 40mm AGL, and a thirty caliber machine gun. You might even want to go light enough that they carry either a grenade launcher or a machine gun., not both. With some semblance of electronic fire control the 40mm would even provide a modest indirect fire capability. That is enough to take out most unarmored targets and force anything bigger to shoot back. Anything bigger that does shoot back, and as many other targets as possible should be referred to the fires complex. The task of the tankettes is recon by some combination of fire, and death. They need to roll off of production lines that require almost zero human labor in the direct production processes. The tankettes themselves should be thought of as munitions, not a piece of capital equipment.

With half a million Russian casualties, and every square kilometer that Ukraine has given up looking more cratered than the Somme, this is the single dumbest bit of Russian propaganda you have spouted. That is a strong statement, too. You are spouting nonsense at a group of people who have been paying attention since the beginning. Try harder, or go away.

I think very small ugvs will have a place but as more static/defensive assets like a mobile turret or smart mine. But if they are very small they can't handle rough terrain or basic obstacles like a fence, and are too slow to keep up with larger vehicles. 
My ideal tankette is car sized and use a lot of commercial automotive components, but also a reasonable sensor and firepower package so would cost a few hundred thousand dollars. Not cheap, but definitely attritable. But the cargo carrier would be even cheaper (like $100k max) and could potentially deliver half a dozen of your small ugvs to a critical point as a kind of infantry weapons team.

I guess one takeaway here should be that nowadays everyone and their dog does AI. It's not an arcane art anymore. You can just buy the stuff from various companies.
For the drone discussion, I think the middle one is most worth taking a look at: Identifying and tracking different types of objects. Looks great and very stable. Some caveats: As far as I understand the description, the algorithm runs offline, i.e. on pre-recorded sequences. In that case you have a more or less infinite computing budget and no latency restrictions. And still, if you take a close look at the cars taking the left turn on the left side, the tracking stops immediately once the car is occluded by a few leaves. The range is also not so great, tracking stops roughly under the bridge... at maybe 100m?
So, no chance to identify a tank a kilometer away partly hidden by bushes or trees. But, again, this video is old (2017) and we probably can do better today.

To my thinking the concept of "holding ground" may become antiquated on this sort of battlefield.  Rather than "dig in" I think we might see "Deny".  So rapidly deployable smart mines and screening forces, perhaps an Iron bubble not designed to move but to simply make offence costs too high.

The best thing about letting this sovok stick around for a bit is that he illustrates exactly why Ukraine must fight and will win. 

I've wondered several times how viable I would be fr the UN or the EU (/not/ NATO) to introduce a separation force (similar to the ones around Israel) along the uncontested pre-2014 borders, like the one along Belarus and - until a few weeks ago - round the corner and down past Kharkiv, and then down the river.
Putin would likely lose his rag, since he likely views, officially at least, the whole country as 'contested' regardless of whether there's currently fighting there or not.
From the non-Russian perspective, though, it would make it clear that smaller and smaller bits of Ukraine are still up for discussion. It would also extend the West's air and AD umbrella over most of Ukraine, preventing most missile activity.
Lot's of practical issues though - the seam between Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian forces would be /very/ fragile and delicate. Some of the non-Ukrainian forces /would/ die, even if 'only' from UXO. Putin would have a total **** about it, and Xi probably wouldn't be best pleased either. It would allow Ukraine to focus all it's forces on a smaller area, but so too would Russia. Etc.
Otoh, the areas inside the cordon sanitare could safely start to rebuild, and it'd be a super duper clear message from the West that, no; we are not going to let you 'renegotiate' this bit that you already tried and lost.
Edit: UN would be a non-starter due to Russia's (and probably China's) veto.

Ha you are right! I genuinely was not thinking about carrier operations but the concept is actually super similar.

Source: NATO Parliamentary Assembly supports Ukraine's right to hit targets inside Russia using Western arms (KyivIndependent)

Behold: the carrier battlegroup. I think this makes a lot of sense, and that the Big Blue Blanket that we saw in '44 and '45 is a non-crazy model for what a "mechanized" task force could look like in 5-10 years. To survive it needs:
1. Defensive ISR bubble that is bigger than the enemy's effective ISR/Strike range, which entails...
2. Ability to suppress the crap out of enemy ISR and fires in the same time zone, which entails...
2. Ability to concentrate effects from widely dispersed elements, which entails...
3. Redundancy, redundancy, redundancy, and...
4. Underway logistics, to avoid operational chokepoints and maintain tempo, which entails...
5. Lots of cheap, semi-disposable platforms.
We built that out with the United States Navy 2.0, and could totally do it again. The hard thing is that at sea, there were finitely many locations you had to suppress to preserve your defensive ISR bubble. Not so on land.

They showed no mercy even to the same Slavic people. Execpt Finno-Ugric nations first Slavic victim of genocidicval "lands gathering" was Novgorod - north Rus' nobility republic, crashed by Moscow in late 15th century, because it remained single rival of Moscow hegemony in northern part of Rus' lands. Many Novgorodians were massacred or moved to other lands. If Novgorodod won, history of Russia could by completely other. But Moscowian asian-despotia type of ruling completely won over traditional Rus' form of ruling in triada "duke + nobility parties + citizens council", when Moscow gradually was subordinating during almost 300 years other smaller principalities like Tver', Ryazan', Rostov, Pskov and tried to contest Great Principality of Lithuanina for the legacy of south-western Rus' lands (modern Ukraine and Belarus).