During the cold war, Soviet Russia realised that NATO Air Force was becoming superior in numbers to their own, and would probably dominate the air domain in a conflict with them. So they pivoted their focus to missiles and anti-ballistic missile (ABM) shields to neutralise this western advantage. And, for a period, their missile and ABM programs did have a big lead over the west. After the USSR disintegrated, the west managed to catch up with them.

As for Ukraine, they have the S-300 ABM, the Buks and Osa-AKM for air defence. (The Russian made Buk was one of the first systems able to intercept cruise missiles and US-made Lance tactical ballistic missiles, Harm anti-radar missiles and other airborne and ground-based precision weapons). Though quite old, they are still formidable and is one of the main reasons Russian Air Force has a low key role in the current ongoing conflict. (That + the NATO AWACS).

The problem Ukraine had was that they ran out of missiles for these platform and that's why the US provided them with the Patriot system. But since America did not have enough spare Patriot missiles, East Europe and the US also modified the Buk platform to fire the radar-guided AIM-7 Sparrow and the semi-active radar-guided RIM-7 Sea Sparrow, as well as the heat-seeking AIM-9M Sidewinder air-to-air missile.

230 years? Which number did you mean to write there, 23?

1965 is more than 23 years ago.

Is this satire? Or do you truly believe the rest of the world is 230 years behind?

the plane this topic is about is 50 years old. the missile defense system that was protecting ukraine is 65 years old.

We give everyone our junk after the US Marine Corps is done with it, and they get it 20+ years after the army, navy, and airforce consider them "obsolete".

Yes, two hundred and thirty years to even compete with the US. Please note, this is if the US goes full isolationist, and pulls all military forces worldwide back to the US and US territorial waters.

For example, people are talking about Rolls royce "reverse engineering" american engines, or the chinese. Another idea was using Saab planes. If saab planes are so great, why were they using american F-16s?

these aren't my numbers, but my experience with linking the sources of my data isn't great on HN.

If the US becomes isolationist, it's technological edge becomes irrelevant.

The US pulling out of the World Order it builds and which underpins its massive wealth won't hurt anyone more than the US.

As a US citizen, i'm fine with that.

You're fine with declining wealth?

Not OP, but yes. Who has most of it? Not I.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/a-visual-breakdown-of-who-o...

yes, if it's because the US is isolationist. the "wealth" is made on the blood and backs of other people and that's fucked up.

I think the idea of free trade is that more wealth is made through comparative advantages and trade, meaning everyone contributes less "blood and backs" and gets more wealth in return [1]. Not sure how this applies to military assistance, but it seems likely Japan and EU would not have the peace dividend they've had since WW2 if US wasn't subsidizing their defense.

1. https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/ap-macr...

Less than eighty years ago Germany was at least on par with, or arguably ahead of, the USA in “warfighting technology”. (Werner von Braun ring a bell?) So “230 years” is mathematically impossible; even if the rest of the world had stood still since then, it couldn't be more than eighty years behind. (Which it didn't, so it's far less.)