Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ461 | |
| 2 | Ṁ404 | |
| 3 | Ṁ212 | |
| 4 | Ṁ180 | |
| 5 | Ṁ169 |
@Panfilo 26 Dec article says UK doesn't have F16 so just general/basic training.
"The first cohort of Ukrainian pilots to receive training from the Royal Air Force are now learning to fly F-16 fighter jets in Denmark, having completed a basic programme of training in the UK."
Elsewhere it was suggested F16 training split into 3 parts: Ground based then simulators then actual flying. 26 Dec to 31 Dec doesn't seem much time for the first two thirds of the training. So I don't see that report as confirming actual flying in F16 even for training. It is possible the first cohort left UK training a few weeks ago but this is only now being reported to confuse Russia. But even if we suspect that, the article does not confirm it.
@Panfilo whether I agree with you or not (and I haven't given it any thought), I have to say (to you and everyone), it is a terrible idea to bet much without getting explicit confirmation from the creator on things like this.
There are so many markets that are underspecified compared to what the creator was going for, and some technically have their criteria as written met already. However, there's currently no rule that says they have to resolve based on that, and plenty of precedent that creators come back and clarify that they intended something different.
I mean, if you're knowingly gambling on how they'll resolve, then go ahead, but if it doesn't go your way, basically you won't have a right to complain. If that's what you're doing, then that's totally fine, but keep in mind that this is a different game to genuinely thinking you know what the criteria are and are betting on the facts.
@chrisjbillington Your points are so valid that I'll just say I am already likely going on (potentially permanent) hiatus after I crash and burn this month partly for these reasons. But, all of the arguments I am making in all of my positions are sincerely how I see things.
@Panfilo If the title said "will members of the UAF operate F-16s" I would agree with you, but I feel like it would be a bit of a stretch to say that the UAF itself is operating F-16s that are located in and owned by another country. @Bob could we get clarification on what you intended the title to mean?
@Bob Oh, that makes it like the other markets. Big reveal! You definitely should have put that in the title or description.
@Bob I suspect they are already in service, just not getting shown off because they are so expensive and vulnerable when not flying. Unlike the Abrams which are not seeing combat yet due to winter weather, the F-16s would likely be used right away for air superiority. This Newsweek article is speculating as much: https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-f16-russia-fighter-jets-crimea-su34-1855709
Will the market take a little extra time after closing to clarify if the planes are already being used? This is of course assuming training doesn't count. If training does count, then this can resolve Yes: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ukrainian-pilots-learn-to-fly-f-16-fighter-jets-after-completing-basic-training-in-the-uk
@Panfilo agree it would be nice to hold the market open a bit longer since there seems to be at least anecdotal reports they're pressed into service.
@mec looks like there's potentially a lot of free mana on this market also (if it turns out Ukraine is already flying f16s): https://manifold.markets/NathanpmYoung/ukrainian-pilots-will-fly-f16-befor?r=UmVtTmlGSGZNTg
@Panfilo Hi. Yes, I was also thinking this. VKS losses are extraordinary and seem difficult to explain without F16s already there. I'll keep the market open for a bit.
In September, Air National Guard boss Lt. Gen. Michael Loh told reporters the first group of Ukrainian pilots could finish F-16 training by the end of the year, though it would take longer to get the jets into combat.
