Hello everybody! Today, I’ll try to conclude this ‘F-16 Q&A’-session. 6.) I’m already much longer into this topic than planned. Thus, let me end with analysis of another commentary I’m often asked about. Essentially, many commentators say that F-16 ‘can destroy Russian troops equipment, logistics, and command posts’, kind of ‘at will’.
In the face of this rather chilling (depressing?) report, let me ask the question - what would be the consequences if Ukraine would not be provided any jets at all? I am basically just trying to find at least some bright side ...
Surprisingly the Ukrainians have found the M113 extremely helpful, despite its weak armour. Otherwise great points about the state and types of F16s Ukraine is going to receive. Very disappointing really but we can only hope that they use them resourcefully and eventually get much more descent versions of the F16.
On the other hand, I remember when UK PM Sunak was pushing the delivery western jets(Typhoons being under serious consideration) and a section of the domain experts in the UK stated that their airforce was in such a bad shape that they couldnt even donate a single squadron of typhoons(Yet they have over 130). Which I found absurd even when arguments were raised that some of them were being used for parts, the UK would still have enough to protect their country and can still order F35s. And which country is planning on contesting the UK's skies with other combat jets? The Typhoons should be in Ukraine doing what they were meant to do imho(but one can only dream when we consider how much avarice exists amongst elites even in the West).
Another interesting unfortunate but expected development is the need for Ukraine to provide better CUAS for its in service combat aircraft since Russians are now using lancets to hit some of their airbases(Like the recent strike of a MiG-29). Delaying military aid to Ukraine has given Russia tremendous opportunities to adapt and borrow from Ukrainian ingenuity.
These idiots who think they need to hang onto their weapons in case they need them, don't they understand this IS the need. It's the need of the century.
Currently, Ukraine is left with very used Mig-29 (a couple dozen at best), very used Su-27 (maybe a dozen), very used Su-24 (half a dozen?), and some, also very used, Su-25.
ANY western aircraft will be an improvement here.
It was possible to integrate a lot of Western munitions with Mig and Suchoj aircraft. Even if sth is not integrated with F-16 - that could be added way more accessible than it was already done for integration with Russian designs.
But in addition to the lack of political will or military industrial complex considerations there is also the issue of training. The early F-16s are relatively easy for pilots to master. Could you train Ukrainian pilots to exploit a modern NATO ECM or SEAD system like those on the Growler in the time available? Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen, or F-35 possibly too. And then there is the risk of the tech falling into Russian hands. The logical step would be to supply them with pilots. Which is not going to happen.
I see the Poland falling out with Ukraine over grain story turned out to be more than Russian propaganda.
The one year late delivery of old F-16 to Ukraine is the best solution for the NATO and US governments in their minds. Why?
With all the reports and all the coverage and explanation by Tom, but very clear in this report from today, the West have one objective clear: Ukraine must degrade the russian ability to wage war. Every weapon system destroyed is not available to threat NATO countries.
NATO wants to keep Ukraine at this level of capacity so the russian armies get their men and weapons there and not on the polish or baltics border. They want to keep the russians stressed for the next 5-10 years as they finally deploy enough F-35 and recover their armored forces to gain a clear advantage. At least in Poland, the Baltics amd Romania. When they perceive they are in advantage, they Will admit Ukraine in their ranks. This is their ultimate goal.
The problem with this is, the long time that they will be literaly using Ukraine. PSU can't say at this point "f*ck off, I don't wan't this", because they don't have any choice. If they stop offensive operations, russians are going to be dessestresed enough to reinforce and reconstitute and reequip their armies in Ukraine. And have the choice to relaunch the invasion or to freeze the conflict and redeploy to the NATO borders. This second option will be the failure of NATO strategic, so NATO keep going pressing Ukraine yo continúe the pressure.
The problem here is NATO don't perceive itself as capable of waging a war against russia now or haven't the will to fight it.
How come Gripen could be a solution, considering the total number of them produced is 250 or something? How many of those could Sweden give, and if we talk about producing new ones - won't this take years? Whereas with F-16 at least around a hundred of planes is already kinda promised to Ukraine, and service, spare parts and training will also be much easier to receive. A
Regarding training, I find it hard to believe that there aren’t any Israeli pilots of Ukrainian descent or Polish pilots that speak Ukrainian who could fly jets for Ukraine. These people could easily be made Ukrainian citizens and enlisted. Is there some political reason for this not happening?
Jet fighters made in Europe not popular in Us… true. Cant have the world understand other than Murica can make such Things. Some years ago Norway wanted to upgrade its F16 Fleet. We asked for bidders. Three planes were evaluated. F35, Gripen and I think Eurofighter. The Eurofighter quicly decided to withdraw, understanding and criticising the process. Claiming it was not fair. Sound and smart. The Swedes hung in. Deliver information, bought politicians… the latter were probably very cheap, coming from the Left Socialists and disliking anything from Us automatically. So maybe he worked for free. Us promised buy backs and so on. Off course we choose F35. It had really nothing to do with quality of the planes and everything with being a Loyal Nato member. But the political pressure was there. But there are clear commercial reasons why the US dont want non American jets there. The French should of course see the market opportunity and their own safety being served with sending their jets, but ….
You have missed the old mirage-2000.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-is-closer-to-receiving-mirage-2000d-fighter-jets-from-france-media/ar-AA1h0m33
In the face of this rather chilling (depressing?) report, let me ask the question - what would be the consequences if Ukraine would not be provided any jets at all? I am basically just trying to find at least some bright side ...
Surprisingly the Ukrainians have found the M113 extremely helpful, despite its weak armour. Otherwise great points about the state and types of F16s Ukraine is going to receive. Very disappointing really but we can only hope that they use them resourcefully and eventually get much more descent versions of the F16.
On the other hand, I remember when UK PM Sunak was pushing the delivery western jets(Typhoons being under serious consideration) and a section of the domain experts in the UK stated that their airforce was in such a bad shape that they couldnt even donate a single squadron of typhoons(Yet they have over 130). Which I found absurd even when arguments were raised that some of them were being used for parts, the UK would still have enough to protect their country and can still order F35s. And which country is planning on contesting the UK's skies with other combat jets? The Typhoons should be in Ukraine doing what they were meant to do imho(but one can only dream when we consider how much avarice exists amongst elites even in the West).
Another interesting unfortunate but expected development is the need for Ukraine to provide better CUAS for its in service combat aircraft since Russians are now using lancets to hit some of their airbases(Like the recent strike of a MiG-29). Delaying military aid to Ukraine has given Russia tremendous opportunities to adapt and borrow from Ukrainian ingenuity.
Otherwise great 3 part series and thank you.
Hello, thanks for this excellent article. What about the French Mirage 2000 (probably D variant) ?
These idiots who think they need to hang onto their weapons in case they need them, don't they understand this IS the need. It's the need of the century.
Thank you. Depressing.
Of NATO will not provide efficient Fighters to Ukraine, even if we get to a "peace" in 2024, Russia will attack Ukraine again later.
Currently, Ukraine is left with very used Mig-29 (a couple dozen at best), very used Su-27 (maybe a dozen), very used Su-24 (half a dozen?), and some, also very used, Su-25.
ANY western aircraft will be an improvement here.
It was possible to integrate a lot of Western munitions with Mig and Suchoj aircraft. Even if sth is not integrated with F-16 - that could be added way more accessible than it was already done for integration with Russian designs.
BTW, Tornado is integrated with Storm Shadow.
Is USA blackmailing Ukraine and other nations not to sell and deliver "good stuff" that they can sell old junk to Ukraine?
I mean can Sweden sell Gripen or does Biden say to Zelensky that USA are not willing to help anymore?
But in addition to the lack of political will or military industrial complex considerations there is also the issue of training. The early F-16s are relatively easy for pilots to master. Could you train Ukrainian pilots to exploit a modern NATO ECM or SEAD system like those on the Growler in the time available? Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen, or F-35 possibly too. And then there is the risk of the tech falling into Russian hands. The logical step would be to supply them with pilots. Which is not going to happen.
I see the Poland falling out with Ukraine over grain story turned out to be more than Russian propaganda.
The one year late delivery of old F-16 to Ukraine is the best solution for the NATO and US governments in their minds. Why?
With all the reports and all the coverage and explanation by Tom, but very clear in this report from today, the West have one objective clear: Ukraine must degrade the russian ability to wage war. Every weapon system destroyed is not available to threat NATO countries.
NATO wants to keep Ukraine at this level of capacity so the russian armies get their men and weapons there and not on the polish or baltics border. They want to keep the russians stressed for the next 5-10 years as they finally deploy enough F-35 and recover their armored forces to gain a clear advantage. At least in Poland, the Baltics amd Romania. When they perceive they are in advantage, they Will admit Ukraine in their ranks. This is their ultimate goal.
The problem with this is, the long time that they will be literaly using Ukraine. PSU can't say at this point "f*ck off, I don't wan't this", because they don't have any choice. If they stop offensive operations, russians are going to be dessestresed enough to reinforce and reconstitute and reequip their armies in Ukraine. And have the choice to relaunch the invasion or to freeze the conflict and redeploy to the NATO borders. This second option will be the failure of NATO strategic, so NATO keep going pressing Ukraine yo continúe the pressure.
The problem here is NATO don't perceive itself as capable of waging a war against russia now or haven't the will to fight it.
Thankyou Tom for the detailed and sobering explanation
Any thought on the French proposal for Mirage 2000 ? ^^
Our gov keeps trying to give theses like on some used goods fair.
How come Gripen could be a solution, considering the total number of them produced is 250 or something? How many of those could Sweden give, and if we talk about producing new ones - won't this take years? Whereas with F-16 at least around a hundred of planes is already kinda promised to Ukraine, and service, spare parts and training will also be much easier to receive. A
Regarding training, I find it hard to believe that there aren’t any Israeli pilots of Ukrainian descent or Polish pilots that speak Ukrainian who could fly jets for Ukraine. These people could easily be made Ukrainian citizens and enlisted. Is there some political reason for this not happening?
Jet fighters made in Europe not popular in Us… true. Cant have the world understand other than Murica can make such Things. Some years ago Norway wanted to upgrade its F16 Fleet. We asked for bidders. Three planes were evaluated. F35, Gripen and I think Eurofighter. The Eurofighter quicly decided to withdraw, understanding and criticising the process. Claiming it was not fair. Sound and smart. The Swedes hung in. Deliver information, bought politicians… the latter were probably very cheap, coming from the Left Socialists and disliking anything from Us automatically. So maybe he worked for free. Us promised buy backs and so on. Off course we choose F35. It had really nothing to do with quality of the planes and everything with being a Loyal Nato member. But the political pressure was there. But there are clear commercial reasons why the US dont want non American jets there. The French should of course see the market opportunity and their own safety being served with sending their jets, but ….