Can one particular aircraft make such a difference? The answer, in the case of the F-16, is yes.
The aircraft will restore an edge to Kyiv’s forces and push Moscow’s pilots back into Russia.
Nato would usually package F-16s with a full range of supporting aircraft that are considered essential to their operations: electronic warfare, suppression of enemy air defences and airborne command and control. Without these, critics argued, the planes would be of little use.
The easiest charge to dismiss is that it would take 18 months to train Ukrainian pilots. Recent US Air Force trials proved that even though the F-16 is a high-performance fighter, experienced Ukrainian pilots could learn to fly it in four months.
In fact, Ukrainian forces have integrated western weapons on ex-Soviet aircraft in timescales that should embarrass our own peacetime processes. There are legitimate questions about who does deep maintenance on this western aircraft, but maintaining the F-16 on the frontline should not be an issue: it is a straightforward, single-engine aircraft, produced in great numbers, and so spare parts are plentiful.
The lack of supporting air power is harder to remedy. Of course, Ukraine cannot replicate Nato support functions. But it doesn’t have to: Kyiv is not seeking a package of expeditionary air power, operating at range, deep into enemy territory. It only needs to keep the Russian air force (VKS) on the back foot in the skies over Ukraine.
The war has so far revealed that the VKS is restricted to operating in very small formations and only in airspace over land it controls. But it is shielded by extensive surface-to-air missiles and has longer-range air-launched weapons that give it the advantage over Ukrainian equipment.
The F-16, with its longer-range radars, sensors and missiles, would restore the Ukrainian air force’s edge both qualitatively and quantitatively — and push the VKS back into Russia. That will, in turn, protect both Ukraine’s ground forces and its critical infrastructure. But boosting its effectiveness in the absence of wider air power packaging will require imagination.
Finally, there is a moral dimension to consider. Nato would fight Russia by winning the air battle first, and then using air superiority to drive a more efficient land battle. Given the weakness of the VKS, this is no pipe dream. But the west’s constrained donations to date have forced Ukraine to pursue grinding land tactics. We have restricted Kyiv to fighting in a way that we would not, and to take casualties that we would not.
If we want Russia to be defeated, we should reverse this position. The F-16 decision is a big step in the right direction. The announcement of these F-16s arrival in Ukraine now will already be influencing military and political calculations in the Kremlin. The F-16 is not a panacea, but a totem of a fairer fight.
> Ukrainian and Western officials now caution that the aircraft once championed by Kyiv as a game changer are unlikely to make an immediate impact on the battlefield.
you don’t say…
You got to love how the military industrial complex keeps pushing and changing the narrative.
For months their pet journalists will push the narrative that this particular piece of expensive hardware is the golden bullet that will win the war.
As soon as Ukrainians get access to it, the narrative shifts to how it’s not enough and why they need to buy the next golden bullet.
The war is at a freaking stalemate for some time now. Go talk and figure something out instead of continuing this senseless bloodshed.
Sitting ducks
I saw a row of at least 20 F16’s at the RIAT, and all I could think was “I hope these are en route to Ukraine”.
7 comments
Can one particular aircraft make such a difference? The answer, in the case of the F-16, is yes.
The aircraft will restore an edge to Kyiv’s forces and push Moscow’s pilots back into Russia.
Nato would usually package F-16s with a full range of supporting aircraft that are considered essential to their operations: electronic warfare, suppression of enemy air defences and airborne command and control. Without these, critics argued, the planes would be of little use.
The easiest charge to dismiss is that it would take 18 months to train Ukrainian pilots. Recent US Air Force trials proved that even though the F-16 is a high-performance fighter, experienced Ukrainian pilots could learn to fly it in four months.
In fact, Ukrainian forces have integrated western weapons on ex-Soviet aircraft in timescales that should embarrass our own peacetime processes. There are legitimate questions about who does deep maintenance on this western aircraft, but maintaining the F-16 on the frontline should not be an issue: it is a straightforward, single-engine aircraft, produced in great numbers, and so spare parts are plentiful.
The lack of supporting air power is harder to remedy. Of course, Ukraine cannot replicate Nato support functions. But it doesn’t have to: Kyiv is not seeking a package of expeditionary air power, operating at range, deep into enemy territory. It only needs to keep the Russian air force (VKS) on the back foot in the skies over Ukraine.
The war has so far revealed that the VKS is restricted to operating in very small formations and only in airspace over land it controls. But it is shielded by extensive surface-to-air missiles and has longer-range air-launched weapons that give it the advantage over Ukrainian equipment.
The F-16, with its longer-range radars, sensors and missiles, would restore the Ukrainian air force’s edge both qualitatively and quantitatively — and push the VKS back into Russia. That will, in turn, protect both Ukraine’s ground forces and its critical infrastructure. But boosting its effectiveness in the absence of wider air power packaging will require imagination.
Finally, there is a moral dimension to consider. Nato would fight Russia by winning the air battle first, and then using air superiority to drive a more efficient land battle. Given the weakness of the VKS, this is no pipe dream. But the west’s constrained donations to date have forced Ukraine to pursue grinding land tactics. We have restricted Kyiv to fighting in a way that we would not, and to take casualties that we would not.
If we want Russia to be defeated, we should reverse this position. The F-16 decision is a big step in the right direction. The announcement of these F-16s arrival in Ukraine now will already be influencing military and political calculations in the Kremlin. The F-16 is not a panacea, but a totem of a fairer fight.
> Ukrainian and Western officials now caution that the aircraft once championed by Kyiv as a game changer are unlikely to make an immediate impact on the battlefield.
you don’t say…
You got to love how the military industrial complex keeps pushing and changing the narrative.
For months their pet journalists will push the narrative that this particular piece of expensive hardware is the golden bullet that will win the war.
As soon as Ukrainians get access to it, the narrative shifts to how it’s not enough and why they need to buy the next golden bullet.
The war is at a freaking stalemate for some time now. Go talk and figure something out instead of continuing this senseless bloodshed.
Sitting ducks
I saw a row of at least 20 F16’s at the RIAT, and all I could think was “I hope these are en route to Ukraine”.
Remember when Leopards were called game changers?
Pepperidge Farms remembers.
Kerch bridge is back in play.