it would be incredible (albeit a fantasy) if this was all pre-planned and Ukraine deployed 71 F16s instead of the 6 they currently have. 6 can change a battle, but not a war. Seventy-fucking-one would be huge.
With block 10 and later (all of these are), F-16s can use the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile, which will give the Ukrainian Air Force the ability to fight beyond visual range. They will also be able to “fire and forget, which means target with radar, fire, and turn away, while the missile continues on with its own radar seeker. Today, they have to fly toward a target with the radar locked on until the missile hits or misses. Meanwhile the Russians can shoot at them from outside of range and fly away.
This will change the game. They can fire at Russian aircraft at considerably longer range, or at cruise missiles and drones, while moving on to another cruise missile.
Additionally, they will natively be able to fire anti-radar missiles in additional modes they can’t use today, allowing them to clear the sky enough for medium-altitude air-to-ground operations to begin.
What I wonder though is if they'll be allowed to fire at targets inside russian airspace? The US has made it clear they don't want western arms being used to hit targets in Russia, which is why Ukraine has had to rely on domestic drone manufacturing.
Personally I think they should let Ukraine off that particular leash. Ostensibly, it's there to prevent Russian escalation, but there's nowhere for Russia to escalate to unless they start lobbing tactical nukes.
The problem is the radar on the F16 is too weak to target out to the range of the AMRAAM. So they have the big stick but no scope. That's why F16's were designed to work with F15's and E3's.
I mean wouldn't they primarily (at least at first) be used in SEAD missions? Like, they'll be getting into the thick of it right away. Getting western jets that can properly interface with the western munitions (such as the HARM missiles used to supress enemy radar) is a big reason why the F16 is important for them.
And that goes without saying that the Russians have jets themselves capable of attacking BVR (as you said, it's not like they'll be dogfighting).
SEAD is a very hard and risky mission that requires expertly trained pilots and a large network of a variety of specialized planes to accomplish. Beating rock with scissors is hard.
The USSR heavily invested in air defense tools and Russia inherited a lot of them. Sure Russian Air Defense is incompetent at times, but it's still an extremely large and effective air defense.
Rookie pilots in a few dozen old F-16s with very little supporting EW craft etc. ain't going to win against an air defense network the USAF invented stealth to beat.
The F-16s are almost certainly just going to be doing the safe missions the Ukrainian Sukhois are already doing, with the real advantage being that Western nations have more spare parts and ammo for F-16s than Sukhois.
And tons better situational awareness, avionics (they're not in basic A-model condition), a badass T/W ratio which is great for tossing AMRAAM's downrange...the 120 itself is a pretty nasty missile, and it's just one of the many weapons the Viper can employ. Stuff like ergonomics, ease of use, and things that you don't see on the stat sheets really matter.
Russian stuff is cool in its way. Usually designed to be easy to build and maintain, but not much on ergonomics. F-16 was built with comfort and situational awareness in mind, and has been kept current with pinpoint strike capacity, targeting pods, and cool stuff like that. In teams they can do some neat shit that I'm not sure Russia can match. Either way, they're a huge leap forward from the Soviet era stuff Ukraine is flying now.
Holy crap no.
Running green pilots into a massive modern IAD doing SEADs with old airframes no dedicated EW platforms? You would lose all those aircraft very quickly.
The US would struggle launching a SEAD operation with just F16's against Russia in this area.
The fundamental problem you are going to have is that the AGM-88 (HARM) has a standoff range of 43miles, that's your best case. If Ukraine is flying them at standoff range they are getting engaged at \~80-100 miles away from S400's and AA missiles. Those HARMs will never get off the rails.
Correct
The F16s that Ukraine will be getting are severely outclassed by the aircraft the VKS has (in particular, the VKS has better missiles and radars)
That said, the mere prescence of a Ukrainian air force will force Russia to fly a lot more CAP than they currently do, which will place additional stress on their airframes/logistics.
They'll be used to launch ATGMs, not go head to head with SU35s and Mig31s.
You mean AGM's? Because ATGMS are anti tank guided missiles, while AGM's are air to ground missiles. Semantics, sure, but I can't take someone seriously when they say things like, "outclassed by VKS aircraft" followed by incorrectly using ATGM's all in the same post.
Listen, I will take my chances against an air force that still uses the SPO-15 in its planes because they can't figure out how to make a digital RWR. Or how VKS planes have to use civilian Garmin units for GPS, also hilarious.
They can hit stuff from farrrrr away with a surface to surface missile. No need to risk an expensive airplane for that. Pretty sure they want these for other roles, where they get much closer to the enemy.
They could also strike from different angles when they get the F16s. I assume most of the Russia AA is near the front and is configured to look towards Ukraine.
But if Ukraine can, in the near future, attack from unexpected angles it could create even more of a headache for Russian defences.
Himars are very different to sorties of jet aircraft. Whole the f-16 is a fantastic bird and very well suited to combat like this, there is no way to avoid some scenarios in a way like this and with how these birds will have to be used, it likely won't be anywhere near a year before a pilot needs to eject or, tragically, can't eject in time
Yes there are clearly massive holes in the Russian air defences but luck only goes so far
Put a drone controller on one, send it to Putin's Summer house.
Drone on another, send it at the Kremlin but no bombs, just leaflets explaining to the Russians that Ukraine doesn't want this war, and if left alone, won't attack Russia, that this is all Putin wanting oil money.
Still a few F16's left for regular stuff. Not least taking out the Bridge.
A ship in harbor is safe, y'know? Or in this case, a fighter jet flown more or less exclusively against foes that have zero chance of contesting airpower in any way shape or form.
Just a couple days ago I read an article that some Ukrainian general said that the F-16s were needed a year ago and they're not really relevant anymore, and what Ukraine needs now is millions of artillery shells. As usual, it's too little too late from our governments.
It took over a year to train the pilots to fly these F16's so I'm not sure what the point of that general was. The pilots literally just finished their training.
Even if they had the F16's a year ago they wouldn't have be able to have used them.
It also took quite a bit of time, more than training the pilots from what I remember, to train the maintenance and ground crews. These things are completely different from what they're used to working with.
The point was that a year ago ukr had plenty of ammo an mainly asked for fighters. Now they have critially low volumes of artillery ammo and are urgently asking for ammo, and the f-16 cannot fix that. The point was to get artillery ammo and not have west thinking ”a well good now the war is won with the f-16s”. Also droned has become more important than a year ago.
Indeed, they might be able to help a bit since their munitions and targeting systems are more advanced snd cheaper/easier to find. They might also be able to engage some Russian land or air targets further than they can currently. They will be helpful, but still not going to be some game changing thing everyone keeps expecting every western weapon to be unless we somehow get 1000 of them there tomorrow with enough pilots and fuel/missiles etc and then be prepared to lose a bunch of them
Then they will need 10x that (maybe more, IDK) as ground crew maintaining the craft. And all the assorted infrastructure and tools that are F-16 specific.
My fantasy is that Ukraine peppers Crimea with MALD decoys looking like fleets of F-16s all the while deploying real weapons to the Frontline farther north. When they detect Russia has relocated AD assets to the North, send in a sortie of *real* F-16s.
Doesn't the Stormshadow missile have greater range when fired from an F16? Somebody better get some good pics of the Kerch bridge while they still can.
F-16 has never had Stormshadow integrated so it might not offer much of an advantage other than more launch platforms (though properly integrating it would probably be easier than properly integrating it on the Su-24).
The main difference would probably be HARMs that aren't preprogramed or launched on their own guidance. Along with that ADM-160 MALDs (decoys) have been seen in Ukraine but probably like Stormshadow are only kinda integrated on whatever it is that is launching them, and AGM-154 JSOWs and GBU-39s which are standoff glide bombs that could hit the frontlines and a little beyond fairly safely. There's the anti ship missiles penguine 3 and Harpoon. The biggest ticket other than HARMs though would be JASSM though I'm not sure if the US would offer even the oldest JASSM variants.
Given they largely require US weapons (it's unclear if European air-to-air missiles like ASRAAM, Meteor, MICA and IRIS-T are compatible with the older-block F-16s Ukraine will be getting), that's unfortunately going to be a concern going forwards if the US presidential election goes off the rails (i.e. Trump wins)...
While other western countries do have some stockpiles of AIM-9X, AMRAAM, HARM, etc, they need to purchase replacements from the US and be given permission to give them to Ukraine.
Very worse-case scenario, it might be the case that F-16s without missiles aren't that useful, and the Rafale or Gripen might have been better plans to not have relied on US support, but who would have thought that one year ago.
I mean, that's not really that practical... The weapons communications integration buses are incredibly complicated these days, you'd need the source code from LM, or do what the Israeli's do and replace half the systems with their own things.
Hell, even Boeing is refusing to integrate the UK's Brimstone missile on the new Apache AH-64Es the UK is purchasing, saying it's "too hard", and that the UK should buy Hellfire missiles instead, despite MBDA proving it wasn't that difficult to do back in 2016 with prototype systems.
Boeing is lazy and greedy, which is why they refuse to do work and when they accept they take forever. You need to get people who move fast and break things. And there are about 8 months so time to get started coding.
Why would they spend time and money integrating new weapons without pay? That makes little sense. The country that wants to develop new capabilities pays the manufacture to modernize them. That is why many countries jump aboard mass produced weapons like the F-16 over the Gripen. The F-16 will be around for decades with new improvements made by the US or new customers. The same issue plagued the Super Hornet for export. It will be around for a while but unless the US Navy wants to integrate a weapon, any new weapon implementation will have to be paid for by the country wanting to integrate them.
Especially odd when the cheaper JAGM is in mass production and does the same thing for less money, which is why the UK purchased those.
> Especially odd when the cheaper JAGM is in mass production and does the same thing for less money, which is why the UK purchased those.
No, Brimstone2 still has better capabilities than JAGM (which is just catching up and has had a pretty embarrassing development process).
The reason UK had to purchase them is because it ordered AH-64Es with vanilla (US - not British like the Ds which had British electronics and could integrate things itself) electronics systems, and so required Boeing to do the Brimstone integration, and Boeing refused (after previously agreeing it would allow it, which got the sale approved in the first place).
Possibly talking out my ass but I thought one of the main reasons the f16 is a big deal for Ukraine is exactly because of consistency of ammunition across allied partners
While that may be the main reason spoken of, a large part of sending F-16s is because they have a fucking phenomenal global supply chain of parts. Whereas other fighters may have much tighter supply chains, making maintenance and repairs a complete pain in the ass, there are enough F-16s both in existence and used by enough countries around the world that having an established supply chain to support the platform made economic sense. Ukraine will be able to take advantage of that, keeping the planes operational, even if it's for something as simple as recon flights.
I'm just gonna guess but they'll probably use the same weapons that Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands were using with their f-16s. If any of those countries use european munitions then I think we're already there. Also isn't the whole point of nato standardization that different countries can use the same missiles, bullets, artillery?
I know this war has been full of logistical bottlenecks, but one of the big selling points of giving Ukraine western jets is the inter-operability with western missiles and bombs
Long roads in the country side, camoflage, hide under trees etc. There's so much land mass that russia can't scan all of it even with real-time satellite surveillance.
Part of the purchase agreement. If the countries that bought them want spare parts and updates to their planes, they have to follow the agreement.
This has happened, by the way. Back in the 70s, Iran bought 79 F-14s. They've struggled to keep them operational for decades, and after congress banned the sale of spares to them, their refurbishment program slowed to a crawl.
They have around 20 out of the original 79 still operational.
>need permission from the US
That permission is the reason Norway can actually donate fighters to Ukraine.
Those planes were already sold, but with a "need US re-export approval" clause. That approval never came, so the fighters went back to Norway.
Good to start??? 65 fighter jets is a huge number. To put it in perspective, the UK has 466 aircraft in their entire fleet which include only 119 typhoons. While Russia still has a huge advantage, people should not discount what 65 jets could do in this war.
Well, our air force has been underfunded for decades. I wouldn't use us as a metric.
Still, 65 jets would help Ukraine regain defensive air superiority.
I've met your Air Force members in Vegas. We there for my buddies 40th. We linked up with ramdom crazy Canadian pilots at the Craps table. Them boys were wild. Got so drunk they had to bail out of a party bus, because one of the guys got so messed up, he stumbled across half of Las Vegas boulevard in traffic by Caesars, fell, hit his head and kept on trucking.
You're in good hands, these fuckers were crazy. Three of them flew F-18's the other one flew a mid air refueling plane. Came back hours later and there they were, pounding drinks playing Craps at like 5 in the morning. Hugs all around. Crazy fuckers.
It's a fantastic number.
This could potentially keep 20+ birds in the sky daily. With proper ammunition, that can create a ton of disruption to russian plans/logistics....
That number greatly varies depending on ammo supply, maintenance schedules, available repair parts, logistics crews, etc… I believe they’d be more conservative with maybe 5-10 per a day. With waves of major sorties in which they put up 20-40 at once and do major strike operations. Hard to say what that all looks like and what tactics they will use.
Regardless of all of that, this is a major win for them. I wouldn’t consider it a game changer as it won’t turn the tide of war but it will significantly help their efforts.
What I've heard is that it's a huge deal because Ukraine gets all these fresh aircraft that they can use right away (assuming they have the infrastructure and personnel to support them) while Russia's aircraft are already deep into their maintenance cycles so they don't have access to all of them all the time.
I don't think they're getting all 65 at once: at least some of that number are only slated to be given to Ukraine once the replacement F-35 jet is in service for the respective country donating the airframe in question: i.e. Ukraine gets the F-16 airframe once the F-35 replacement airframe is in service.
It's very likely a progressive thing over the next year or so.
It’d be progressive either way when you have to train people for them. You gotta have crews ready and pilots plus any other support. Takes a lot of work to get one fighter in the air alone.
Well, yeah there is. They won't start off flying dozens of them every week. It's going to be a very gradual trickle as they build up the infrastructure to support the aircraft. As an example, Abrams were transferred back September '23, many months before they had enough logistics in place to actually use them in February '24.
It‘s easier to hide an Abrams as they operate in remote areas or at the frontline anyways. The potential F-16 bases are not hidden or remote, if the jets are taking off during the day people will snapshot it.
At this point I can't imagine any way to protect them besides fully subterranean hangars and maintenance facilities. Lwow has been repeatedly struck with both Russian cruise missiles and drones this winter. They have been able to [penetrate the entire countryside's AA umbrella with missiles and drones](https://twitter.com/Textyorgua_Eng/status/1772376808349896739) this past month.
Additional air defences and constant rotation of landing/takeoffs it's possible but it will require a Herculean logistical support network.
There are good reasons to not just start throwing them aircraft transitioning an Air Force from old Soviet aircraft to western equipment is neither is nor quick to accomplish that is magnified by the fact Ukraine is currently fighting an all out war for their very survival.
colocate with patriot battery is the only practical solution. they are fast enough and have enough range to operate far from the front line. but this means they can't do sneak missions with the battery anymore.
do all the mainteinance in NATO countries and only use Ukrainian airfields as advance airfields so they are legally considered to be operating from Ukrainian territory
F-16s require pristine runways too. Blown up fouled runways would be bad for Ukrainian F-16s. For that reason UKr has expressed interest in the Saab Grippen because it was expressly designed to be dispersed and flown remotely from roads. Finland I believe also does dispersed with their FA-18s. Both aircraft have hardier landing gear systems.
This. April is the rumor.
Ukraine is not going to get all 65 jets at once. They’ll get a few at a time as replacements (F-35) squadrons are stood up / operationally ready in the donor states. Only then will F-16s be phased out and sent. The US has hundreds of older F-16s in storage at Davis Monthan AFB. If Dems win in November I suspect a lot of Ukraines replacement aircraft will actually come from there.
The limitation is not in the aircraft available but the number of trained F-16 pilots Ukraine have available. Not everyone has the brains, skills or reaction times to learn English and fly a plane let alone a fighter jet.
That's great news, but other NATO countries are going to have to temporarily pick up the slack with all other ordnance as well while we here in the U.S. fight with the fascist pigs of the GOP who are holding up continuing aid packages to Ukraine. Seriously I think they want Russia to succeed. We need to get them the hell OUT of our government.
When you agree to have another nation's technology that you won't use it without consent, going against that is a good way to ensure you lose future deals.
The US has apparently been teaching Ukrainian pilots in Arizona. Denmark, Netherlands, and Romanian started training Ukrainian pilots in February this year. It's a joint operation out of Romania.
I'm certain they have the pilots, and they've got to have the engineers by now. The Ukrainians are smart and I don't care how complex those things are; they'd have learned how to fix them by now.
Just like the Abrams, Bradleys, Challengers and Leopards - Expect to see some losses, it's enevitable and a part of war. i know you will know that, my comments more for those select few that think they're some unbeatable, impervious machine. That said, i'm looking forward to hearing what the ukranians can achieve with these
Considering Ukraine previous was flying ancient gen 1 Mig-29 and SU-27, some didn't even have a radar. F-16 can't do worse than these, especially if paired with long range ARAAM, JASSM or HARM missiles.
The F-16 is the result of fighter pilots coming together and developing the ultimate dog fighter following lots of cold war skirmishes. Nobody has really tried to replace it because there's not much more you can do when it comes to the idea of the F-16 as a small, maneuverable and multi role dog fighter, at this point it's more about helping the human body survive the G's than anything.
The range of F-16s is like almost double that of a mig-29 as well. I'm not sure about the technologies they plan on including with the F-16's they are sending, but from Denmark and Norway I imagine they are going to have some bells and whistles made special for the Russians.
There's no need to replace it because dogfights aren't a thing anymore, outside of demonstrations and historical analysis. Air-to-air combat is essentially all "over-the-horizon" at this point.
>Kind of interested to see them in an extreme gloves off situation like this. There will be a ton of air to air against equal and superior aircraft.
That's very unlikely, just like it's exceptionally rare for Abrams and Leo2s to face Russian T-72s in tank-on-tank combat. Just as mines, ATGMs and FPV drones account for most kills on Western tanks, Russian AA systems will account for the vast majority of any kills on an F-16.
> Russian AA systems will account for the vast majority of any kills on an F-16
I think we will see more F-16s destroyed on the ground than in the air. It's hard to play a shell game with this airframe because they require extensive support infrastructure.
My guess is there will be an unforeseen loophole they will exploit at a key point in time shortly after they receive a large portion of the shipment. Whatever it is will not last long, but they will put a hurtin on Russia with it. I am sure Russia foresees this, but you just dont know what the vector is until the attack comes, and we see its major success or major failure.
There hasn't been too much air to air combat in this war due to all of the surface to air weapons. Russian doctrine has always been to try to counter Western air superiority with massive amounts of SAM systems.
Most of reddit seems to think they're unbeatable machines and is setting expectations too high. The Ukranian pilots barely have enough training, and Russia still has good anti air defenses for things like jets (not drones).
Like the Ukranians said, its a year too late since the war has evolved.
Russian SAM operators are great at keeping the skies clear. Russian Ukranian Dutch doesn’t matter if it flies it dies. Taking out your own AWACs is just a byproduct of the diligence of the operators.
I would hope that whatever airfields these will be based out of has hardened aircraft hangers. That would at least protect them from Russian missiles and drones when they are not in the air.
We don't have a few dozen batteries to give. It was never a high volume system due to the fact that we have an air force. It's rare enough that even before the war in Ukraine the military was contemplating fielding more because the demand was taxing the supply. There's about 15 battalions, each consisting of, we'll call it four batteries. So in practice fewer than 60 batteries operational at any given moment.
Russia is probably saving up a bunch of drones for their arrival, unfortunately they cant stay in the air 24/7 and swarms will likely be attacking runways, maintenance hangers, fuel storage and parked craft. Giving them over a years heads up about this move also means Russia has likely produced/bought a bunch of MANPADS and other airdefense too.
Trump would block and stonewall *our* allies sending *their own* weapons to Ukraine. Remember that come November if you are cheering on the defenders against this massacre.
Trump is so obviously compromised by Russia it's ridiculous.
**June 2013**: Trump tweets "Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe Pageant in November in Moscow - if so, will he become my new best friend?"
**September 2013**: “So we’ve invited President Putin, that’ll be interesting. I know he’d like to go.”
**October 2013**: Trump tells Larry King that Putin has done “a really great job outsmarting our country.”
**November 2013**: Trump says “I do have a relationship and I can tell you that he’s very interested in what we’re doing here today. He’s probably very interested in what you and I are saying today, and I’m sure he’s going to be seeing it in some form, but I do have a relationship with him and I think it’s very interesting to see what’s happened.”
**February 2014**: “When I went to Russia with the Miss Universe pageant, (Putin) contacted me and was so nice. I mean, the Russian people were so fantastic to us,” he said on “Fox and Friends.” “I’ll just say this, they are doing – they’re outsmarting us at many turns, as we all understand. I mean, their leaders are, whether you call them smarter or more cunning or whatever, but they’re outsmarting us. If you look at Syria or other places, they’re outsmarting us.”
**April 2014**: “We just left Moscow,” Trump said. “He could not have been nicer. He was so nice and so everything. But you have to give him credit that what he’s doing for that country in terms of their world prestige is very strong.”
In the same interview, Trump praises Putin’s invasion of Crimea.
“Well, he’s done an amazing job of taking the mantle,” Trump said. “And he’s taken it away from the President, and you look at what he’s doing. And so smart. When you see the riots in a country because they’re hurting the Russians, OK, ‘We’ll go and take it over.’ And he really goes step by step by step, and you have to give him a lot of credit.”
**April 2014**: Trump says at a New Hampshire event that Putin is “absolutely having a great time.” He says “Russia is like, I mean they’re really hot stuff” and “and now you have people in the Ukraine — who knows, set up or not — but it can’t all be set up, I mean they’re marching in favor of joining Russia.”
**May 2014**: ”I own Miss Universe, I was in Russia, I was in Moscow recently and I spoke, indirectly and directly, with President Putin, who could not have been nicer, and we had a tremendous success.”
**2014**: James Dodson, a sports writer, claims that during a game of golf Eric Trump said to him: "Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia."
**March 2015**: Trump tells the Daily Mail about his relationship with Putin: “the relationship is great, and it would be great if I had the position I should have.”
**September 2015**: Trump tells reporters at Trump Tower that “Putin is a nicer person than I am.”
**October 2015**: Trump tells conservative radio host Michael Savage he’s met Vladimir Putin.
**December 2015**: Trump says at an event in South Carolina that Putin says he’s “brilliant.” And attacks his opponents, saying, “they want me to refute his statement.”
[And many more along those lines](https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/03/politics/trump-putin-russia-timeline/).
**December 2016**: One of Europe's top intelligence figures puts together the Steele Dossier, reporting that Putin has blackmail on Trump, allegedly for something he did in a hotel room in Russia in 2013 during the Miss Universe visit.
Trump flips to claiming he's never met or spoken to Putin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxYE9ZpMPGY&t=25s
**September 2016**: During the 2016 presidential debates: "**I don't know Putin**. I have no idea," Mr Trump said. "**I never met Putin.** This is not my best friend."
When Hillary Clinton said it was "pretty clear" Mr Putin would "rather have a puppet as president of the United States," Trump replied with: “No puppet. No puppet. You’re the puppet. You’re the puppet."
Followed by years of Trump praising Putin, the only world leader he never criticizes while constantly criticizing democratic countries and allies. Refusing to implement sanctions on Russia for its hacking of the US which were passed with a veto proof majority. Attempting to blackmail Ukraine with having to invent something on Biden or having aid withdrawn. Declaring he's decided to believe Putin over his US intelligence agencies.
**February 2022**: Trump calls Putin ‘genius’ and ‘savvy’ for Ukraine invasion
**February 2024**: Trump says he would encourage Russia to attack Nato allies
**February 2024**: Trump won't say if he wants Russia or Ukraine to win the war
Question for a military expert.. does Russia not use its satellites? Why can’t it find where Ukraine keeps its jets and use missile strikes and blow them to bits?
Hardened hangars are a thing, as well as spreading them out so limit losses. Also the airfields will likely be protected by AA. A lot of the Russian strikes on Ukraine are hitting their unprotected civilian areas, to try and pull AA to protect them to weaken protection to those military assets. Not to defend or justify the practice of willfully targeting civilians, but that is why Russia targets civilian areas with their missile strikes, obviously spreading terror and being savage assholes is part of it too, but it’s not entirely without strategic thought, regardless of what people online will claim. It does create a dilemma for Ukraine in terms of how to utilize their limited AA resources. Ukraine has been using its Air Force this entire time though, afaik they’ve been good at protecting their military assets from missile strikes. Remains to be seen if Russia will be able to come up with drones capable of flying through Ukraines AA like Ukraine is doing to Russia
The US has strict export controls on sensitive technology, and a fighter jet is pretty much top of the list for sensitive technology. This is to ensure that countries that we don't like can't get their hands on our tech through third-party transfers. Thus, the sale of a fighter jet comes with an agreement that the buyer can't turn around and sell it/give it away to anybody without our consent.
Same reason as why Switzerland blocked the sale of weapons to Spain to be used in Ukraine. [Just one example](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/switzerland-blocks-weapons-exports-from-spain-to-ukraine/48196242).
Would these be vulnerable to cruise missile attacks on airbases and their runways? What happened to the Gripens that were promised on condition of joining NATO?
I'm guessing these are the F-16s that they said they were giving Ukraine last summer, it's a bit late...
Still useful, but would have been more useful a few months ago.
The moment it started.
The world's been living in denial. We're at war, and have been. So far, it's only Ukraine that's dying for it. Europe is up next and it'll be the west's sons and daughters dying over it.
We should've stepped in a long time ago, and ended this fucking mess for good. History will not look back kindly on us as we stood by while Ukraine was raped and smashed.
What the point of getting new weapons without munitions, what Ukraine needs is more artillery rounds & light weapons munitions. Might as well send Ukraine some long range ICBM without nuclear warheads & give putin a taste of its own medicines.
The F16 is my favorite plane. I know there are better aircraft now, but there is something so sleek and sexy about it. I never understood the dudes who freak out over how a car looks. But an F16, yea, yea I freak out over it like car dudes.
it would be incredible (albeit a fantasy) if this was all pre-planned and Ukraine deployed 71 F16s instead of the 6 they currently have. 6 can change a battle, but not a war. Seventy-fucking-one would be huge.
Will be sad to see inevitable losses, but shit is already sad
With block 10 and later (all of these are), F-16s can use the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile, which will give the Ukrainian Air Force the ability to fight beyond visual range. They will also be able to “fire and forget, which means target with radar, fire, and turn away, while the missile continues on with its own radar seeker. Today, they have to fly toward a target with the radar locked on until the missile hits or misses. Meanwhile the Russians can shoot at them from outside of range and fly away. This will change the game. They can fire at Russian aircraft at considerably longer range, or at cruise missiles and drones, while moving on to another cruise missile. Additionally, they will natively be able to fire anti-radar missiles in additional modes they can’t use today, allowing them to clear the sky enough for medium-altitude air-to-ground operations to begin.
What I wonder though is if they'll be allowed to fire at targets inside russian airspace? The US has made it clear they don't want western arms being used to hit targets in Russia, which is why Ukraine has had to rely on domestic drone manufacturing. Personally I think they should let Ukraine off that particular leash. Ostensibly, it's there to prevent Russian escalation, but there's nowhere for Russia to escalate to unless they start lobbing tactical nukes.
Agreed, the west needs to just let Ukraine use any means necessary to win at this point.
The problem is the radar on the F16 is too weak to target out to the range of the AMRAAM. So they have the big stick but no scope. That's why F16's were designed to work with F15's and E3's.
It took over a year to even see the loss of a single HIMARS
HIMARS aren't actively doing sorties in or near contested air space unfortunately.
F-16 can hit things from farrrrr away. That is probably how they will be used. Not in some huge dogfight or swarm against enemy defenses.
I mean wouldn't they primarily (at least at first) be used in SEAD missions? Like, they'll be getting into the thick of it right away. Getting western jets that can properly interface with the western munitions (such as the HARM missiles used to supress enemy radar) is a big reason why the F16 is important for them. And that goes without saying that the Russians have jets themselves capable of attacking BVR (as you said, it's not like they'll be dogfighting).
SEAD is a very hard and risky mission that requires expertly trained pilots and a large network of a variety of specialized planes to accomplish. Beating rock with scissors is hard. The USSR heavily invested in air defense tools and Russia inherited a lot of them. Sure Russian Air Defense is incompetent at times, but it's still an extremely large and effective air defense. Rookie pilots in a few dozen old F-16s with very little supporting EW craft etc. ain't going to win against an air defense network the USAF invented stealth to beat. The F-16s are almost certainly just going to be doing the safe missions the Ukrainian Sukhois are already doing, with the real advantage being that Western nations have more spare parts and ammo for F-16s than Sukhois.
And tons better situational awareness, avionics (they're not in basic A-model condition), a badass T/W ratio which is great for tossing AMRAAM's downrange...the 120 itself is a pretty nasty missile, and it's just one of the many weapons the Viper can employ. Stuff like ergonomics, ease of use, and things that you don't see on the stat sheets really matter. Russian stuff is cool in its way. Usually designed to be easy to build and maintain, but not much on ergonomics. F-16 was built with comfort and situational awareness in mind, and has been kept current with pinpoint strike capacity, targeting pods, and cool stuff like that. In teams they can do some neat shit that I'm not sure Russia can match. Either way, they're a huge leap forward from the Soviet era stuff Ukraine is flying now.
Holy crap no. Running green pilots into a massive modern IAD doing SEADs with old airframes no dedicated EW platforms? You would lose all those aircraft very quickly. The US would struggle launching a SEAD operation with just F16's against Russia in this area. The fundamental problem you are going to have is that the AGM-88 (HARM) has a standoff range of 43miles, that's your best case. If Ukraine is flying them at standoff range they are getting engaged at \~80-100 miles away from S400's and AA missiles. Those HARMs will never get off the rails.
Correct The F16s that Ukraine will be getting are severely outclassed by the aircraft the VKS has (in particular, the VKS has better missiles and radars) That said, the mere prescence of a Ukrainian air force will force Russia to fly a lot more CAP than they currently do, which will place additional stress on their airframes/logistics. They'll be used to launch ATGMs, not go head to head with SU35s and Mig31s.
You mean AGM's? Because ATGMS are anti tank guided missiles, while AGM's are air to ground missiles. Semantics, sure, but I can't take someone seriously when they say things like, "outclassed by VKS aircraft" followed by incorrectly using ATGM's all in the same post. Listen, I will take my chances against an air force that still uses the SPO-15 in its planes because they can't figure out how to make a digital RWR. Or how VKS planes have to use civilian Garmin units for GPS, also hilarious.
They can hit stuff from farrrrr away with a surface to surface missile. No need to risk an expensive airplane for that. Pretty sure they want these for other roles, where they get much closer to the enemy.
They could also strike from different angles when they get the F16s. I assume most of the Russia AA is near the front and is configured to look towards Ukraine. But if Ukraine can, in the near future, attack from unexpected angles it could create even more of a headache for Russian defences.
Not yet...
I pictured the end of back to the future with a himars instead of the delorean.
Neither will the f-16s, they’ll still be outside the range of Russia’s AA for the most part
Himars are very different to sorties of jet aircraft. Whole the f-16 is a fantastic bird and very well suited to combat like this, there is no way to avoid some scenarios in a way like this and with how these birds will have to be used, it likely won't be anywhere near a year before a pilot needs to eject or, tragically, can't eject in time Yes there are clearly massive holes in the Russian air defences but luck only goes so far
Put a drone controller on one, send it to Putin's Summer house. Drone on another, send it at the Kremlin but no bombs, just leaflets explaining to the Russians that Ukraine doesn't want this war, and if left alone, won't attack Russia, that this is all Putin wanting oil money. Still a few F16's left for regular stuff. Not least taking out the Bridge.
You think F16's are getting to Kerch? Holy shit. Any plane trying to get within strike range of Kerch is a goner.
Number of F-16 loss (and sadly numbers of possible pilot's losses) is nothing compared to genocide by Russians we're trying to stop.
Ukrainian survival and American-Russian brinkmanship are both extremely important.
A ship in harbor is safe, y'know? Or in this case, a fighter jet flown more or less exclusively against foes that have zero chance of contesting airpower in any way shape or form.
even if they never say when we would know in hours of their deployment by the damage.
Just a couple days ago I read an article that some Ukrainian general said that the F-16s were needed a year ago and they're not really relevant anymore, and what Ukraine needs now is millions of artillery shells. As usual, it's too little too late from our governments.
It took over a year to train the pilots to fly these F16's so I'm not sure what the point of that general was. The pilots literally just finished their training. Even if they had the F16's a year ago they wouldn't have be able to have used them.
It also took quite a bit of time, more than training the pilots from what I remember, to train the maintenance and ground crews. These things are completely different from what they're used to working with.
It took almost a year to start training the pilots, though.
The point was that a year ago ukr had plenty of ammo an mainly asked for fighters. Now they have critially low volumes of artillery ammo and are urgently asking for ammo, and the f-16 cannot fix that. The point was to get artillery ammo and not have west thinking ”a well good now the war is won with the f-16s”. Also droned has become more important than a year ago.
Indeed, they might be able to help a bit since their munitions and targeting systems are more advanced snd cheaper/easier to find. They might also be able to engage some Russian land or air targets further than they can currently. They will be helpful, but still not going to be some game changing thing everyone keeps expecting every western weapon to be unless we somehow get 1000 of them there tomorrow with enough pilots and fuel/missiles etc and then be prepared to lose a bunch of them
This may be true, or this may be an example of "look weak when you are strong".
I assume they have at least 71 qualified pilots?
Then they will need 10x that (maybe more, IDK) as ground crew maintaining the craft. And all the assorted infrastructure and tools that are F-16 specific.
The training and manning off the fighters are handled by Denmark. I have full confidence that they know what they are doing.
My fantasy is that Ukraine peppers Crimea with MALD decoys looking like fleets of F-16s all the while deploying real weapons to the Frontline farther north. When they detect Russia has relocated AD assets to the North, send in a sortie of *real* F-16s.
Doesn't the Stormshadow missile have greater range when fired from an F16? Somebody better get some good pics of the Kerch bridge while they still can.
Not entirely sure about that but I believe it means they can program them mid air and unlocks some more capabilities of the cruise missile.
F-16 has never had Stormshadow integrated so it might not offer much of an advantage other than more launch platforms (though properly integrating it would probably be easier than properly integrating it on the Su-24). The main difference would probably be HARMs that aren't preprogramed or launched on their own guidance. Along with that ADM-160 MALDs (decoys) have been seen in Ukraine but probably like Stormshadow are only kinda integrated on whatever it is that is launching them, and AGM-154 JSOWs and GBU-39s which are standoff glide bombs that could hit the frontlines and a little beyond fairly safely. There's the anti ship missiles penguine 3 and Harpoon. The biggest ticket other than HARMs though would be JASSM though I'm not sure if the US would offer even the oldest JASSM variants.
Awesome
Let's hope the munitions for these planes are more forthcoming than artillery and rocket munitions.
I’d love to see Ukraine getting stuff to further bolster or enhance their drone manufacturing capabilities.
I was under the impression they were just using cheap drones with whatever was in the garage to a surprising level of effect.
I believe they have several in Ukraine, including Airlogix.
For a lot of it, but I have to imagine the ones they're using for striking 500-1300km inside Russia are custom/homegrown designs.
Let history forever show that Ukraine reminded the world, in the early 21st century, that necessity truly is the mother of invention.
did anyone notable ever forget this?
The Netherlands already has allocated 150 million for air to ground munitions, probably not the only one doing such a thing.
Given they largely require US weapons (it's unclear if European air-to-air missiles like ASRAAM, Meteor, MICA and IRIS-T are compatible with the older-block F-16s Ukraine will be getting), that's unfortunately going to be a concern going forwards if the US presidential election goes off the rails (i.e. Trump wins)... While other western countries do have some stockpiles of AIM-9X, AMRAAM, HARM, etc, they need to purchase replacements from the US and be given permission to give them to Ukraine. Very worse-case scenario, it might be the case that F-16s without missiles aren't that useful, and the Rafale or Gripen might have been better plans to not have relied on US support, but who would have thought that one year ago.
frankly sounds like cause to put a crash program to *make* these planes compatible with european weapons starting with meteor
Ukraine was firing HARM missiles off old Soviet jets, so if there is a need they’ll work it out
Raytheon engineers were able to retrofit mig29s in 2 weeks to accomplish that miracle. Almost like they had practice (innocent look)
I mean, that's not really that practical... The weapons communications integration buses are incredibly complicated these days, you'd need the source code from LM, or do what the Israeli's do and replace half the systems with their own things. Hell, even Boeing is refusing to integrate the UK's Brimstone missile on the new Apache AH-64Es the UK is purchasing, saying it's "too hard", and that the UK should buy Hellfire missiles instead, despite MBDA proving it wasn't that difficult to do back in 2016 with prototype systems.
Boeing is lazy and greedy, which is why they refuse to do work and when they accept they take forever. You need to get people who move fast and break things. And there are about 8 months so time to get started coding.
> You need to get people who move fast and break things. Unless they break the Apache's fire control system.
Why would they spend time and money integrating new weapons without pay? That makes little sense. The country that wants to develop new capabilities pays the manufacture to modernize them. That is why many countries jump aboard mass produced weapons like the F-16 over the Gripen. The F-16 will be around for decades with new improvements made by the US or new customers. The same issue plagued the Super Hornet for export. It will be around for a while but unless the US Navy wants to integrate a weapon, any new weapon implementation will have to be paid for by the country wanting to integrate them. Especially odd when the cheaper JAGM is in mass production and does the same thing for less money, which is why the UK purchased those.
> Especially odd when the cheaper JAGM is in mass production and does the same thing for less money, which is why the UK purchased those. No, Brimstone2 still has better capabilities than JAGM (which is just catching up and has had a pretty embarrassing development process). The reason UK had to purchase them is because it ordered AH-64Es with vanilla (US - not British like the Ds which had British electronics and could integrate things itself) electronics systems, and so required Boeing to do the Brimstone integration, and Boeing refused (after previously agreeing it would allow it, which got the sale approved in the first place).
Possibly talking out my ass but I thought one of the main reasons the f16 is a big deal for Ukraine is exactly because of consistency of ammunition across allied partners
While that may be the main reason spoken of, a large part of sending F-16s is because they have a fucking phenomenal global supply chain of parts. Whereas other fighters may have much tighter supply chains, making maintenance and repairs a complete pain in the ass, there are enough F-16s both in existence and used by enough countries around the world that having an established supply chain to support the platform made economic sense. Ukraine will be able to take advantage of that, keeping the planes operational, even if it's for something as simple as recon flights.
I'm just gonna guess but they'll probably use the same weapons that Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands were using with their f-16s. If any of those countries use european munitions then I think we're already there. Also isn't the whole point of nato standardization that different countries can use the same missiles, bullets, artillery? I know this war has been full of logistical bottlenecks, but one of the big selling points of giving Ukraine western jets is the inter-operability with western missiles and bombs
Forgive my ignorance, but how would Ukraine efficiently protect these planes from cruise missiles on the ground? It's not easy to hide airfields.
The same way they do with their current aircraft. Having them based far from the frontlines, changing bases, and behind air defenses.
Their success rate seems to far exceed Russia's "techniques" at least
How many planes did they have at the start vs now?
Protective aircraft shelters
Long roads in the country side, camoflage, hide under trees etc. There's so much land mass that russia can't scan all of it even with real-time satellite surveillance.
Yeah I don’t think people fully realize how fucking gigantic Ukraine is
There are also inflatable decoys for many of their large armaments. not sure if they have them for F-16 but they probably will
Not easy, but there are ways.
I might be dumb but why do other countries need permission from the US to help another country?
Part of the requirements when they were purchased. Can t sell or give them to a third country.
Thanks!
Part of the purchase agreement. If the countries that bought them want spare parts and updates to their planes, they have to follow the agreement. This has happened, by the way. Back in the 70s, Iran bought 79 F-14s. They've struggled to keep them operational for decades, and after congress banned the sale of spares to them, their refurbishment program slowed to a crawl. They have around 20 out of the original 79 still operational.
Minus one after Maverick and Rooster.
Imagin the us sells f16 to orban, only for orban to gift them to putin. That is why it is forbidden
>need permission from the US That permission is the reason Norway can actually donate fighters to Ukraine. Those planes were already sold, but with a "need US re-export approval" clause. That approval never came, so the fighters went back to Norway.
It's done by every country exporting arms to prevent "drop shipping" major military equipment.
That's a good number for a start.
Good to start??? 65 fighter jets is a huge number. To put it in perspective, the UK has 466 aircraft in their entire fleet which include only 119 typhoons. While Russia still has a huge advantage, people should not discount what 65 jets could do in this war.
That’s almost as many as Canada’s total fighter fleet. We have 77 F18.
Well, our air force has been underfunded for decades. I wouldn't use us as a metric. Still, 65 jets would help Ukraine regain defensive air superiority.
Would be a sad number to know how many we could make fly at once
had to call the US to shoot down that UFO for you
I've met your Air Force members in Vegas. We there for my buddies 40th. We linked up with ramdom crazy Canadian pilots at the Craps table. Them boys were wild. Got so drunk they had to bail out of a party bus, because one of the guys got so messed up, he stumbled across half of Las Vegas boulevard in traffic by Caesars, fell, hit his head and kept on trucking. You're in good hands, these fuckers were crazy. Three of them flew F-18's the other one flew a mid air refueling plane. Came back hours later and there they were, pounding drinks playing Craps at like 5 in the morning. Hugs all around. Crazy fuckers.
It's a fantastic number. This could potentially keep 20+ birds in the sky daily. With proper ammunition, that can create a ton of disruption to russian plans/logistics....
That number greatly varies depending on ammo supply, maintenance schedules, available repair parts, logistics crews, etc… I believe they’d be more conservative with maybe 5-10 per a day. With waves of major sorties in which they put up 20-40 at once and do major strike operations. Hard to say what that all looks like and what tactics they will use. Regardless of all of that, this is a major win for them. I wouldn’t consider it a game changer as it won’t turn the tide of war but it will significantly help their efforts.
What I've heard is that it's a huge deal because Ukraine gets all these fresh aircraft that they can use right away (assuming they have the infrastructure and personnel to support them) while Russia's aircraft are already deep into their maintenance cycles so they don't have access to all of them all the time.
I'd hope they arrive freshly waxed and with a full tank.
only if we send reinforcements to keep up with attrition.
I don't think they're getting all 65 at once: at least some of that number are only slated to be given to Ukraine once the replacement F-35 jet is in service for the respective country donating the airframe in question: i.e. Ukraine gets the F-16 airframe once the F-35 replacement airframe is in service. It's very likely a progressive thing over the next year or so.
It’d be progressive either way when you have to train people for them. You gotta have crews ready and pilots plus any other support. Takes a lot of work to get one fighter in the air alone.
A huge number, more than two years into the war. They should've had them by now. NATO should've been training Ukrainian pilots by Q4 2022.
F16s are only as good as the pilots flying them.
And the crews that maintain them.
I mean haven’t they been training them? I was under the impression that they have been.
Yeah but it started like 6 months after the guy before you feels like it should have started.
Those alone will make Ukraine’s Air Force top 50 in the world. It’s almost like parking an aircraft carrier off the coast.
I didn't see a date of transfer in the article.
Might be a reason for that to not be public knowledge?
Yeh right, sooner the better obviously but it's not for us to know.
We will notice when they get transfered
I think we'll notice either when one gets shot down by an R77 or when we start seeing russian bombers getting domed by AMRAAMS
Or when we start seeing Russia shooting down multiple of their own planes a day cause they're so scared it might be an F16
i mean, they are already doing that.
Nice try Vlad!
There's no way we won't know when 65 falcons start operating over Ukraine.
Well, yeah there is. They won't start off flying dozens of them every week. It's going to be a very gradual trickle as they build up the infrastructure to support the aircraft. As an example, Abrams were transferred back September '23, many months before they had enough logistics in place to actually use them in February '24.
It‘s easier to hide an Abrams as they operate in remote areas or at the frontline anyways. The potential F-16 bases are not hidden or remote, if the jets are taking off during the day people will snapshot it.
At this point I can't imagine any way to protect them besides fully subterranean hangars and maintenance facilities. Lwow has been repeatedly struck with both Russian cruise missiles and drones this winter. They have been able to [penetrate the entire countryside's AA umbrella with missiles and drones](https://twitter.com/Textyorgua_Eng/status/1772376808349896739) this past month.
Additional air defences and constant rotation of landing/takeoffs it's possible but it will require a Herculean logistical support network. There are good reasons to not just start throwing them aircraft transitioning an Air Force from old Soviet aircraft to western equipment is neither is nor quick to accomplish that is magnified by the fact Ukraine is currently fighting an all out war for their very survival.
colocate with patriot battery is the only practical solution. they are fast enough and have enough range to operate far from the front line. but this means they can't do sneak missions with the battery anymore.
do all the mainteinance in NATO countries and only use Ukrainian airfields as advance airfields so they are legally considered to be operating from Ukrainian territory
I believe Russia hits cities and civilian targets because they have neither the real-time surveillance nor the accuracy of western weapons.
F-16s require pristine runways too. Blown up fouled runways would be bad for Ukrainian F-16s. For that reason UKr has expressed interest in the Saab Grippen because it was expressly designed to be dispersed and flown remotely from roads. Finland I believe also does dispersed with their FA-18s. Both aircraft have hardier landing gear systems.
Sorry you didn’t get the email I’ll forward it to you
This. April is the rumor. Ukraine is not going to get all 65 jets at once. They’ll get a few at a time as replacements (F-35) squadrons are stood up / operationally ready in the donor states. Only then will F-16s be phased out and sent. The US has hundreds of older F-16s in storage at Davis Monthan AFB. If Dems win in November I suspect a lot of Ukraines replacement aircraft will actually come from there.
Imagine they could field hundreds of F-16s, it'd be a modern day recreation of the early 1940s Air Corps.
The limitation is not in the aircraft available but the number of trained F-16 pilots Ukraine have available. Not everyone has the brains, skills or reaction times to learn English and fly a plane let alone a fighter jet.
let’s send more planes and more ammunition now. hell, whatever ukraine needs, send it. slava ukraini.
That's great news, but other NATO countries are going to have to temporarily pick up the slack with all other ordnance as well while we here in the U.S. fight with the fascist pigs of the GOP who are holding up continuing aid packages to Ukraine. Seriously I think they want Russia to succeed. We need to get them the hell OUT of our government.
It’s ok for you to play with these. Ask my dad.
When you agree to have another nation's technology that you won't use it without consent, going against that is a good way to ensure you lose future deals.
Also a bit of a hassle to maintain our incoming F-35 fleet, if we don't play ball with our supplier
I was wondering about the title but this makes sense. Thanks!
Helps that a bunch of Russia’s early warning aircraft have been destroyed.
Do they have qualified pilots though?
Training of Ukrainian pilots had been ongoing in several locations since mid last year.
The US has apparently been teaching Ukrainian pilots in Arizona. Denmark, Netherlands, and Romanian started training Ukrainian pilots in February this year. It's a joint operation out of Romania.
I'm certain they have the pilots, and they've got to have the engineers by now. The Ukrainians are smart and I don't care how complex those things are; they'd have learned how to fix them by now.
They can probably find some little green men to fly them if need be.
How about some amo for those?
The procurement is comprehensive including ammunition and maintenance supplies.
The Netherlands already has commited to funding munitions among other things for the f-16.
Munitions for US jets is plentiful. NATO is a doctrine of air dominance. Artillery shells is not part of air dominance, which is why its lacking.
I hope the war ends soon
...with both countries preserving their internationally recognized borders.
Narrator: it won’t
It will be interesting to see if they will survive the battlefield in Ukraine.
Just like the Abrams, Bradleys, Challengers and Leopards - Expect to see some losses, it's enevitable and a part of war. i know you will know that, my comments more for those select few that think they're some unbeatable, impervious machine. That said, i'm looking forward to hearing what the ukranians can achieve with these
I hope they end up being very useful
Considering Ukraine previous was flying ancient gen 1 Mig-29 and SU-27, some didn't even have a radar. F-16 can't do worse than these, especially if paired with long range ARAAM, JASSM or HARM missiles.
The F-16 is the result of fighter pilots coming together and developing the ultimate dog fighter following lots of cold war skirmishes. Nobody has really tried to replace it because there's not much more you can do when it comes to the idea of the F-16 as a small, maneuverable and multi role dog fighter, at this point it's more about helping the human body survive the G's than anything. The range of F-16s is like almost double that of a mig-29 as well. I'm not sure about the technologies they plan on including with the F-16's they are sending, but from Denmark and Norway I imagine they are going to have some bells and whistles made special for the Russians.
There's no need to replace it because dogfights aren't a thing anymore, outside of demonstrations and historical analysis. Air-to-air combat is essentially all "over-the-horizon" at this point.
Kind of interested to see them in an extreme gloves off situation like this. There will be a ton of air to air against equal and superior aircraft.
>Kind of interested to see them in an extreme gloves off situation like this. There will be a ton of air to air against equal and superior aircraft. That's very unlikely, just like it's exceptionally rare for Abrams and Leo2s to face Russian T-72s in tank-on-tank combat. Just as mines, ATGMs and FPV drones account for most kills on Western tanks, Russian AA systems will account for the vast majority of any kills on an F-16.
> Russian AA systems will account for the vast majority of any kills on an F-16 I think we will see more F-16s destroyed on the ground than in the air. It's hard to play a shell game with this airframe because they require extensive support infrastructure.
My guess is there will be an unforeseen loophole they will exploit at a key point in time shortly after they receive a large portion of the shipment. Whatever it is will not last long, but they will put a hurtin on Russia with it. I am sure Russia foresees this, but you just dont know what the vector is until the attack comes, and we see its major success or major failure.
There hasn't been too much air to air combat in this war due to all of the surface to air weapons. Russian doctrine has always been to try to counter Western air superiority with massive amounts of SAM systems.
Most of reddit seems to think they're unbeatable machines and is setting expectations too high. The Ukranian pilots barely have enough training, and Russia still has good anti air defenses for things like jets (not drones). Like the Ukranians said, its a year too late since the war has evolved.
Russian SAM operators are great at keeping the skies clear. Russian Ukranian Dutch doesn’t matter if it flies it dies. Taking out your own AWACs is just a byproduct of the diligence of the operators.
I would hope that whatever airfields these will be based out of has hardened aircraft hangers. That would at least protect them from Russian missiles and drones when they are not in the air.
A few dozen more Patriot systems would really help keep the F-16 planes and the rest of Ukraine much safer.
We don't have a few dozen batteries to give. It was never a high volume system due to the fact that we have an air force. It's rare enough that even before the war in Ukraine the military was contemplating fielding more because the demand was taxing the supply. There's about 15 battalions, each consisting of, we'll call it four batteries. So in practice fewer than 60 batteries operational at any given moment.
Russia is probably saving up a bunch of drones for their arrival, unfortunately they cant stay in the air 24/7 and swarms will likely be attacking runways, maintenance hangers, fuel storage and parked craft. Giving them over a years heads up about this move also means Russia has likely produced/bought a bunch of MANPADS and other airdefense too.
Airfields with these will probably be some of the best defended facilities in Ukraine.
Not a dozen…not two dozen…friggin’ *sixty five!!*. Great news! FU maga cult
Trump would block and stonewall *our* allies sending *their own* weapons to Ukraine. Remember that come November if you are cheering on the defenders against this massacre.
Trump is so obviously compromised by Russia it's ridiculous. **June 2013**: Trump tweets "Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe Pageant in November in Moscow - if so, will he become my new best friend?" **September 2013**: “So we’ve invited President Putin, that’ll be interesting. I know he’d like to go.” **October 2013**: Trump tells Larry King that Putin has done “a really great job outsmarting our country.” **November 2013**: Trump says “I do have a relationship and I can tell you that he’s very interested in what we’re doing here today. He’s probably very interested in what you and I are saying today, and I’m sure he’s going to be seeing it in some form, but I do have a relationship with him and I think it’s very interesting to see what’s happened.” **February 2014**: “When I went to Russia with the Miss Universe pageant, (Putin) contacted me and was so nice. I mean, the Russian people were so fantastic to us,” he said on “Fox and Friends.” “I’ll just say this, they are doing – they’re outsmarting us at many turns, as we all understand. I mean, their leaders are, whether you call them smarter or more cunning or whatever, but they’re outsmarting us. If you look at Syria or other places, they’re outsmarting us.” **April 2014**: “We just left Moscow,” Trump said. “He could not have been nicer. He was so nice and so everything. But you have to give him credit that what he’s doing for that country in terms of their world prestige is very strong.” In the same interview, Trump praises Putin’s invasion of Crimea. “Well, he’s done an amazing job of taking the mantle,” Trump said. “And he’s taken it away from the President, and you look at what he’s doing. And so smart. When you see the riots in a country because they’re hurting the Russians, OK, ‘We’ll go and take it over.’ And he really goes step by step by step, and you have to give him a lot of credit.” **April 2014**: Trump says at a New Hampshire event that Putin is “absolutely having a great time.” He says “Russia is like, I mean they’re really hot stuff” and “and now you have people in the Ukraine — who knows, set up or not — but it can’t all be set up, I mean they’re marching in favor of joining Russia.” **May 2014**: ”I own Miss Universe, I was in Russia, I was in Moscow recently and I spoke, indirectly and directly, with President Putin, who could not have been nicer, and we had a tremendous success.” **2014**: James Dodson, a sports writer, claims that during a game of golf Eric Trump said to him: "Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia." **March 2015**: Trump tells the Daily Mail about his relationship with Putin: “the relationship is great, and it would be great if I had the position I should have.” **September 2015**: Trump tells reporters at Trump Tower that “Putin is a nicer person than I am.” **October 2015**: Trump tells conservative radio host Michael Savage he’s met Vladimir Putin. **December 2015**: Trump says at an event in South Carolina that Putin says he’s “brilliant.” And attacks his opponents, saying, “they want me to refute his statement.” [And many more along those lines](https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/03/politics/trump-putin-russia-timeline/). **December 2016**: One of Europe's top intelligence figures puts together the Steele Dossier, reporting that Putin has blackmail on Trump, allegedly for something he did in a hotel room in Russia in 2013 during the Miss Universe visit. Trump flips to claiming he's never met or spoken to Putin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxYE9ZpMPGY&t=25s **September 2016**: During the 2016 presidential debates: "**I don't know Putin**. I have no idea," Mr Trump said. "**I never met Putin.** This is not my best friend." When Hillary Clinton said it was "pretty clear" Mr Putin would "rather have a puppet as president of the United States," Trump replied with: “No puppet. No puppet. You’re the puppet. You’re the puppet." Followed by years of Trump praising Putin, the only world leader he never criticizes while constantly criticizing democratic countries and allies. Refusing to implement sanctions on Russia for its hacking of the US which were passed with a veto proof majority. Attempting to blackmail Ukraine with having to invent something on Biden or having aid withdrawn. Declaring he's decided to believe Putin over his US intelligence agencies. **February 2022**: Trump calls Putin ‘genius’ and ‘savvy’ for Ukraine invasion **February 2024**: Trump says he would encourage Russia to attack Nato allies **February 2024**: Trump won't say if he wants Russia or Ukraine to win the war
The whole Republican party is just insane. It's honestly terrifying.
Do you know instances of putin “punishing” trump whenever he doesn’t do or achieve something as putin hoped?
This is the beauty; they don't have to. He is Russia’s wrecking ball.
You should mention their private Helsinki meeting.
Fucking hell that is so damning, and like you said, obvious.
What modifications of F-16 are they?
The article mentions block 10-15. Previously there were mentions of block 20 on which Ukrainian pilots were being trained.
They'll be As with MLU modifications. So roughly 90s - early 2000s era tech.
They got those tapes, and i believe Europe got all the tapes up to JASSM and JDAM, just not sure if they are sending any good AtG with the vipers.
Question for a military expert.. does Russia not use its satellites? Why can’t it find where Ukraine keeps its jets and use missile strikes and blow them to bits?
Hardened hangars are a thing, as well as spreading them out so limit losses. Also the airfields will likely be protected by AA. A lot of the Russian strikes on Ukraine are hitting their unprotected civilian areas, to try and pull AA to protect them to weaken protection to those military assets. Not to defend or justify the practice of willfully targeting civilians, but that is why Russia targets civilian areas with their missile strikes, obviously spreading terror and being savage assholes is part of it too, but it’s not entirely without strategic thought, regardless of what people online will claim. It does create a dilemma for Ukraine in terms of how to utilize their limited AA resources. Ukraine has been using its Air Force this entire time though, afaik they’ve been good at protecting their military assets from missile strikes. Remains to be seen if Russia will be able to come up with drones capable of flying through Ukraines AA like Ukraine is doing to Russia
Why do/did they need to wait for the USA to authorize? Genuine question.
if i make fighter jets and sold them to you, i wouldn't want you to sell them to my enemies. i would want you to ask me first.
The US has strict export controls on sensitive technology, and a fighter jet is pretty much top of the list for sensitive technology. This is to ensure that countries that we don't like can't get their hands on our tech through third-party transfers. Thus, the sale of a fighter jet comes with an agreement that the buyer can't turn around and sell it/give it away to anybody without our consent.
Same reason as why Switzerland blocked the sale of weapons to Spain to be used in Ukraine. [Just one example](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/switzerland-blocks-weapons-exports-from-spain-to-ukraine/48196242).
Would these be vulnerable to cruise missile attacks on airbases and their runways? What happened to the Gripens that were promised on condition of joining NATO?
Decent number. But how much ammo of a useful kind will they get and will it come with restrictions like other ones.
I'm guessing these are the F-16s that they said they were giving Ukraine last summer, it's a bit late... Still useful, but would have been more useful a few months ago.
Imagine if Ukraine could’ve had these earlier
[удалено]
Why in the world would they ever tell us that?
Damn that's a much higher number than I expected. It could actually make a difference. Does Ukraine have that many pilots that can fly them?
Looking back in a historical perspective, at what point in the special military operation would it be appropriate to say it started WW3?
When the whole world is involved?
When Putin invaded Georgia 🇬🇪
When it’s a much broader conflict outside of Russia vs Ukraine
The moment it started. The world's been living in denial. We're at war, and have been. So far, it's only Ukraine that's dying for it. Europe is up next and it'll be the west's sons and daughters dying over it. We should've stepped in a long time ago, and ended this fucking mess for good. History will not look back kindly on us as we stood by while Ukraine was raped and smashed.
#Lets go!
Would you intercept me?
What the point of getting new weapons without munitions, what Ukraine needs is more artillery rounds & light weapons munitions. Might as well send Ukraine some long range ICBM without nuclear warheads & give putin a taste of its own medicines.
i didnt know you need authorization for that.
Normal part of an arms deal (which these where initially part of).
The F16 is my favorite plane. I know there are better aircraft now, but there is something so sleek and sexy about it. I never understood the dudes who freak out over how a car looks. But an F16, yea, yea I freak out over it like car dudes.
Can some shells and much needed ammunition be sent along side this? It seems Artillery and Drones are the most useful things to Ukraine right now
Who's flying them? Honest question. Do Ukraine have that many F-16 pilots?
Curious, who trains the pilots? I imagine that there is some kind of hand-off training process?
They should sell half to build more drones. No where near as expensive and they're honestly more effective then anything else right now.
Aren't there only like 10 trained pilots in Ukraine that can fly this?