For all this talk about F-16 pilot training wouldn't ground crew training be as much if not more important? Is anyone claiming you can train ground crew on simulations in 2023? Even if major repairs would have to be done in Poland or other points west of Ukraine, the checklists that have to be gone through before a plane so much as taxis from one point to another on the ground are extremely lengthy, are they not?
I didn't touch upon this except briefly. But yes, 100%, it is more than just the pilots. Training and retraining needs go from the ground and support staff, the logistics, the mission planners, operational command and C2, etc. Generally, in the short term a lot of things can be outsourced via contractors (depending on a few factors such as where that will happen) but transitioning to a new platform, esp. one completely different to existing tech, takes years to come to full potential. Hence why it is important to put plans together as early as possible - just training pilots misses the point of the whole transition.
As others have said, the obvious answer is the "Saudi" model of outsourcing support. And I don't doubt a lot of experienced crew chiefs would sign up. The problem is what happens when a Russian strike hits an Ukrainian F-16 airfield (a valid military target) and a bunch of Western bodies come back home.
There is no doubt major repairs would be done in Poland, but then it can be only a few hours away by rail. Some parts of Ukraine are much closer to Poland than they are to Donbas.
A correction. Romania doesn't have F-16 "because of Norway." Romania first adopted it with an initial purchase of Portuguese F-16s, further expanding the fleet with Norwegian ones later.
Norway comfirmed sending 32 f-16 to romania. they got total 76 that whe/they recive back in late 80`s. and i belive some alsow are being sendt back to the Us for training pilots (i belive 12 or more, not sure)
Indeed, Romania made the decision to purchase F-16s a long time ago. At the time, Sweden protested that their Gripen fighters being offered were on equal price terms and more modern. Romania's decision was, though, political as much as military.
Just a quick correction ;) The Netherlands are already at 66% of the transition to F-35 (only 52 in total). Indeed, 8 planes are stationed in the USA for training but all others are flying from the Leeuwarden and Volkel airbases in the Netherlands itself. As far as the F-16's go, the Dutch government cancelled the sale to a private US based company. Best guess is that it was done because they want to deliver those to Ukraine. But we're talking about a sqdrn, perhaps 2, at the most. Always love your vids! Your passion really shows which makes it extra enjoyable to watch!
I was about to comment this as well. One thing to add is also that mark rutte (pm) has said that there are F16 that could be up for transfer to ukraine. So the question really isn't if we are able to send but how many and when.
and another thing about the Dutch F-16s: they're pretty much wrecks. They're limited to 2-3G operations because they're literally falling apart and have been for years. Every single airframe that was actually any good was sold in the 2010s to Peru and some other countries, what was left in the Dutch inventory were those that were too far gone for anyone to want them for operational use!
As a Swede and very familiar with the subject from different perspectives there are a few things to take into consideration. 1: What Ukraine wants and what they need is not the same thing, what they need at this moment, or as fast as possible is a fighter that can carry a LR AAM like Meteor 2. So what Ukraine needs to achieve is air denial and for that it would probably be enough with 16+4 aircraft in the short term. The VKS would be very hesitant to enter Ukrainian airspace if Ukraine had a 200 km AAM on its aircraft 3. To be able to fly these machines they need pilots and as far as I understand, how a Russian fighter works is very different from a western fighter, to your point, these needs to be new pilots and I cant see a shorter training period than 6 months, preferably longer 4. So the pilot training gives you at least 6 months to sort out the rest. 5. Sweden could send 16+4 aircraft but for that to happen there are a number of steps 5.1 NATO membership, without that, no Gripens 5.2 Cost, who will pay for all this? Sending 20 Gripens plus all the logistical hardware, training, missiles(a meteor costs 2m US and you would need to send at least 100). As a final note I will say this, Turkey is a very very important NATO member but how important are they if they are a conduit for Russian interests within NATO by disrupting the interest of the other members of NATO and NATO as a whole
No, false. Ukraine does not need LRAAMs because the Russian air force is not operating in large numbers. Ukraine needs planes capable of proper combat operations against ground targets, and to achieve that, you need planes that are fully compatible with HARM. JAS-39 is not such a plane.
@@johanlassen6448 Disagree, Ukraine will never be able to field an airforce capable of greatly impacting the ground warfare. The best they can achieve is to deny Russia to do what you suggest. However I will say that if it’s ground attack you are after the F-16 is a better suggestion than Gripen.
@@kentnilsson465 JAS-39 would not seriously improve Ukraines abilities in the field while providing significant risk to SAAB due to the existence of S-400 batteries.
@@kentnilsson465The Ukrainians seem to be doing well enough in denying the Russian airforce with ground-based air-defense. A patriot missile is pretty expensive, but so is launching and maintaining a plane that shoots expensive missiles.
Early on in the war in Ukraine, I read that they preferred the Gripen as they said: "It is most suitable for our circumstances." I assume they meant low per-hour flight cost, low maintenance cost, and very quick turnaround using non-technical staff. While at the same time being a capable multi-role airplane.
@@WhiskyCanuck That is the primary reason; Ukranian flankers and fulcrums can and have been operating from improvised runways and roads for most of the conflict because the first thing Russia did when the conflict started was bomb airfields. F16 just can't be used in this way like most modern fighters, which leaves just Grippen as the sole viable option.
Gripen was designed by a country to fight against Russia in an inferior setting, that they'd be bombarded and likely in a disadvantage overall. F-16 was designed by a country to fight Russia in a superior setting (at least in the air). Ukraine is closer to Sweden than US in terms of power balance against Russia, so Gripen is more suitable.
@@92HazelMocha which is one big weakness of F-16s or basically all the other jets that mainly need runways. What's the point of the F-22 & F-35's air superiority & stealth capabilities if they can be fckkkdd up, destroyed and basically knocked out of the fight by a simple barrage of dumbbb Iranian drones or missile strikes while parked at an airport? That's the thing that many pro-Ukraine, pro-West, regular American or Westerner keep failing to understand. It's like they forgot about what happened to Pearl Harbor and my country the Philippines when Japan initiated it's surprise attack during WW2.
In your list of possible aircraft at the start of the video you missed out the UK's retired Tornados. I have no idea what state they are in, but a year ago there was much discussion of them.
During the First Gulf War the UK Tornados had to be very quickly upgraded in two areas of interest. Number one was US Frequency Hopping UHF Radio Communications. To prevent jamming and eavesdropping, "Havequick" Radio Systems are required. This will require Ground Radios to also have this capability if Close Air Support is required. More complicated, and difficult to see how Ukraine can cope with this situation.
the main reason why the Gripen is not likely a candidate for Ukraine is its limited numbers, the one who have them needs them for their own security particularly Sweden, this leaves the F16C as the only viable option for Ukraine.
I don't know if you would want to use F-16s on the rough airfields I've seen pictures of in Ukraine. Anything loose can, and will get ingested by the low-sitting intake. F-16s like a nice, tidy environment. At 3:29 the F-16 is an A- or B-model, most likely Block-15, from my old USAF squadron, 421st TFS (now FS), Black Widows (smaller tires, intake, and old squadron logo sticker) from before the end of 1989 when we started converting to the Block-40 C and D models. Also at 5:31 the closest F-16C (delivered as Block-40) is from the 421st and the other two are from the 4th FS, both in the 388th TFW (now FW).
I think they're getting the netherlands ones which will have the parachutes, so that should help avoid the crappy brakes problem the US ones have haha.But yeah, they need pristine landing strips cause they will just suck up rocks into the intakes.
Russian Satellites will just look and see which airfields are recently repaired and repaved and fire missiles at the runway/hangars, lol Ukraine needs more Mig-29s, sadly this F-16 thing is just a plan hatched by Lockheed so they can point out shot down F-16s and go “if you ever fight a war against Russia you need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on F-35s because your F-16s are useless!” This idea that a handful of F-16s will win the war or even do anything meaningful is slop meant to appease the NAFObot masses.
Adding another jet to the mix....Australia and the US have apparently signaled that there may be an opportunity to transfer F/A 18 Hornets from Aus to Ukraine as well
During the Falklands conflict a British Naval Captain was concerned with his 4in Gun being close to the maximum number of shots it is supposed to fire before the barrel became end of life. After being put in his place I think it was this same gun that was used to blow up an Argentinean tanker in the strait between West and East Falkland. In other words in time of war yes an airframe may be near its max flight hours but there should be a safety margin in there and the pilots may be quite happy to stretch the specification a bit.
I did miss a lot of info and comparison regarding the ground handling and turnaround times between the F16 and Gripen. Gripen can be handled by a few conscripts with an officer as boss but what about F16? AND Gripen can be repaired on a remote roadstrip - even structural repairs! Can you replace a damaged tailfin on a F16 out in the woods?
Yes, the long training times is for new pilots who have either never flown, or have never flown fast jets. At the moment the Ukraine military has more pilots than aircraft, so have ample pilots available for conversion training, which as you noted, takes about 4 months. These are, after all, experienced fast jet pilots, you are not teaching them from the ground up, all yo are teaching them is how to fly the new platform, what its capabilities are, and how to best use those capabilities.
F-16s also should be easier to fly than eg Mig-29s. Much better controls and fly by wire, powerful avionics+datalink, etc. Those Soviet aircraft had horrible controls and very little situational awareness.
LOL !! AND MOST OF THEM OR ALL HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED TO FLY F-16, F-35 , A-10 WARHOGS LIKE 30 ON F-16 10 ON F-35 ,10 A-10 WARHOGS FOR THE FIRST 50 PILOTS OF UKRAINE MORE THAN 80 ARE STILL IN TRAINING IN ARIZONA.. ON 3 TYPE OF PLANES , SO UKRAINE AS SOME OF THE BEST FIGHTER JET PILOTS THAT USAF AS EVER SEEN , THEY LEARN FAST , THEY HAVE A GREAT ETHIC TO LEARN THE COMPUTERS GRAFFICK ON THE JETS , DEFENSE COMPUTER IS THE KEY TO LEARN AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.. THE REST IS EXPERIENCE IN HOURS IN FLIGHT ..??@
As a master trainer in aviation, now civil formerly military, my opinion is that you hit the mark with the question wetter if we want fresh pilots or experienced ex mig pilots. From my experience it is easier to draw on a blank canvas. But unlearning embedded tactics is not easyJet.. on the otter hand reshaping pilots with compatibel experience will go faster in a way you will not have to "ungreen" or "baptise" them in combat regardless of the airframe conversion. I think you have to select the most adaptive pilots and converse them into train the trainers to succeed
I've always admired SAAB's fighters. For such a small country they seemed pretty much cutting edge, yet pragmatic - like being designed to operate off of highways if needed. Sweden certainly does punch above its weight. I have heard this has come with an opportunity cost for the other Swedish armed forces - the aircraft cost a great deal to develop and that's money not available elsewhere for Swedish defence. I would love to see particularly the Gripen E more widely deployed and with Sweden eventually entering NATO, perhaps that might happen some day. A great overview - thanks again Chris.
Gripen is great and a phenomenal achievement for Sweden. However, it is important to remember that it can also do so because it relies on key components from other countries, such as the engine. Without this, the cost proposition of developing an own platform is considerably higher.
"Sweden certainly does punch above its weight." More like Sweden has looked good shadowboxing. No combat experience. I would've thought they'd be chomping at the bit to get their aircraft into actual combat to gain an advertisement campaign all weapons manufacturers always dream of. Not to mention all that data and experience just for future development and defense of their own homeland. But maybe they're terrified of them being proven deficient and unsuitable? That would be disastrous in so many ways: potentially killing all future Saab's sales, revealing Sweden's national defenses to be deficient... If I was running NATO I would absolutely order Saab's tech to be kept secret and only send other aircraft, like F-16s in order to maintain the "Saab-fog" for adversaries.
"money not available elsewhere for Swedish defence" If the Swedish airforce sink the Russian invasion fleet, Sweden win decisive, to a minimum cost of blood. So the airforce did get most of the money.
Do we now? With what regarding JAS-39? The radar is not Swedish, the IRST is not Swedish, the engine is not Swedish, to wit the landing gear is not Swedish, and neither is much of its weaponry. There is no reason to wish Gripen E to be more widely deployed unless you want the West to have a weaker defense than we could have had.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory that is not quite 100% true. The engine is still developed and made in sweden. Just that it's developed of a licensed version. And for some of the radar system usa use to license them from Sweden at least in the 70s. Sweden was quite a bit a head of networking.
In the end I think the decision has fallen on the F-16, purely because there are a whole bunch of F-16 Block 20 aircraft with the MLu around. With the MLu, they become roughly Block 50/52 equivalents. Main thing would be the newer radar system and a larger quite of weaponry that can be used. But a lot of these planes are about to be replaced by F-35A, thus making them surplus. Further there still is a facility in Belgium that is capable of rebuilding these aircraft to extend their service lives. Because a lot of those airframes probably would need to undergo such a rebuilding before they can be expected to be sent into a war zone.
I'd still re-engine them with F100-PW-229 or -232 to reduce maintenance and increase performance before handing them over to the Ukrainians, it can be paid with funds that have already been allocated for f/year 2023
@@pogo1140 They need better radars before engines. If they can get more modern AESA radars that can acquire locks on SU-35 sized targets at 60 miles they can also fire the C-7 AMRAAM variant that could keep Russian CAP at bay.
@Kirk Fickert add the new radar to the list, if available they can be installed at the same time. Along with a diverterless intake and low observable nozzles (24 hrs according to when they were testing it out). That should reduce the range that the Su's and AWAC's can detect them.
I think the CNI systems or at least parts of it are different for each countries version, making it harder for them to work cohesively or even communicate at all on a secure channel.
Speaking of JAS 39 and how many copies there are: A total of 152 JAS 39Cs were produced, of which 66 were upgraded from the 39A. Of version 39A, 38 planes produced have NOT been upgraded. The school planes B and D with double seats have been manufactured in 14 and 23 copies, respectively. 39A: 38 39B: 14 39C: 152 39D: 23 39E: under production. An unknown few delivered. A total of 227 produced. South Africa: 26 Hungary: 14 leased Czech Republic: 14 leased Thailand: 12 Sweden operates 98 32 are dismantled (Variant A) 4 are wrecked/crashed (Variant A) 2 are museum objects (Variant A) Does that mean that 21 planes of Model C remain in storage perhaps?
Brazil has a few Gripen E's aswell, not sure how many like you stated.. We prob do have some C's in storage as backups that could be spared, personally i'd love to see the gripen in Ukraine
@@paulgoransson9489 Sadly i don't think the A/B version can carry the Meteor and that's prob the most important part if we're gonna send Gripen to Ukraine
I think the realistic solution is to send bouth of them. F16 for air defense based west from Kyiv. And then as many Gripen teams that is possible to send to eastern Ukraine. In that configuration the F16s can protect the logistics for the Gripens, and Gripen can boarder cross into ocupied territory and operate close to the front under an umbrella of F16 that can protect the forward bases.
The Gripen's ability to work in austere environments, with a minimal support crew, and with relatively low maintenance costs, make the Gripen an excellent choice. I know it adds complexity to support multiple aircraft types. But as we see with tanks (Challenger, Leopard, Abrams, more?), Ukraine will benefit more by dealing with this complexity rather than wait for a large number of any one type. It's likely the same applies with aircraft. Heck, I wanted the venerable A-10 to appear in Ukraine before being retired. (designed specifically for Soviet tanks, armored vehicles) Brrrrt! Besides, the Ukrainians learn quick. They may already have the world's most diverse weapons array (600 weapon systems from ~50 nations)
@@gregparrott No endeed. Neither.Ucrania has no aviation CAS COIN / close coveraje...but ... My point was the concep of the close tubines in a quick & dirty taking off on gogopills "goaround" Aermacci 346 FA ≈ YAK130
15:16 Wikipedia claim Brazil is starting a Grippen variant production line this month, out of interest. The aircraft customers all have more use for an aircraft that better tolerates austere conditions, is pretty modern, and is cheaper than 5th gen... how much cheaper though I couldn't guess. Edit: he does mention Brazil later in the video. So, OK then.
One thing about the Gripen is - I wonder whether Sweden has any old A models in store that could either be updated to a more modern software standard and sent over, or simply operated locally for comparatively less demanding roles (e.g. air policing/maritime surveillance) while the E production line spins up.
No, we have no A-model aircraft left. Many C-model aircraft are upgraded A:s. The rest of the A:s were scrapped. Some are on display but are not airworthy.
@Matteo If we could, we would besides training Ukraines pilots. Hand over some Gripen, but sadly everything we have being used. And unfortunately it takes about 2 years (if not more) to build one.
20 Ukrainian pilots have just started a 12 week ground based conversion to NATO aircraft course in the UK. The idea is once thats completed they will move on to F-16 specific Type Training though that program, likely to be hosted by the Netherlands with assistance from others, hasnt been sorted yet. Some mumblings US may lend other countries F-16 for Ukrainians to train on as well as providing technical support but wont donate aircraft for combat. Of course we may get a surprise and suddenly in years time they are flying the Eurofighter Tranche 1 as the UK has a policy of not announcing equipment donations to Ukraine until after they have already been transferred.
Great you covered everything I wrote in my comment that I started when your video did! Basically Grippen are not available in 2023, the F-16C very likely are. The F-16C can do more in the air and I think Ukraine sees servicing complexity as the price of air capability. Grippen would have fitted in real quick in 2022 if they’d been immediately available, but they’re weren’t & still aren’t. Ukraine has a need for immediacy & a pipeline, with logistics costs not a worry that’s high on the list at the moment. Existential threat overrides a lot of problems. Poland has less political & budget barriers than most states and higher threat given its border with Belarus & Ukraine. Netherlands can afford it, and has anchored the Ukraine pilot program, so they’re both v.likely suppliers.
@@TheGreatAmphibian well F-16 can definitely do 100% more than a fighter that’s not currently available and if Gripen was hands-down better than F-16 it would be available due to its massive worldwide demand 😮
@@MsZeeZed This is stupid. The f16 is half a century old and has notched up sales over decades. The Grippen is a new aircraft. Not that Grippen is on offer - and neither will do any good anyway, given that the Russians have overwhelming numbers of sams and fighters.
@@TheGreatAmphibian do you even know how much Meteor costs compared to AMRAAM? Can gripen be a dedicated SEAD platform? Can Swedes readily provide it now? Can Swedes provide maintenance?
@@FirehawkSHD It’s idiotic to ask if the Grippen can be a dedicated sead platform in this context. Because the f16 certainly can’t. Search for the link I provided to former f16 pilot who polled a dozen others who flew sead missions: they all agreed that taking on russian air defenses in the f16 would be suicide. Why is this is so hard for people to understand? The Russians have scores of excellent Sam batteries - in some ways better than Patriot - in the theatre and could deploy a thousand fourth generation fighters. And people like you think a few obsolete aircraft with half trained pilots will survive. In stupidity’s name, why???
I saw one analysis which made the point that the Ukrainian govt.considers the NATO commitment to send F16's is symbolic insofar as it represents a long term relationship by necessity. The dial up time is determined not so much by pilot training but rather maintenance training. Makes sense. President Zelensky sees the F16 as proof of a longer term relationship.
I have heard ground crew tearing the F-16 to pieces for how much of a PITA it is to maintain. They hated working on the thing. I think Gripen is a better choice if its ease of maintenance reputation is to be believed, but I'm not in charge.
For all the reasons the Gripen might be favored, the AV-8B Harrier would be more suitable by fulfilling the same requirements for use in austere airfields and roadside in an emergency, and is capable of VTOL which the Gripen cannot do. Nearly all air forces which currently have Harriers are upgrading to F-35B so there are plenty of aircraft countries are willing to give away soon if not already. Like the Gripen, Harriers can be armed with all NATO munitions. Only significant obstacle would be to find sources for parts since manufacturing has ended in anticipation of everyone upgrading the the F-35B.
From what I have heard, Ukrainian pilots have already been sent to my state, and received training to see even if it was possible to train them on the F-16. As far as I know, it would take only 3 to 4 months for them to become efficient on the airframe. Now I don't know if that includes ground crew, etc.
Take 3-4 months to operate them. Not to be proficient. These will be surplus F16s built in the early 80s, and they'll be going up against modern SU Flankers with multi-scan array radar, and S300 and S400 batteries underneath. Add the recent lose of multiple munition depots, and their intelligence centers, and I'm not sure they have 3-4 months left in them.
2:35 This is the first time I've ever seen a content creator mention their Patreon in this light - and it's a refreshing breath of fresh air. "Never build a business on land you don't own."
It's quite obvious that like tanks with the AMX 10 France would be the first to send jets to Ukraine, Ukrainians are training in France since last summer on ground attack and usage of French and NATO equipment, the Mirage 2000 are the obvious choice as they are discountinued in France the problem is what is hapenning in Belgorod as France might retract it's offer if it was ever to be used against Russian soil especially now that they have French missiles SCALP (Storm Shadow in english).
If it was a Mirage, it would probably be the Mirage 2000-9 from the Arab Emirates, which are at least at the level of the F-16 Block 50 in terms of modernization and, above all, are actively offered for sale in sufficient quantities.
The actions of the Russian anti-Putin legions in Belgorod are undoubtedly a strategic part of the Ukrainian counter-offensive approved by General Zaluzhny and with the tacit approval of American generals. The fact that it is politically problematic in France is another matter.
American ex USAF pilot Mover (youtube) who's flown the f-16 and f-18 said the Gripen would be a better platform because it's less reliant on the airfield. Can land on roads. They stated the F-16 is very touchy about its landing strip, if a rock is on the runway, the engine will suck it right up into the intake.
So far fascinating. So just a little remark that I CAN make in an interlude. 'Gripen' - The Griffon - in Swedish is pronounced more like 'Greepen', not 'Grippen'!
*Brilliant episode as always.* This recently discovered channel has quickly become my favorite military aviation channel - second to none. Now, *I have a hot video suggestion for the channel:* It goes along the line of the "white elephant in the room", and more specifically once and for all explaining to a somewhat broader, let's say "uninitiated" audience more precisely:
[1] *_WHY_* the often mentioned "3-4 month crash course" on e.g. Gripen, followed by an immediate transfer of planes to the front in Ukraine just *isn't realistic and possible* in general terms, while also [2] giving the viewer a very brief, but still sufficient overview of all the elements, personell, training, systems and sub-systems that are *_actually_* involved in implementing a fighter-jet _successfully_ into the armed forces of e.g. Ukraine. [3] Last but not least, to have the less knowledgeable viewer and "layman" really tie the loose ends together and come to a somewhat educated realization of why the scenario of "3-4 month crash course and consecutive transfer of planes to the Ukrainian war front" *_is_* unrealistic, Mr. Military Aviation could simply paint a brief, "real case" picture of how such a nightmare-scenario could play out, and how the concrete consequences *_relates_* to such an insufficient "fast-track implementation". I'm more than certain that this video topic would be highly appreciated to an even broader audience than usual, who perhaps previously hadn't realized the *complexity, magnitude* and *scope* of implementing a leading edge fighter-jet like SAAB Gripen.
Gripen was designed with the Soviets in mind; Sweden is nearby for parts and basic maintenance, and the Gripen has less complications with political sensitivities.
Was there ever any discussion about sending old AV-8B harriers? The US is retiring them and freeing them up, they work well on short/ improvised runways, and has compatibility with the AIM-120 amraam. As long as they are used in conventional or short take-off and landing (not vertical landing), I imagine training is not too much of a hurdle. Also is a really good platform for ground attack
Don't they also have a reputation for killing their pilots? ie they're accident-prone because of the VTOL capability. Maybe I overstated & they're not "widow-makers", but the accident rate was multiples vs aircraft like the F-18 & F-16. Plus the maintenance on them is complicated too (a contributor to their accident rate, apparently).
@@WhiskyCanuck that’s fair. I can’t speak to their maintenance difficulties or accident rates comparative to F/A-18 or F-16. I would kinda think that flying their old Soviet era Mig-29s with passive radar missiles and older radars against Russian Su-30/35 with active radar missiles and powerful radars is more inherently dangerous… but again, not sure how an AV-8B radar compares
I believe Thailand is trying to get their hands on anybody's retired Harriers for their little baby Aircraft Carrier. Not sure if any deals are being made yet. They were turned down to get the F35A's but we're offered the F16's and F15's instead.
@@WhiskyCanuck When you're at war a plane with a higher-than-normal accident rate isn't as big of an issue. Sure it'd be better to have something better. But anything that can fly and shoot is better than nothing.
Are hot refuels and rearms fast or even needed for f-16s in ukraine? According to a Swedish pilot he refueled and rearmed his gripen in 20 minutes and took of again during an exercise where the ground crew was missing and the missiles and the fuel truck was just standing there. I presume the Israelis have done something similar.
From what I have heard at least from Justin Bronk from RUSI even a few Gripen would make a major difference. I would hope that perhaps Sweden could part with even single digit numbers. It seems like with the lower cost a small fleet would have long term usefulness to Ukraine. The F-16 seems it would be most useful later and after the war. As hard as it is to get fast jets counties won't want to part with jets however Poland seems somewhat willing to actually make sacrifices and maybe would offer a few. At least from their attitude of wanting to stick it to Russia it seems like something they might try
The intermediate answer was legacy Hornet. Over 30 are in private hands in the US and not completely demilitarized as they are used as aggressors. Now they aren't a long term solution as no more are being made and parts are limited, but they are flown by the Finns, Swiss, Spanish, and Canada all of whom are retiring airframes. Plus the Swiss and Finns had equipment produced to service the airframes from remote highway strips. Gives Ukraine the ability to launch just about any NATO stand off weapon plus FOX-3's. It would likely be enough to see them through this conflict at which point they could order Gripen with F-16's to make up numbers longer term.
The good thing about the gripen is you can liftoff at one place. sortie for an couple of hours and land 100-200 km away from you took off on another public road. Then given they are so small you can ride them on the back of a truck to another place. Basically it's impossible to take out Gripens by sending some ballistic missiles to an large airbase.
It seems that the option of buying MIG 29s from countries that do use them, could be a be a good option in the meantime. They are mostly obsolete, but the training and infrastructure is already there. According to Wikipedia, Malaysia has 16 in “active reserve “. There are apparently 22 in the US in mainly private collections. It would fill the gap until more modern and capable aircraft are available and trained for. Edit; I read that Poland had already donated some Mig 29s, which is great. It would be timely now if the 38 I mentioned above could be made available. Spring doesn’t last long.
The planes themselves are only the delivery platform for the advanced NATO weapons they can carry. Soviet era and be jerry rigged, but can't deliver the full capability.
He only talked about NATO inventories of the F-16 while talking about world wide inventories of the Gripen. There are several other F-16 operators in the Middle East, North Africa, Asia, and Chile in South America. There are also plenty of airframes in the US boneyards awaiting conversion to target drones that can provide parts, if really needed.
@@seannordeen5019 And F-16 is being progressively retired from the US Air National Guard and replaced with F-35 at a rate of a squadron about every 6 months.
The US doesn't share the good stuff. Even the F-35s everyone else are getting, are watered down. Nothing compared to the Block 4 US version which is a hive mind jet with laser weapons, infrared decoy systems, upgraded engines, better stealth coatings, etc.
I think it would be a good time for the factories to amp up their production of both airframes and other parts of these fighters. And that would require a political decision sooner rather than later of making an order, either to be sent to Ukraine directly or to replace those that are instead.
As Voltaire said, "The best is the enemy of the good". While Gripen is an excellent aircraft, and very suitable for Ukrainian conditions, both the ground infrastructure and in having a smaller logistics train, it just ain't available *right now*. Vipers look to be more of a near-term solution, being more readily available and adequate, and that will carry the day.
Where are the spare parts coming from? Where are the crew chiefs coming from? Try reading about the first Allied squadrons to hit the Southeast Pacific. Most squadrons lost 1/3 of their planes via attrition. Either the planes broke down from lack of spare parts, or the aircraft were immediately sequestered for spare parts. Ether way squadrons were quickly down to 50% effectiveness or less. It took a long time for the supply train to become effective.
@@Caseytify The spares come from the same place that they are currently coming from, just with an extra step to Ukraine. These aircraft are operating now, parts are available now. Ship them. More parts available at Amarg if the US will let them go. Crew chiefs can be trained while the pilots are training. Ukraine is also advertising for foreign pilots and maintainers. This is hard, not impossible.
@@Caseytify Explain to me how the Ukrainian's have any choice? They are running their stocks of S-300's down and once they are gone, they are gone, they cannot be replaced as they happen to be at war with the builders of the missiles, and the West has no comparable ground based system. Ukraine is likely going to be out of S-300's by the end of the year at the latest, and the ONLY option we have to cover the loss of that critical system in their Air Defence System is Western Aircraft with Western LRAAM's such as Meteor. Its the only thing we have that will cover the loss of that capability. And this I feel is something that people like you are not appreciating, these aircraft and missiles are NOT a 'nice to have' for Ukraine, they are a critical future requirement to replace a rapidly reducing defence system that they cannot replace with a ground based capability. And that is the brutal reality, Ukraine HAS to solve those problems literally because THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.
@@Caseytify The F-16 is one of the most produced modern jet fighters, sold around the world. There are spare parts, especially since a lot of European countries transitioning to the F-35. I assume crews are being trained at the same time as the pilots.
F-16 hotpit or quickturn, minimal time on the ground just fuel rearm and go. This is done all the time made the day go by quickly. With a 16 you can rack up some quick numbers other airframes are ground down by attrition (Code 3 on landing, shutdown, simpathy abort) not the 16...she is a warrior and Code 1 Bandit, in my humble opinion.
JAS is refueled in 20 minutes and an engine swap is made in 1 hour. 800 m runways on local roads as dispersed airbases is perfect for Ukraine. Sweden knows Russia knocks out airports first, which makes F-16 grounded. JAS was tailored for a Russian invasion. JAS for Ukraine! 🇸🇪❤️🇺🇦
About Belgium, they will have 5 next month (July) but I assume they are stationed in the US, for training purpose, although our better pilots already had their training for the F35B we ordered 35 of them. Don't forget they are not prioritized, because we have an agreement with the Netherlands for guarding the entire Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) and the North Sea region, the Netherlands are the mightier part of the alliance. So it's fair to say the needs there are more important. I think that's the reason they have a decent number of the F35s
Great coverage of the challenges. keep up the great work. Any thoughts on fixed vs temporary bases/runways impact of such airframes in Ukraine? I heard from some source that F16's are very 'delicate' when it comes to runway abstractions, making it challenging to take-off/land in temporary 'field' runways, of which Ukraine must make use of to avoid Russians from bombing the equipment. Not sure of this claim accuracy.
F-16 requires good runways, esp. compared to Gripen (see gear and engine air intake placement for two examples why). I am not familiar with the state of Ukrainian runways as I keep running into conflicting information. Gripen on a pure platform level, does provide more and easier basing and dispersal options on and off active airfields provided a stretch of solid concrete at 800x16m can be found.
@@SmedleyDouwright You're correct, it isn't. But it's also visible to satellites flying overhead of which Russia has a fair number. As always there are no easy solutions.
@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 None, but there are a lot of roads and Russia hitting the road is a 10-20% thing and not one they can sustain as they'll need to keep hitting that road every 2 days. Come to think of it, Ukraine needs to put a rush on that road/runway construction thing. Make it as visible as possible including painting runway signs on the road even if the road repaving/reinforcing is not yet done.
It’s become quite clear that the production capabilities of the allies from WW2 are a thing of the past and modern weapons either cannot, or will not be produced in such quantity ever again. This has implications on a global scale that if your country is invaded tomorrow, there’s no supply help coming, you fight with what you have available on hand that day. The logistics of bringing such modern weapons to the battlefield requires years of planning, not months. NATO countries should take notice and adjust their policies and budgets today, China is arming themselves as is Iran, and if one of the dictator run nations decides they can take away your land, they will because there’s nothing you can do about it if you didn’t make preparations many years beforehand.
In CZ there is an initiative from the DOD to move away from Gripens C to F-35As as the lease is coming to an end. If supplies of F-35s would be prioritise to CZ, after the decision is made on CZ side, a whole squadron of JAs-39Cs can be freed very quickly.
Grippen no doubt is a better fit, but the numbers just aren't available. One thing I am confident in, is Ukraine's ability to put to good use anything they are given. Great video and analysis as usual.
@@andrewpease3688 Sweden's old plane "Viggen" were also designed to be used in this way and our country only have so many runways and budget so we designed our planes so they could be hidden in pretty much a local barn and take off on a normal road when needed to make it way harder to pin point where we keep pur planes in a conflict! The main goal has always been total defence
I don't understand how sweden is going to/can give gripens to ukraine when saab builds/upgrades a few of these planes per year. the best case scenario for the gripens is a dozen or so in 3-5 years.
Sweden have orderd new build Gripen E, so there will be a surplus of older Gripen C, a smale number of Gripen C can anilate the rest of the Russian Black Sea fleet. The whole purpose of Gripen was to sink the Russian invasion fleet.
@@kirgan1000 the planes were ordered years ago, the production lines opened around last year. i'm not sure they've produced even a small squadron of gripen Es by now.
Sweden requires national security including air power. Sweden does not necessarily require Gripens. Sweden could depend, at least partly, on other NATO aircraft. There has recently been created a common command structure for all the Nordic air forces. This means that 20-40 Gripens would not be taken from the 84 Sweden currently operates, it would be taken from the roughly 300 aircraft in the freshly created "Nordic Air Force". However, I would assume that Sweden will not agree to that before full NATO membership. If the support from the other Nordic air forces would not be enough, then maybe, just maybe, the USN can show up with a carrier. I see the recent visist of USS Gerald R. Ford to the area as a way of convincing Sweden to let go of some Gripens. The Ford is to big to enter the Baltic, or any of the ports on the Swedish West Coast, so a visit to Oslo was the closest they could get.
Sweden's policies REQUIRE Swedish built major equipment because reliance on any foreign power for such makes you dependent on that foreign power and thus limits your national sovereignty.
@@jwenting You have to careful how you break down high-level requirements to lower level implementation level requirements. Both the requirement to produce things domestically and the national sovereignty requirement are lower level requirements derived from higher level requirements. To put in another way, both are basically tools to satisfy other requirements, not really requirements in themselves. This is key to the analysis. If you're careful about what your requirements really are then it can open up the solution space. With Sweden becoming a member of NATO, circumstances have changed. The breakdown from high level requirements to lower level requirements can and should change. This is all basic Requirements Analysis and Requirements Management, both fields that are well worth the time to study.
@@jwenting If Sweden wants to join NATO, then defense isnt limited to national sovereignty anyway. And its a laughable prospect; Sweden always relied on the west, the whole "neutrality" thing is a charade based on having a bunch of western friends.
@@jwenting national sovereignty have been gone since 1994 when we joined the EU, so we then might as well use that vassal state status for something good and send help to Ukraine, while EU and Nato protect us. And once we have rebuilt our air force and russia is crushed, then we no longer have any need for Nato membership or the EU and can leave.
I think its not difficult to get Ukraine the jets, it just takes time to hardwire Drone controls into an existing fighter, let alone 30+. The US has specifically testing the F16 openly using remote technology, something similar to the Reaper drones but better and If they were just announcing it in 2018/2019. Its perfected now. I bet you'll see pilotless craft in Ukraine.
One option I have only seen one commentator talk about (Tyler Rogoway and was early in the war), is Romania's now retired Mig-21 fleet. Apparently they are much more capable than what meets the eye with deep upgrades with Israeli electronics, giving them EW self protection, western targeting pods, and ability to carry a variety of Western, Israeli, Soviet and I think even South African weapons. Apparently they still have some airframe hours left. What are your thoughts on using these as a gap filler option until Ukraine is fully geared up with Western fighters? Also any thoughts on recent suggestions on recently retired RAAF hornets?
I should elaborate on what I mean by "gap filler". I'm aware these upgraded Mig-21s won't be equivalent to a Western 4th gen fighter and won't be able to go toe to toe with the VKS. I understand the Mig-21 is cheap to run, relatively easy for Western countries to get spare parts and would be easier for the Ukrainians to transition to. I was thinking the fact they can take a variety of Western weapons, integrated with the avionics may give the Ukrainians some capabilities they don't currently have until they get Western 4th gen fighters, as well as just more airframes to keep sorties up.
Of the European countries, only Denmark and the Netherlands can supply F-16s. Denmark has at least 43 F-16, only 16 to 24 of them have sufficient lifespan to serve another nation. The Netherlands apparently does not have more than one squadron of F-16s that could continue to serve for at least 5-10 years. The Dutch and Danish F-16 MLUs differ mainly in the radars, the Danish have APG-66(v)2a, the Dutch have AN/APG-68(v)9. Otherwise they are very similar. Belgium (F-16 MLU) and Poland quite new F-16 Block 52+) cannot deliver their jets. If Ukraine were to receive at least 4 F-16 squadrons, the USA would have to add some pieces, or alternatively, they could be negotiated in some Arab or Asian countries. It will interesting to see how the whole issue with the F-16 turns out. It would not be a surprise if the Mirage 2000-9 from the Arab Emirates remained in the game, which are at least at the level of the F-16 Block 50 in terms of modernization and, above all, are actively offered for sale in sufficient quantities..
Gripen would have been a better airplane in every respect for Ukrainians. But there are just not enough of those aircraft in existence for Sweden to provide. F-16 is a prolific platform with readily available airframes/training/logistical support. The Swedes should have tried to at least provide some aircraft for combat evaluation and marketing purposes.
There is a decent chance they would have to either fly low and expose themselves to manpads or stay outside of russian long range SAMS range, same as any other jet. If they get shot down there, that wouldn't be good marketing.
so how come f18 isn't the favored option over f16? They take off from and land primarily from carriers so they have a rugged landing gear which I would assume could help in harsh conditions. Australia has offerred to donate 40 or so that are being retired and as a bonus haven't been subjected to the salt water exposure inherent in carrier operations. Would love to hear opinions if any naval aviators see this, or from anyone knowledgeable about f18s/f16s
It does not matter to the Weapon of Mass Destruction manufacturers and their owners whether to send these planes to Ukraine will be effective or not, as long as they can laugh all the way to banks.
One thing you didn’t touch on (probably intentionally due to controversy) is each options access to potential foreign combatants/contractors. F16 has many trained pilots and crews around the world. Both active and retired. If one considers even a minuscule percentage willing to contract to Ukraine - many F16 negatives are diluted maybe eliminated. Grippen is perfect tactically and for this theatre’s difficult operating environment. F16 is perfect in global logistic terms. Neither directly addresses cross border SAMs.
In the end...if you want to make it work, you will make it work. Ive seen too many impossible projects in my life being made. Also, there are so many thi gs we dont know about so best strategy is wait and see.
I was disappointed at the headlong charge forward with F-16, when F-18 has better availability with nations that are more sympathetic to Ukraine and more willing to part with their own jets (Canada, Finland, Oz). Plus, stronger gear and an extra engine don't hurt.
Nothing is stopping them. We are further along possibly sending jets than these countries are. Without being in Nato. The country you are talking about is barely sending offensive tanks so sending jets would be a big jump.
F16's are the go, the reason is availability and because of upgrades they can carry all the modern arms systems, you need to forget about dog fights that was last century, you also need to forget about whether Ukraine can fly them or maintain them because they can do that as good as anyone, we need to get these frames over there pronto
Another option not talked about much, is the Mirage 2000-9. There are several of these being replaced in Qatar and the UAE and the have comparable capabilities as the F16
@@alfonsovelasco9627 Very funny ah ah... French Dassault aircrafts are extremely reliable, you just have to see how many years they remain in service with their degree of availability in the many countries using them.
I may be wrong but I believe they cannot shoot MICA IR, only MICA ER, which is a bit annoying, they may need the upgrade that the 2000-5 has, but beside that they do have the upgraded radar and are multirole. However the range of MICA ER is not as good as recent AMRAAMs. Still, they are very reliable aircrafts but I don't think Ukraine would want a mix of planes, the logistics would be a nightmare.
@Voltaire92 Voltaire92 just kidding. From the great Ouragan to the amazing Mirage III used in the Middle East conflicts finishing with the great Rafale I have nothing but respect for Marcel Dassault aircaft. But I hate Renault cars !!
For me the limiting issue is more about maintenance than pilots. As you alluded to Chris, it is possible to train a single role pilot (let's say air denial, no AAR) to an ok standard, in a much shorter time than most air forces' full training programmes. But you can't really take short cuts when it comes to maintenance. So whilst you could focus on 1st line combat support only in the first instance, it is likely that any F-16 would have to be flown back to its parent nation for deeper maintenance for at least the first six months of operation whilst maintenance crews are fully trained. That would definitely be a political hot potato as it would be seen to be the sort of direct combat support that NATO has so far avoided.
As a USAF veteran, I agree with your post.. Everything seems about the pilots. but if there no ground crew, engine, airframe, armourers and fuelers, those planes be it F-16's or Grippins won't fly. On a different note, I don't care which airframe is used, as long as parts and weapons systems can be maintained. It's more about getting aircraft to what Ukraine needs, not wants.
@@VersedNJ Jet's can fly back to Europe for maintenance. I don't see maintenance as being a big problem at all for aircraft. Leaving them on the ground in Ukraine would just invite cruise missile strikes.
For maintenance you can always use volunteers, I'm sure that many people experienced in maintaining the f16 would jump on the opportunity to work as a contractor so the only question is the logistical aspect. Once more patriots and other systems are deployed in UA naturally the amount of jets needed won't be a great number because we are not delusional, UA cannot 1v1 RU in the sky. This capability is required for combined arms
Basically *uck all mate. The Uk operates neither. And at the time of writing, we can't even fit our own pilots into the training schedule. The uk military is a hollow shell of it's previous self.
I feel like we need to not only specify the aircraft but also the type, because there are large differences between the initial models and modernized version. F16 is one of those airframes that nowadays have little to none resemblance of the initial aircraft. The question is, what will Ukraine end up with?
Not sure. The Dutch F16 are A and B model, with the MLU upgrade. Very old aircraft from the 80s, with modern avionics and missiles. I wonder how much maintenance they require to keep in working order
@@AlexKall Insofar as that it's not clear which version will end up being transferred. I really hope Ukraine gets current models, especially with the latest reports that USAF hopes (re-)training could be as fast as 2 month.
Dear CIA, I am forming a PMC that will contain experienced F-16 pilots and maintainers. Please fund me and we can then ship F-16s to Ukraine immediately without this pesky training problem.
A few comments to add. Using untrained pilots for F-16 may produce a crop of trained aviators more quickly. The F-16 flies very differently from other aircraft due to five factors. Sidestick controller with very little movement, airframe attitude that is nearly in stall mode at all times, an inclined seat that allows higher G-forces, a completely different training/ doctrinal approach, and maintenance training requirements. To my knowledge, there is no way to separate air-to-air and air-to-ground pilot training. The school is one. As you point out, logistics is very complicated. There would have to be a PMEL, hydrazine, and avionics facilities close to the action. And, as a small airframe, there is a tradeoff between sortie length and munitions load. I have seen no mention of aerial refueling capability in Ukraine's ask. As the F-16 is not an air superiority fighter, there would be no powerful fighters to fly overwatch while Falcons (sorry, I am old school) get down in the dirt. Warsaw pact fighters are not equipped with secure comms or compatible IFF systems. Most of the IFF systems of SU aircraft have been in the OFF mode so far. Any mix of A/B and C/D would be a logistical nightmare. Different avionics LRUs and test stations, powerplant, etc. The last operational F-16A in the US inventory flew in 2007, so good luck finding training, maintenance equipment, and spares. So, where will they come from? Gripen, being simpler is the best bet.
Ukraine’s fighter jet needs are: 1) deep strike, a western platform to carry long range air to surface weapons like Stormshadow and Scalp 2) defensive counter air as they’re surface to air munitions are continually attrited 3) SEAD to neutralize enemy surface to air system, such as with HARM 4) direct action close air support as their SU-25 fleet is continually attrited The clear roadmap for increasing their capabilities is to get used F-16a models from allies and establish the logistics train in Poland and the west of the country. The F-16 is the platform for this war. Once Ukraine has regained its independence and hopefully become a NATO member, they could benefit from buying brand new Gripens in the future. While the F-16s would represent their older platforms with stronger logistics support in the west of the country, the new Gripens could be largely based as frontline fighters in the eastern areas closer to Russia. Having your newest and best fighters based in the east and able to operate on austere conditions and utilizing the same tactics the Swedes developed for taking off and landing from highways and minimal maintenance crewing would make sense in the future. F-16 for winning this war and a high low fleet mix of F-16 and Gripen in the future 👍
Needs 3 and 4 are not remotely realistic in the short-medium term and 1 is already being carried out by their existing Su-24 fleet. As for 2, there may be some utility to forcing longer standoff ranges but this is not a game-changer
Maybe the way to go is a semi-clean sheet design on a rush basis. Design something specifically for Ukraine and countries in a roughly similar situation, design for off-the-shelf technologies, turnaround to initial flight, ease of manufacture, supportability, etc... In other words, completely reverse the recent trend for example of F-35 taking 22 years from pen-to-paper to flying in the fleet. It was doable for decades and with modern techniques should be doable now. Share resources across NATO and get something produced.
I'm reminded of a comic book, in which Buck Danny and Sonny Tucson are enlisted in a Squadron of F-16's and surreptitiously bomb the living crap out of Serbs in the Yugoslavian war during the 90's. (Episode 46) It gave a lot of reasons why they used F-16's. It's the most commonly flown jet fighter, it has multi role uses, it's weapons systems are NATO based and you can find pilots to fly it just about anywhere in the world. It also gives deniability to nations. Which is something to keep in mind seeing as NATO and Russia are very strict about not engaging with each other. If for whatever reason NATO would want to be able to deny sending pilots of other nations to fly for the Ukrainians, like The USSR and China denied sending pilots to fly MiG's for North Korea during the Korean War, it would help if Ukraine would already be flying F-16's...
@@deedeeramone34 You obviously haven't read the right comic books then. If you're thinking of superman or the fantastic four, sure, i can go along with that. But plenty of graphic novels exist that show the bleakest and grittiest examples of warfare. But i wasn't referring to realism, but to the scenario of using F-16's in a clandestine role.
You hit upon the real world problems with transferring any modern fighters to Ukraine. Training, logistics, and support. Ukrainians have been very motivated to learn the new equipment that they currently have or will soon have which is a plus. They have been hindered by the reluctance, primarily from the US, to transfer F16's. I can't help but think this would be much further along if the US just bit the bullet and commit to transferring the F16's. At least they are willing to train Ukrainian pilots on the F16 which is a start, if a late one. I like the point you made that while there are planes available on paper, they are not immediately available because most countries have balanced the number of planes for their estimated needs meaning that while they have fighters, they don't have any to spare, or the ones that they do have available are at the end of their service life and are therefore unusable. Many countries are transitioning to F35's but until complete, the F16's they have are not currently available.. It would be great to be able to give Ukraine F16's or Grippens, but at this moment it is not possible. I hope it can happen before the end of this year. I have been disappointed and frustrated that the US has dragged it's heels on providing tanks, IFV's, artillery, HIMARS, MLRS, and fighter jets. If they had sent a lot of that equipment much earlier, Ukraine might be in a better position than they currently are. However, the US and it's allies have not been structured for fighting a conventional war, rather it has been structured for small regional conflicts that don't require massive quantities of munitions in particular but also spare equipment. So some of the "foot dragging" may actually be due to not having sufficient munitions and equipment readily available. This war caught NATO and US allies by surprise in that they quickly realized they did not have munitions and supplies for more than a few months of steady conventional warfare so they have been playing catch-up trying to provide supplies to Ukraine.
Well, it was difficult to send Abrams, Challenger and Leopard. It was also difficult to send MLRS, before that - M777. I love you and your channel, but you're German, after all😛 Jokes aside, maintenance difficulties of F16 and the benefits of Gripen (which I like very much too!), do you think maintenance on decades-old MiG-29 and Su-25 airframes in an active warzone is easier? It's just different. Just supply the planes, train the pilots and mechanics & bring the spare parts to the Polish border - leave it to Ukrainian/Eastern European/Post-Soviet ingenuity.
I understand that Russian/Soviet cockpits are practically prehistoric. Functional but very old technology, maybe even dials and switches. Except for the very earliest F-16, all NATO aircraft have at least some digital readouts. Controls are different, supposed to be more capable and easy to use if you know how but means a lot of skills in Russian jets isn't transferrable to NATO jets. Additionally, unlike NATO equipment sent to Ukraine so far, it will be absolutely imperative that Ukrainian pilots be fluent in English to read the manuals, bulletins and controls. Flying a high performance aircraft is a lot more complex than operating a HIMARS or a MBT.
@@tonysu8860 True, but these are still experienced Fast Jet pilots. We are not talking about training new pilots from nothing, these are experienced pilots with combat experience. Which means conversion training will be relatively short. The USAF has already stated that conversion training for current Ukrainian military pilots will be approximately four months. They have already had several Ukrainian Pilots literally to work out how long conversion training would take. So that is not an unknown there. Four months is not really that long, and multiple nations have already had Ukrainian pilots for cockpit training at the minimum, so there are probably already twenty or so Ukrainian pilots already trained on Western style cockpits at least, which will simplify their further training significantly.
@@deedeeramone34 Dude, in Ukraine's position, fighting on home turf, under Patriot cover and against the outdated, semi-depleted, semi-professional Russian VKS, 20 modern F16s with modern A2A and HAARM missles is a big deal. Besides, Zaluzhny's counterattack is not Steiner's and Zelensky is not Hitler. Referense: Kharkhiv and Kherson counteroffensives.
Watching this I started wondering what happened to the Viggen that were taken out off service. Would there be some knocking about that still could be made airworthy? What about F-16s stored in the desert? How many might be sitting there that could be made battleworthy in a reasonable time frame? Airworthiness to a point where Ukrainian tablet-hacks are possible might be all they need to get going, with upgrades to follow.
Just out of curiousity, what happened to all the Gripen A airframes that were NOT converted to Cs? Are they still in storage or were they reduced for spare parts?
that was so kool to see my old 18Cs (VFA-94) at the beginning (0:09)of the vid. the paint scheme is after i left the squadron, tho. we were NH and 400s when i was there.
We hear a lot about fighters but for ground attack although this won’t make a perfect replacement for the su25s. It is still very useful and that is the L139. I think this will be a very very good replacement although that’s a stretch for su25s if the active fleet of su25s begins to get worn down from combat losses.
Love the video, very informative, covered a bunch of things about European military flight logistics that I didn't know about. But I have a criticism that doesn't have to do with the substance of the video: you have a fairly soft speaking voice, and the transition music comes in significantly louder than the rest of the video. It's a bit overpowering compared to the talking portions (which is what we're all here for).
The only realistic option is for the planes to operate from Nato airfields with volunteer pilots. In the Korean War, Soviet pilots flew Migs from Chinese airfields. We have already seen what happened to the SU24s delivering Storm Shadows destroyed on the ground
something that I always found intresting is that the first real push for sending F-16s happend about as long after the start of the war as it would take to train the pilots. Like I have no evidence for this position but I would not deem it unlikely that NATO has been training pilots in secret for atleast some time.
We do almost nothing in secret, certainly not training pilots. Ukraine pilots could be trained well in 4 months,private parties could be hired for maintanece. A small number of Grippens,would be most welcome to provide immediate air cover.
A group of Ukrainian pilots have already been assessed by instructors in the US on the F-16 simulator. The report stated that the pilots would be trained in 4 months. The main problem was language since everything in the aircraft cockpit is in English. So the training is already underway and by the time the political wrangling over the aircraft is done the pilots will be ready. Four months not nine. The F-16 will be in Ukraine in the Fall.
Great video, Chris. Thanks. Thanks to its availability in large numbers the F16 seems to be a first hand choice. But looking at which overall system that would suit the current needs, the Gripen seems to be the best option. Base dispersal, logistics and fast turnaround are crucial key factors. Beside that, the F16 will need to operate from fixed bases requiring adequate air defence resources when the bases will become high priority targets.
@@phillipbanes5484 Haha I love all these fantasies about jets etc. I mean, it's not gonna happen but what's strange is the orgasmic rapture about the potential. I guess we just don't give a shit about nuclear war anymore. Okay fine. But I for one don't want that for Europe. The Americans sure as shit seem to want that which is also strange. Because they are purportedly allies. Unless it's about diffusion. I.e. let Europe absorb the hits and then just ghost the whole continent. The Russians have already said they'll target the airfields if we send jets. Even if that airfiled is in say, Poland or romania or whatever. Okay so fly them from the highway. Which highway do you propose? If in Ukraine they'll be found and bombed pretty quickly. It's clear the Russians, contrary to what the NYT and the BBC would have you believe, aren't stupid or incompetent. If they manage to fly they'll be shot down. Russians have thousands of aircraft and layered defences. What's 24 jets going to do? Well probably not much. Other than escalate to the point where the Russians now start bombing airfields in Poland or Romania. And how is that good for Europe? Now, putting the whole boasting thing aside, Ukraine did not shoot 6 out of 6 hypersonic missiles out of the sky like they claim. Russians aren't running out of missiles either (like the Guardian or the BBC constantly yap on about). Ukraine has no pilots either. So doing the math on all this and how is any of this supposed to work? All this just strikes me as wishful thinking. If realized we could all end up dead. But I don't see how it can be realized. But people on here still fantasize that it be realized. What a bizzarre f**ing time to be alive.
As so often the procurement of military hardware is a political question first and foremost. For many reasons, the F-16 is a much more politically viable jet to send to Ukraine. F-16 will be replaced by F-35 in many countries, a lot of inventory is basically looking for a new home already. Relatively, there is a lot of supply and little demand for the F-16. The situation surrounding the Grippen is totally different. Sending Grippen is politically much more difficult. Countries like South Africa and Brazil are certainly not amongst the strongest supporters of Ukraine (both are of course BRICS countries). This is a political question and politics follows the path of least resistance which is F-16, there can be no question about that.
@@andrasbrnk7863 The most recent upgraded versions are OK, they are good dogfighters but that is not the issue. True, MICA ER do not have a great range but they are still Fox3 and better than current Ukrainians missiles, and they are multirole (can fire SCALP and guided bombs). They also have a much shorter take off and landing distance than F16. But Ukraine needs a single airplane, not a mix.
Also it deserves to think in terms of geopolitics, Brazil and other nations are pushing for a ceasefire, one that maybe sending Grippens might be perceived as making things worse... invited to send ammunition to German tanks, Brazil declined... and the alliance of tech transfer to Brazil as well as partnerships might come into play in the sending of Grippens to the battlefield ( as opposed to selling Grippens in the future peacetime after the conflict is done, for self defense purposes ). Those fights might come into a future scenario of defense, rather than the current conflict.
F16 and Gripen aren't the only two good options. I'm an Aussie and more people need to be publicly discussing our 40 or so upgraded FA18 Classic Hornets that we currently have moth-balled with no apparent overseas buyers. They come with spares and haven't spent a life at sea like many retiring US aircraft
The Aussie Hornet option has been written about on the WarZone and the Aussie Financial Times. Why it gets ignored is beyond me since these planes are actually available. Yes they might need refurbishing and some upgrades - but that could be done by the Aussies or the US or the US Aggressor contractors that do this stuff all the time - one of which was supposed to be buying the Aussie Hornets in the 1st place. Again - it's all in the above articles. UA-cam doesn't allow you to link articles - but you can Google them.
Australia has 40 F-18 (Hornet) surplus to requirement with spares. Having been used by the RAAF they would be in excellent order. They are for sale. In the late 1980's the surplus French fighters were sold in a 'fire sale', very cheap, to Pakistan. This caused serious diplomatic problems with India. Giving these to Ukraine would solve any end user problems except to Russia.
For all this talk about F-16 pilot training wouldn't ground crew training be as much if not more important? Is anyone claiming you can train ground crew on simulations in 2023? Even if major repairs would have to be done in Poland or other points west of Ukraine, the checklists that have to be gone through before a plane so much as taxis from one point to another on the ground are extremely lengthy, are they not?
I didn't touch upon this except briefly. But yes, 100%, it is more than just the pilots. Training and retraining needs go from the ground and support staff, the logistics, the mission planners, operational command and C2, etc. Generally, in the short term a lot of things can be outsourced via contractors (depending on a few factors such as where that will happen) but transitioning to a new platform, esp. one completely different to existing tech, takes years to come to full potential. Hence why it is important to put plans together as early as possible - just training pilots misses the point of the whole transition.
This.
As others have said, the obvious answer is the "Saudi" model of outsourcing support. And I don't doubt a lot of experienced crew chiefs would sign up. The problem is what happens when a Russian strike hits an Ukrainian F-16 airfield (a valid military target) and a bunch of Western bodies come back home.
@@FJamison1 It will probably be the same as it was in Przewodów taxpayer will pay the families of those killed.
There is no doubt major repairs would be done in Poland, but then it can be only a few hours away by rail. Some parts of Ukraine are much closer to Poland than they are to Donbas.
A correction. Romania doesn't have F-16 "because of Norway." Romania first adopted it with an initial purchase of Portuguese F-16s, further expanding the fleet with Norwegian ones later.
Norway comfirmed sending 32 f-16 to romania. they got total 76 that whe/they recive back in late 80`s. and i belive some alsow are being sendt back to the Us for training pilots (i belive 12 or more, not sure)
Su 57 mig 51 end mig 41 hiiii
Rumunija end rusija uraaaa hiiii
Indeed, Romania made the decision to purchase F-16s a long time ago. At the time, Sweden protested that their Gripen fighters being offered were on equal price terms and more modern. Romania's decision was, though, political as much as military.
@@SerbanOprescugotta kiss up to Uncle Sam and military industry
Just a quick correction ;) The Netherlands are already at 66% of the transition to F-35 (only 52 in total). Indeed, 8 planes are stationed in the USA for training but all others are flying from the Leeuwarden and Volkel airbases in the Netherlands itself. As far as the F-16's go, the Dutch government cancelled the sale to a private US based company. Best guess is that it was done because they want to deliver those to Ukraine. But we're talking about a sqdrn, perhaps 2, at the most.
Always love your vids! Your passion really shows which makes it extra enjoyable to watch!
Volledig correct 🇳🇱👍💯👌
Thanks! Are you referring to the Draken International sale?
I was about to comment this as well. One thing to add is also that mark rutte (pm) has said that there are F16 that could be up for transfer to ukraine. So the question really isn't if we are able to send but how many and when.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory As far as I'm aware, our ministry of defence only talked about "a private US based company"
and another thing about the Dutch F-16s: they're pretty much wrecks. They're limited to 2-3G operations because they're literally falling apart and have been for years.
Every single airframe that was actually any good was sold in the 2010s to Peru and some other countries, what was left in the Dutch inventory were those that were too far gone for anyone to want them for operational use!
The Gripen is probably better, it was designed exactly for this kind of war. But there’s so many F16s, in terms of supply, it’s an obvious choice.
Perhaps one squadron of Gripens with weapons that the F16 isn't fitted to carry (Meteor, storm shadow) to compliment 3 - 4 Squadrons of F16's.
As a Swede and very familiar with the subject from different perspectives there are a few things to take into consideration.
1: What Ukraine wants and what they need is not the same thing, what they need at this moment, or as fast as possible is a fighter that can carry a LR AAM like Meteor
2. So what Ukraine needs to achieve is air denial and for that it would probably be enough with 16+4 aircraft in the short term. The VKS would be very hesitant to enter Ukrainian airspace if Ukraine had a 200 km AAM on its aircraft
3. To be able to fly these machines they need pilots and as far as I understand, how a Russian fighter works is very different from a western fighter, to your point, these needs to be new pilots and I cant see a shorter training period than 6 months, preferably longer
4. So the pilot training gives you at least 6 months to sort out the rest.
5. Sweden could send 16+4 aircraft but for that to happen there are a number of steps
5.1 NATO membership, without that, no Gripens
5.2 Cost, who will pay for all this? Sending 20 Gripens plus all the logistical hardware, training, missiles(a meteor costs 2m US and you would need to send at least 100).
As a final note I will say this, Turkey is a very very important NATO member but how important are they if they are a conduit for Russian interests within NATO by disrupting the interest of the other members of NATO and NATO as a whole
No, false. Ukraine does not need LRAAMs because the Russian air force is not operating in large numbers. Ukraine needs planes capable of proper combat operations against ground targets, and to achieve that, you need planes that are fully compatible with HARM. JAS-39 is not such a plane.
@@johanlassen6448 Disagree, Ukraine will never be able to field an airforce capable of greatly impacting the ground warfare. The best they can achieve is to deny Russia to do what you suggest. However I will say that if it’s ground attack you are after the F-16 is a better suggestion than Gripen.
@@kentnilsson465 JAS-39 would not seriously improve Ukraines abilities in the field while providing significant risk to SAAB due to the existence of S-400 batteries.
@@kentnilsson465The Ukrainians seem to be doing well enough in denying the Russian airforce with ground-based air-defense. A patriot missile is pretty expensive, but so is launching and maintaining a plane that shoots expensive missiles.
Agree regarding Turkey...and Hungary. Both are not what I would call team players at this time.
the gripen was sent to south africa - and with all the negligence it suffered, it still operates. speaks to its quality i think
"Logistics an under appreciated field of endeavor." Good video informative.
Early on in the war in Ukraine, I read that they preferred the Gripen as they said: "It is most suitable for our circumstances." I assume they meant low per-hour flight cost, low maintenance cost, and very quick turnaround using non-technical staff. While at the same time being a capable multi-role airplane.
Also it can operate from more rugged & shorter runways.
It's also far superior to the F-16 in terms of operating from areas with foreign object debris
@@WhiskyCanuck That is the primary reason; Ukranian flankers and fulcrums can and have been operating from improvised runways and roads for most of the conflict because the first thing Russia did when the conflict started was bomb airfields. F16 just can't be used in this way like most modern fighters, which leaves just Grippen as the sole viable option.
Gripen was designed by a country to fight against Russia in an inferior setting, that they'd be bombarded and likely in a disadvantage overall. F-16 was designed by a country to fight Russia in a superior setting (at least in the air).
Ukraine is closer to Sweden than US in terms of power balance against Russia, so Gripen is more suitable.
@@92HazelMocha
which is one big weakness of F-16s or basically all the other jets that mainly need runways.
What's the point of the F-22 & F-35's air superiority & stealth capabilities if they can be fckkkdd up, destroyed and basically knocked out of the fight by a simple barrage of dumbbb Iranian drones or missile strikes while parked at an airport?
That's the thing that many pro-Ukraine, pro-West, regular American or Westerner keep failing to understand.
It's like they forgot about what happened to Pearl Harbor and my country the Philippines when Japan initiated it's surprise attack during WW2.
In your list of possible aircraft at the start of the video you missed out the UK's retired Tornados. I have no idea what state they are in, but a year ago there was much discussion of them.
During the First Gulf War the UK Tornados had to be very quickly upgraded in two areas of interest. Number one was US Frequency Hopping UHF Radio Communications. To prevent jamming and eavesdropping, "Havequick" Radio Systems are required. This will require Ground Radios to also have this capability if Close Air Support is required. More complicated, and difficult to see how Ukraine can cope with this situation.
the main reason why the Gripen is not likely a candidate for Ukraine is its limited numbers, the one who have them needs them for their own security particularly Sweden, this leaves the F16C as the only viable option for Ukraine.
I don't know if you would want to use F-16s on the rough airfields I've seen pictures of in Ukraine. Anything loose can, and will get ingested by the low-sitting intake. F-16s like a nice, tidy environment.
At 3:29 the F-16 is an A- or B-model, most likely Block-15, from my old USAF squadron, 421st TFS (now FS), Black Widows (smaller tires, intake, and old squadron logo sticker) from before the end of 1989 when we started converting to the Block-40 C and D models. Also at 5:31 the closest F-16C (delivered as Block-40) is from the 421st and the other two are from the 4th FS, both in the 388th TFW (now FW).
I think they're getting the netherlands ones which will have the parachutes, so that should help avoid the crappy brakes problem the US ones have haha.But yeah, they need pristine landing strips cause they will just suck up rocks into the intakes.
Russian Satellites will just look and see which airfields are recently repaired and repaved and fire missiles at the runway/hangars, lol
Ukraine needs more Mig-29s, sadly this F-16 thing is just a plan hatched by Lockheed so they can point out shot down F-16s and go “if you ever fight a war against Russia you need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on F-35s because your F-16s are useless!”
This idea that a handful of F-16s will win the war or even do anything meaningful is slop meant to appease the NAFObot masses.
Adding another jet to the mix....Australia and the US have apparently signaled that there may be an opportunity to transfer F/A 18 Hornets from Aus to Ukraine as well
During the Falklands conflict a British Naval Captain was concerned with his 4in Gun being close to the maximum number of shots it is supposed to fire before the barrel became end of life. After being put in his place I think it was this same gun that was used to blow up an Argentinean tanker in the strait between West and East Falkland. In other words in time of war yes an airframe may be near its max flight hours but there should be a safety margin in there and the pilots may be quite happy to stretch the specification a bit.
I did miss a lot of info and comparison regarding the ground handling and turnaround times between the F16 and Gripen. Gripen can be handled by a few conscripts with an officer as boss but what about F16? AND Gripen can be repaired on a remote roadstrip - even structural repairs! Can you replace a damaged tailfin on a F16 out in the woods?
USAF said that the existing pilots could learn to fly it in 4 months.
Didn't they already train a pair of pilots to see how it would work?
Yes, the long training times is for new pilots who have either never flown, or have never flown fast jets. At the moment the Ukraine military has more pilots than aircraft, so have ample pilots available for conversion training, which as you noted, takes about 4 months. These are, after all, experienced fast jet pilots, you are not teaching them from the ground up, all yo are teaching them is how to fly the new platform, what its capabilities are, and how to best use those capabilities.
F-16s also should be easier to fly than eg Mig-29s. Much better controls and fly by wire, powerful avionics+datalink, etc.
Those Soviet aircraft had horrible controls and very little situational awareness.
LOL !! AND MOST OF THEM OR ALL HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED TO FLY F-16, F-35 , A-10 WARHOGS LIKE 30 ON F-16 10 ON F-35 ,10 A-10 WARHOGS FOR THE FIRST 50 PILOTS OF UKRAINE MORE THAN 80 ARE STILL IN TRAINING IN ARIZONA.. ON 3 TYPE OF PLANES , SO UKRAINE AS SOME OF THE BEST FIGHTER JET PILOTS THAT USAF AS EVER SEEN , THEY LEARN FAST , THEY HAVE A GREAT ETHIC TO LEARN THE COMPUTERS GRAFFICK ON THE JETS , DEFENSE COMPUTER IS THE KEY TO LEARN AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.. THE REST IS EXPERIENCE IN HOURS IN FLIGHT ..??@
Fly !=fight. An what about 90% of other necessary personnel?
As a master trainer in aviation, now civil formerly military, my opinion is that you hit the mark with the question wetter if we want fresh pilots or experienced ex mig pilots. From my experience it is easier to draw on a blank canvas. But unlearning embedded tactics is not easyJet.. on the otter hand reshaping pilots with compatibel experience will go faster in a way you will not have to "ungreen" or "baptise" them in combat regardless of the airframe conversion. I think you have to select the most adaptive pilots and converse them into train the trainers to succeed
Defeating Russia is only only a dream for you guys. With or without jet fighters, you will be defeated. It is the matter of when and not if.
I've always admired SAAB's fighters. For such a small country they seemed pretty much cutting edge, yet pragmatic - like being designed to operate off of highways if needed. Sweden certainly does punch above its weight. I have heard this has come with an opportunity cost for the other Swedish armed forces - the aircraft cost a great deal to develop and that's money not available elsewhere for Swedish defence. I would love to see particularly the Gripen E more widely deployed and with Sweden eventually entering NATO, perhaps that might happen some day.
A great overview - thanks again Chris.
Gripen is great and a phenomenal achievement for Sweden. However, it is important to remember that it can also do so because it relies on key components from other countries, such as the engine. Without this, the cost proposition of developing an own platform is considerably higher.
"Sweden certainly does punch above its weight."
More like Sweden has looked good shadowboxing. No combat experience.
I would've thought they'd be chomping at the bit to get their aircraft into actual combat to gain an advertisement campaign all weapons manufacturers always dream of. Not to mention all that data and experience just for future development and defense of their own homeland. But maybe they're terrified of them being proven deficient and unsuitable? That would be disastrous in so many ways: potentially killing all future Saab's sales, revealing Sweden's national defenses to be deficient...
If I was running NATO I would absolutely order Saab's tech to be kept secret and only send other aircraft, like F-16s in order to maintain the "Saab-fog" for adversaries.
"money not available elsewhere for Swedish defence" If the Swedish airforce sink the Russian invasion fleet, Sweden win decisive, to a minimum cost of blood. So the airforce did get most of the money.
Do we now? With what regarding JAS-39? The radar is not Swedish, the IRST is not Swedish, the engine is not Swedish, to wit the landing gear is not Swedish, and neither is much of its weaponry.
There is no reason to wish Gripen E to be more widely deployed unless you want the West to have a weaker defense than we could have had.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory that is not quite 100% true. The engine is still developed and made in sweden. Just that it's developed of a licensed version.
And for some of the radar system usa use to license them from Sweden at least in the 70s. Sweden was quite a bit a head of networking.
I read that Ukraine's runways are not suitable for the F16. That seems odd to me, the MIG29 needs a runway. In what way do the requirements differ?
In the end I think the decision has fallen on the F-16, purely because there are a whole bunch of F-16 Block 20 aircraft with the MLu around.
With the MLu, they become roughly Block 50/52 equivalents. Main thing would be the newer radar system and a larger quite of weaponry that can be used. But a lot of these planes are about to be replaced by F-35A, thus making them surplus. Further there still is a facility in Belgium that is capable of rebuilding these aircraft to extend their service lives. Because a lot of those airframes probably would need to undergo such a rebuilding before they can be expected to be sent into a war zone.
I'd still re-engine them with F100-PW-229 or -232 to reduce maintenance and increase performance before handing them over to the Ukrainians, it can be paid with funds that have already been allocated for f/year 2023
@@pogo1140 They need better radars before engines. If they can get more modern AESA radars that can acquire locks on SU-35 sized targets at 60 miles they can also fire the C-7 AMRAAM variant that could keep Russian CAP at bay.
@Kirk Fickert add the new radar to the list, if available they can be installed at the same time. Along with a diverterless intake and low observable nozzles (24 hrs according to when they were testing it out). That should reduce the range that the Su's and AWAC's can detect them.
@@KirkFickert Su-35 can be acquired on limits of nominal instrumental range - it is monster of RCS.
@@pogo1140 Smart. If this is the same intake we are talking about it would also probably help a bit operating from unprepared runaways.
I think the CNI systems or at least parts of it are different for each countries version, making it harder for them to work cohesively or even communicate at all on a secure channel.
Speaking of JAS 39 and how many copies there are:
A total of 152 JAS 39Cs were produced, of which 66 were upgraded from the 39A.
Of version 39A, 38 planes produced have NOT been upgraded. The school planes B and D with double seats have been manufactured in 14 and 23 copies, respectively.
39A: 38
39B: 14
39C: 152
39D: 23
39E: under production. An unknown few delivered.
A total of 227 produced.
South Africa: 26
Hungary: 14 leased
Czech Republic: 14 leased Thailand: 12
Sweden operates 98
32 are dismantled (Variant A)
4 are wrecked/crashed (Variant A)
2 are museum objects (Variant A)
Does that mean that 21 planes of Model C remain in storage perhaps?
Brazil has a few Gripen E's aswell, not sure how many like you stated.. We prob do have some C's in storage as backups that could be spared, personally i'd love to see the gripen in Ukraine
According to wikipedia 24 A/b are in storage awaiting disposal.
@@paulgoransson9489 Sadly i don't think the A/B version can carry the Meteor and that's prob the most important part if we're gonna send Gripen to Ukraine
I think the realistic solution is to send bouth of them. F16 for air defense based west from Kyiv. And then as many Gripen teams that is possible to send to eastern Ukraine. In that configuration the F16s can protect the logistics for the Gripens, and Gripen can boarder cross into ocupied territory and operate close to the front under an umbrella of F16 that can protect the forward bases.
The Gripen's ability to work in austere environments, with a minimal support crew, and with relatively low maintenance costs, make the Gripen an excellent choice.
I know it adds complexity to support multiple aircraft types. But as we see with tanks (Challenger, Leopard, Abrams, more?), Ukraine will benefit more by dealing with this complexity rather than wait for a large number of any one type. It's likely the same applies with aircraft. Heck, I wanted the venerable A-10 to appear in Ukraine before being retired. (designed specifically for Soviet tanks, armored vehicles) Brrrrt! Besides, the Ukrainians learn quick. They may already have the world's most diverse weapons array (600 weapon systems from ~50 nations)
like a yak130 or a Flanker 29 ?
@@Fulcanelli88 Does Ukraine have those as well?
@@gregparrott No endeed.
Neither.Ucrania has no aviation CAS COIN / close coveraje...but ...
My point was the concep of the close tubines in a quick & dirty taking off on gogopills "goaround"
Aermacci 346 FA ≈ YAK130
... Get it over there. When the whistle blows everything goes.
15:16 Wikipedia claim Brazil is starting a Grippen variant production line this month, out of interest. The aircraft customers all have more use for an aircraft that better tolerates austere conditions, is pretty modern, and is cheaper than 5th gen... how much cheaper though I couldn't guess.
Edit: he does mention Brazil later in the video. So, OK then.
One thing about the Gripen is - I wonder whether Sweden has any old A models in store that could either be updated to a more modern software standard and sent over, or simply operated locally for comparatively less demanding roles (e.g. air policing/maritime surveillance) while the E production line spins up.
No, we have no A-model aircraft left. Many C-model aircraft are upgraded A:s. The rest of the A:s were scrapped. Some are on display but are not airworthy.
@@andersnoren6070 Good (and sad) to know, thanks
@Matteo If we could, we would besides training Ukraines pilots. Hand over some Gripen, but sadly everything we have being used. And unfortunately it takes about 2 years (if not more) to build one.
20 Ukrainian pilots have just started a 12 week ground based conversion to NATO aircraft course in the UK. The idea is once thats completed they will move on to F-16 specific Type Training though that program, likely to be hosted by the Netherlands with assistance from others, hasnt been sorted yet. Some mumblings US may lend other countries F-16 for Ukrainians to train on as well as providing technical support but wont donate aircraft for combat.
Of course we may get a surprise and suddenly in years time they are flying the Eurofighter Tranche 1 as the UK has a policy of not announcing equipment donations to Ukraine until after they have already been transferred.
Great you covered everything I wrote in my comment that I started when your video did! Basically Grippen are not available in 2023, the F-16C very likely are. The F-16C can do more in the air and I think Ukraine sees servicing complexity as the price of air capability. Grippen would have fitted in real quick in 2022 if they’d been immediately available, but they’re weren’t & still aren’t. Ukraine has a need for immediacy & a pipeline, with logistics costs not a worry that’s high on the list at the moment. Existential threat overrides a lot of problems. Poland has less political & budget barriers than most states and higher threat given its border with Belarus & Ukraine. Netherlands can afford it, and has anchored the Ukraine pilot program, so they’re both v.likely suppliers.
Gripen has Meteor and asea. So god only knows why you think the f16 can do more in the air…
@@TheGreatAmphibian well F-16 can definitely do 100% more than a fighter that’s not currently available and if Gripen was hands-down better than F-16 it would be available due to its massive worldwide demand 😮
@@MsZeeZed This is stupid. The f16 is half a century old and has notched up sales over decades. The Grippen is a new aircraft. Not that Grippen is on offer - and neither will do any good anyway, given that the Russians have overwhelming numbers of sams and fighters.
@@TheGreatAmphibian do you even know how much Meteor costs compared to AMRAAM? Can gripen be a dedicated SEAD platform? Can Swedes readily provide it now? Can Swedes provide maintenance?
@@FirehawkSHD It’s idiotic to ask if the Grippen can be a dedicated sead platform in this context. Because the f16 certainly can’t. Search for the link I provided to former f16 pilot who polled a dozen others who flew sead missions: they all agreed that taking on russian air defenses in the f16 would be suicide.
Why is this is so hard for people to understand? The Russians have scores of excellent Sam batteries - in some ways better than Patriot - in the theatre and could deploy a thousand fourth generation fighters. And people like you think a few obsolete aircraft with half trained pilots will survive. In stupidity’s name, why???
I saw one analysis which made the point that the Ukrainian govt.considers the NATO commitment to send F16's is symbolic insofar as it represents a long term relationship by necessity. The dial up time is determined not so much by pilot training but rather maintenance training. Makes sense. President Zelensky sees the F16 as proof of a longer term relationship.
I have heard ground crew tearing the F-16 to pieces for how much of a PITA it is to maintain. They hated working on the thing. I think Gripen is a better choice if its ease of maintenance reputation is to be believed, but I'm not in charge.
Yeah...But there are almost no avaliable Gripens.
For all the reasons the Gripen might be favored, the AV-8B Harrier would be more suitable by fulfilling the same requirements for use in austere airfields and roadside in an emergency, and is capable of VTOL which the Gripen cannot do. Nearly all air forces which currently have Harriers are upgrading to F-35B so there are plenty of aircraft countries are willing to give away soon if not already. Like the Gripen, Harriers can be armed with all NATO munitions. Only significant obstacle would be to find sources for parts since manufacturing has ended in anticipation of everyone upgrading the the F-35B.
From what I have heard, Ukrainian pilots have already been sent to my state, and received training to see even if it was possible to train them on the F-16. As far as I know, it would take only 3 to 4 months for them to become efficient on the airframe. Now I don't know if that includes ground crew, etc.
I've read that. And more generally that Ukrainian crews have been learning fast on every platform, from Patriot to M-1s.
Take 3-4 months to operate them. Not to be proficient.
These will be surplus F16s built in the early 80s, and they'll be going up against modern SU Flankers with multi-scan array radar, and S300 and S400 batteries underneath.
Add the recent lose of multiple munition depots, and their intelligence centers, and I'm not sure they have 3-4 months left in them.
@@recoil53 You learn fast when your life and the fate of your nation depends on it...
3 months only? 😂😂
@@BlueMax109 I mean they are already pilots, it is just learning a new system pretty much
2:35 This is the first time I've ever seen a content creator mention their Patreon in this light - and it's a refreshing breath of fresh air.
"Never build a business on land you don't own."
It's quite obvious that like tanks with the AMX 10 France would be the first to send jets to Ukraine, Ukrainians are training in France since last summer on ground attack and usage of French and NATO equipment, the Mirage 2000 are the obvious choice as they are discountinued in France the problem is what is hapenning in Belgorod as France might retract it's offer if it was ever to be used against Russian soil especially now that they have French missiles SCALP (Storm Shadow in english).
If it was a Mirage, it would probably be the Mirage 2000-9 from the Arab Emirates, which are at least at the level of the F-16 Block 50 in terms of modernization and, above all, are actively offered for sale in sufficient quantities.
The actions of the Russian anti-Putin legions in Belgorod are undoubtedly a strategic part of the Ukrainian counter-offensive approved by General Zaluzhny and with the tacit approval of American generals. The fact that it is politically problematic in France is another matter.
American ex USAF pilot Mover (youtube) who's flown the f-16 and f-18 said the Gripen would be a better platform because it's less reliant on the airfield. Can land on roads. They stated the F-16 is very touchy about its landing strip, if a rock is on the runway, the engine will suck it right up into the intake.
So far fascinating. So just a little remark that I CAN make in an interlude. 'Gripen' - The Griffon - in Swedish is pronounced more like 'Greepen', not 'Grippen'!
Stop the war. You should not watch the war unfold as if you are watch sports between 2 countries. It is tragedy, not sport.
Support peace.
*Brilliant episode as always.* This recently discovered channel has quickly become my favorite military aviation channel - second to none.
Now, *I have a hot video suggestion for the channel:* It goes along the line of the "white elephant in the room", and more specifically once and for all explaining to a somewhat broader, let's say "uninitiated" audience more precisely:
[1] *_WHY_* the often mentioned "3-4 month crash course" on e.g. Gripen, followed by an immediate transfer of planes to the front in Ukraine just *isn't realistic and possible* in general terms, while also
[2] giving the viewer a very brief, but still sufficient overview of all the elements, personell, training, systems and sub-systems that are *_actually_* involved in implementing a fighter-jet _successfully_ into the armed forces of e.g. Ukraine.
[3] Last but not least, to have the less knowledgeable viewer and "layman" really tie the loose ends together and come to a somewhat educated realization of why the scenario of "3-4 month crash course and consecutive transfer of planes to the Ukrainian war front" *_is_* unrealistic, Mr. Military Aviation could simply paint a brief, "real case" picture of how such a nightmare-scenario could play out, and how the concrete consequences *_relates_* to such an insufficient "fast-track implementation".
I'm more than certain that this video topic would be highly appreciated to an even broader audience than usual, who perhaps previously hadn't realized the *complexity, magnitude* and *scope* of implementing a leading edge fighter-jet like SAAB Gripen.
Gripen was designed with the Soviets in mind; Sweden is nearby for parts and basic maintenance, and the Gripen has less complications with political sensitivities.
But low manufacturing capability.
Was there ever any discussion about sending old AV-8B harriers? The US is retiring them and freeing them up, they work well on short/ improvised runways, and has compatibility with the AIM-120 amraam. As long as they are used in conventional or short take-off and landing (not vertical landing), I imagine training is not too much of a hurdle. Also is a really good platform for ground attack
Don't they also have a reputation for killing their pilots? ie they're accident-prone because of the VTOL capability. Maybe I overstated & they're not "widow-makers", but the accident rate was multiples vs aircraft like the F-18 & F-16. Plus the maintenance on them is complicated too (a contributor to their accident rate, apparently).
@@WhiskyCanuck that’s fair. I can’t speak to their maintenance difficulties or accident rates comparative to F/A-18 or F-16. I would kinda think that flying their old Soviet era Mig-29s with passive radar missiles and older radars against Russian Su-30/35 with active radar missiles and powerful radars is more inherently dangerous… but again, not sure how an AV-8B radar compares
I believe Thailand is trying to get their hands on anybody's retired Harriers for their little baby Aircraft Carrier. Not sure if any deals are being made yet. They were turned down to get the F35A's but we're offered the F16's and F15's instead.
@@WhiskyCanuck When you're at war a plane with a higher-than-normal accident rate isn't as big of an issue. Sure it'd be better to have something better. But anything that can fly and shoot is better than nothing.
Are hot refuels and rearms fast or even needed for f-16s in ukraine? According to a Swedish pilot he refueled and rearmed his gripen in 20 minutes and took of again during an exercise where the ground crew was missing and the missiles and the fuel truck was just standing there. I presume the Israelis have done something similar.
From what I have heard at least from Justin Bronk from RUSI even a few Gripen would make a major difference. I would hope that perhaps Sweden could part with even single digit numbers. It seems like with the lower cost a small fleet would have long term usefulness to Ukraine. The F-16 seems it would be most useful later and after the war. As hard as it is to get fast jets counties won't want to part with jets however Poland seems somewhat willing to actually make sacrifices and maybe would offer a few. At least from their attitude of wanting to stick it to Russia it seems like something they might try
However, Bronk is both an idiot and an apparatchik. His career depends on hyping western weapons systems and arms spending.
The intermediate answer was legacy Hornet. Over 30 are in private hands in the US and not completely demilitarized as they are used as aggressors. Now they aren't a long term solution as no more are being made and parts are limited, but they are flown by the Finns, Swiss, Spanish, and Canada all of whom are retiring airframes. Plus the Swiss and Finns had equipment produced to service the airframes from remote highway strips. Gives Ukraine the ability to launch just about any NATO stand off weapon plus FOX-3's. It would likely be enough to see them through this conflict at which point they could order Gripen with F-16's to make up numbers longer term.
The good thing about the gripen is you can liftoff at one place. sortie for an couple of hours and land 100-200 km away from you took off on another public road. Then given they are so small you can ride them on the back of a truck to another place.
Basically it's impossible to take out Gripens by sending some ballistic missiles to an large airbase.
It seems that the option of buying MIG 29s from countries that do use them, could be a be a good option in the meantime. They are mostly obsolete, but the training and infrastructure is already there. According to Wikipedia, Malaysia has 16 in “active reserve “. There are apparently 22 in the US in mainly private collections. It would fill the gap until more modern and capable aircraft are available and trained for.
Edit; I read that Poland had already donated some Mig 29s, which is great. It would be timely now if the 38 I mentioned above could be made available. Spring doesn’t last long.
The planes themselves are only the delivery platform for the advanced NATO weapons they can carry. Soviet era and be jerry rigged, but can't deliver the full capability.
Very interesting. I didn't realize there were so few modernized F16s available outside of the US. P.S. the music when transitioning is way too loud
Damn near blew me out of my office chaid.
He only talked about NATO inventories of the F-16 while talking about world wide inventories of the Gripen. There are several other F-16 operators in the Middle East, North Africa, Asia, and Chile in South America. There are also plenty of airframes in the US boneyards awaiting conversion to target drones that can provide parts, if really needed.
@@seannordeen5019 And F-16 is being progressively retired from the US Air National Guard and replaced with F-35 at a rate of a squadron about every 6 months.
@@seannordeen5019 fair enough!
The US doesn't share the good stuff.
Even the F-35s everyone else are getting, are watered down.
Nothing compared to the Block 4 US version which is a hive mind jet with laser weapons, infrared decoy systems, upgraded engines, better stealth coatings, etc.
I think it would be a good time for the factories to amp up their production of both airframes and other parts of these fighters. And that would require a political decision sooner rather than later of making an order, either to be sent to Ukraine directly or to replace those that are instead.
As Voltaire said, "The best is the enemy of the good". While Gripen is an excellent aircraft, and very suitable for Ukrainian conditions, both the ground infrastructure and in having a smaller logistics train, it just ain't available *right now*. Vipers look to be more of a near-term solution, being more readily available and adequate, and that will carry the day.
Where are the spare parts coming from? Where are the crew chiefs coming from? Try reading about the first Allied squadrons to hit the Southeast Pacific. Most squadrons lost 1/3 of their planes via attrition. Either the planes broke down from lack of spare parts, or the aircraft were immediately sequestered for spare parts. Ether way squadrons were quickly down to 50% effectiveness or less. It took a long time for the supply train to become effective.
@@Caseytify The spares come from the same place that they are currently coming from, just with an extra step to Ukraine. These aircraft are operating now, parts are available now. Ship them. More parts available at Amarg if the US will let them go. Crew chiefs can be trained while the pilots are training. Ukraine is also advertising for foreign pilots and maintainers. This is hard, not impossible.
@@Caseytify Explain to me how the Ukrainian's have any choice? They are running their stocks of S-300's down and once they are gone, they are gone, they cannot be replaced as they happen to be at war with the builders of the missiles, and the West has no comparable ground based system.
Ukraine is likely going to be out of S-300's by the end of the year at the latest, and the ONLY option we have to cover the loss of that critical system in their Air Defence System is Western Aircraft with Western LRAAM's such as Meteor. Its the only thing we have that will cover the loss of that capability.
And this I feel is something that people like you are not appreciating, these aircraft and missiles are NOT a 'nice to have' for Ukraine, they are a critical future requirement to replace a rapidly reducing defence system that they cannot replace with a ground based capability.
And that is the brutal reality, Ukraine HAS to solve those problems literally because THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.
@@Caseytify The F-16 is one of the most produced modern jet fighters, sold around the world. There are spare parts, especially since a lot of European countries transitioning to the F-35.
I assume crews are being trained at the same time as the pilots.
F-16 hotpit or quickturn, minimal time on the ground just fuel rearm and go. This is done all the time made the day go by quickly. With a 16 you can rack up some quick numbers other airframes are ground down by attrition (Code 3 on landing, shutdown, simpathy abort) not the 16...she is a warrior and Code 1 Bandit, in my humble opinion.
JAS is refueled in 20 minutes and an engine swap is made in 1 hour. 800 m runways on local roads as dispersed airbases is perfect for Ukraine. Sweden knows Russia knocks out airports first, which makes F-16 grounded. JAS was tailored for a Russian invasion. JAS for Ukraine! 🇸🇪❤️🇺🇦
I like gripen so much. This machines are beauty
About Belgium, they will have 5 next month (July) but I assume they are stationed in the US, for training purpose, although our better pilots already had their training for the F35B we ordered 35 of them. Don't forget they are not prioritized, because we have an agreement with the Netherlands for guarding the entire Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) and the North Sea region, the Netherlands are the mightier part of the alliance. So it's fair to say the needs there are more important. I think that's the reason they have a decent number of the F35s
Great coverage of the challenges. keep up the great work.
Any thoughts on fixed vs temporary bases/runways impact of such airframes in Ukraine?
I heard from some source that F16's are very 'delicate' when it comes to runway abstractions, making it challenging to take-off/land in temporary 'field' runways, of which Ukraine must make use of to avoid Russians from bombing the equipment. Not sure of this claim accuracy.
F-16 requires good runways, esp. compared to Gripen (see gear and engine air intake placement for two examples why). I am not familiar with the state of Ukrainian runways as I keep running into conflicting information. Gripen on a pure platform level, does provide more and easier basing and dispersal options on and off active airfields provided a stretch of solid concrete at 800x16m can be found.
I'm sure Ukraine can repave runways and sections of road as needed. Road work is not rocket science.
@@SmedleyDouwright You're correct, it isn't. But it's also visible to satellites flying overhead of which Russia has a fair number. As always there are no easy solutions.
@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 None, but there are a lot of roads and Russia hitting the road is a 10-20% thing and not one they can sustain as they'll need to keep hitting that road every 2 days.
Come to think of it, Ukraine needs to put a rush on that road/runway construction thing.
Make it as visible as possible including painting runway signs on the road even if the road repaving/reinforcing is not yet done.
It’s become quite clear that the production capabilities of the allies from WW2 are a thing of the past and modern weapons either cannot, or will not be produced in such quantity ever again.
This has implications on a global scale that if your country is invaded tomorrow, there’s no supply help coming, you fight with what you have available on hand that day. The logistics of bringing such modern weapons to the battlefield requires years of planning, not months. NATO countries should take notice and adjust their policies and budgets today, China is arming themselves as is Iran, and if one of the dictator run nations decides they can take away your land, they will because there’s nothing you can do about it if you didn’t make preparations many years beforehand.
In CZ there is an initiative from the DOD to move away from Gripens C to F-35As as the lease is coming to an end. If supplies of F-35s would be prioritise to CZ, after the decision is made on CZ side, a whole squadron of JAs-39Cs can be freed very quickly.
Grippen no doubt is a better fit, but the numbers just aren't available. One thing I am confident in, is Ukraine's ability to put to good use anything they are given. Great video and analysis as usual.
You are confident ah 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Last I heard, Sweden is not replacing Gripen C with E, but expanding their airforce with Gripen E, using C and E alongside each other.
What exactly am I missing? Where is the downside to the Gripens low logistical footprint, short field performance, etc?
That they can’t be supplied until 2024/5. That’s quite a drawback.
@@MsZeeZed well, yes that is a pretty big drawback. But what I am asking, is why are the eurofighter, f16, etc not like that?
@@andrewpease3688 Sweden's old plane "Viggen" were also designed to be used in this way and our country only have so many runways and budget so we designed our planes so they could be hidden in pretty much a local barn and take off on a normal road when needed to make it way harder to pin point where we keep pur planes in a conflict! The main goal has always been total defence
@@dirreeN but why?!
@@dirreeN the harrier had a serious price to trade, but it seems to be free for the Gripen
I don't understand how sweden is going to/can give gripens to ukraine when saab builds/upgrades a few of these planes per year. the best case scenario for the gripens is a dozen or so in 3-5 years.
Sweden have orderd new build Gripen E, so there will be a surplus of older Gripen C, a smale number of Gripen C can anilate the rest of the Russian Black Sea fleet. The whole purpose of Gripen was to sink the Russian invasion fleet.
@@kirgan1000 the planes were ordered years ago, the production lines opened around last year. i'm not sure they've produced even a small squadron of gripen Es by now.
@@kirgan1000 if they're producing Gripen Es they'd need to expand production capacity to make spares for the old Cs.
Sweden requires national security including air power. Sweden does not necessarily require Gripens. Sweden could depend, at least partly, on other NATO aircraft. There has recently been created a common command structure for all the Nordic air forces. This means that 20-40 Gripens would not be taken from the 84 Sweden currently operates, it would be taken from the roughly 300 aircraft in the freshly created "Nordic Air Force". However, I would assume that Sweden will not agree to that before full NATO membership.
If the support from the other Nordic air forces would not be enough, then maybe, just maybe, the USN can show up with a carrier. I see the recent visist of USS Gerald R. Ford to the area as a way of convincing Sweden to let go of some Gripens. The Ford is to big to enter the Baltic, or any of the ports on the Swedish West Coast, so a visit to Oslo was the closest they could get.
Sweden's policies REQUIRE Swedish built major equipment because reliance on any foreign power for such makes you dependent on that foreign power and thus limits your national sovereignty.
@@jwenting You have to careful how you break down high-level requirements to lower level implementation level requirements. Both the requirement to produce things domestically and the national sovereignty requirement are lower level requirements derived from higher level requirements. To put in another way, both are basically tools to satisfy other requirements, not really requirements in themselves.
This is key to the analysis. If you're careful about what your requirements really are then it can open up the solution space. With Sweden becoming a member of NATO, circumstances have changed. The breakdown from high level requirements to lower level requirements can and should change. This is all basic Requirements Analysis and Requirements Management, both fields that are well worth the time to study.
@@jwenting If Sweden wants to join NATO, then defense isnt limited to national sovereignty anyway. And its a laughable prospect; Sweden always relied on the west, the whole "neutrality" thing is a charade based on having a bunch of western friends.
@@jwenting yea that was before the end of the Cold War.
@@jwenting national sovereignty have been gone since 1994 when we joined the EU, so we then might as well use that vassal state status for something good and send help to Ukraine, while EU and Nato protect us.
And once we have rebuilt our air force and russia is crushed, then we no longer have any need for Nato membership or the EU and can leave.
I think its not difficult to get Ukraine the jets, it just takes time to hardwire Drone controls into an existing fighter, let alone 30+. The US has specifically testing the F16 openly using remote technology, something similar to the Reaper drones but better and If they were just announcing it in 2018/2019. Its perfected now. I bet you'll see pilotless craft in Ukraine.
One option I have only seen one commentator talk about (Tyler Rogoway and was early in the war), is Romania's now retired Mig-21 fleet. Apparently they are much more capable than what meets the eye with deep upgrades with Israeli electronics, giving them EW self protection, western targeting pods, and ability to carry a variety of Western, Israeli, Soviet and I think even South African weapons. Apparently they still have some airframe hours left. What are your thoughts on using these as a gap filler option until Ukraine is fully geared up with Western fighters? Also any thoughts on recent suggestions on recently retired RAAF hornets?
I should elaborate on what I mean by "gap filler". I'm aware these upgraded Mig-21s won't be equivalent to a Western 4th gen fighter and won't be able to go toe to toe with the VKS. I understand the Mig-21 is cheap to run, relatively easy for Western countries to get spare parts and would be easier for the Ukrainians to transition to.
I was thinking the fact they can take a variety of Western weapons, integrated with the avionics may give the Ukrainians some capabilities they don't currently have until they get Western 4th gen fighters, as well as just more airframes to keep sorties up.
Lol no mig 21s.
It's better not to send anything. otherwise the losses in this war will be huge. We don't even know how it could end
Of the European countries, only Denmark and the Netherlands can supply F-16s. Denmark has at least 43 F-16, only 16 to 24 of them have sufficient lifespan to serve another nation. The Netherlands apparently does not have more than one squadron of F-16s that could continue to serve for at least 5-10 years. The Dutch and Danish F-16 MLUs differ mainly in the radars, the Danish have APG-66(v)2a, the Dutch have AN/APG-68(v)9. Otherwise they are very similar. Belgium (F-16 MLU) and Poland quite new F-16 Block 52+) cannot deliver their jets. If Ukraine were to receive at least 4 F-16 squadrons, the USA would have to add some pieces, or alternatively, they could be negotiated in some Arab or Asian countries. It will interesting to see how the whole issue with the F-16 turns out. It would not be a surprise if the Mirage 2000-9 from the Arab Emirates remained in the game, which are at least at the level of the F-16 Block 50 in terms of modernization and, above all, are actively offered for sale in sufficient quantities..
Gripen would have been a better airplane in every respect for Ukrainians. But there are just not enough of those aircraft in existence for Sweden to provide. F-16 is a prolific platform with readily available airframes/training/logistical support. The Swedes should have tried to at least provide some aircraft for combat evaluation and marketing purposes.
There is a decent chance they would have to either fly low and expose themselves to manpads or stay outside of russian long range SAMS range, same as any other jet. If they get shot down there, that wouldn't be good marketing.
JAS-39 can't use HARM and is in fact also incompatible with most US air-to-ground munitions. How do you figure it is better than F-16 for Ukraine?
so how come f18 isn't the favored option over f16? They take off from and land primarily from carriers so they have a rugged landing gear which I would assume could help in harsh conditions. Australia has offerred to donate 40 or so that are being retired and as a bonus haven't been subjected to the salt water exposure inherent in carrier operations.
Would love to hear opinions if any naval aviators see this, or from anyone knowledgeable about f18s/f16s
It does not matter to the Weapon of Mass Destruction manufacturers and their owners whether to send these planes to Ukraine will be effective or not, as long as they can laugh all the way to banks.
One thing you didn’t touch on (probably intentionally due to controversy) is each options access to potential foreign combatants/contractors.
F16 has many trained pilots and crews around the world. Both active and retired. If one considers even a minuscule percentage willing to contract to Ukraine - many F16 negatives are diluted maybe eliminated.
Grippen is perfect tactically and for this theatre’s difficult operating environment. F16 is perfect in global logistic terms. Neither directly addresses cross border SAMs.
In the end...if you want to make it work, you will make it work. Ive seen too many impossible projects in my life being made. Also, there are so many thi gs we dont know about so best strategy is wait and see.
The best assessment I’ve seen or heard / read on this important and timely topic. Well done and thank you! 👍👊
I was disappointed at the headlong charge forward with F-16, when F-18 has better availability with nations that are more sympathetic to Ukraine and more willing to part with their own jets (Canada, Finland, Oz). Plus, stronger gear and an extra engine don't hurt.
Nothing is stopping them. We are further along possibly sending jets than these countries are. Without being in Nato. The country you are talking about is barely sending offensive tanks so sending jets would be a big jump.
F16's are the go, the reason is availability and because of upgrades they can carry all the modern arms systems, you need to forget about dog fights that was last century, you also need to forget about whether Ukraine can fly them or maintain them because they can do that as good as anyone, we need to get these frames over there pronto
Another option not talked about much, is the Mirage 2000-9. There are several of these being replaced in Qatar and the UAE and the have comparable capabilities as the F16
I hope they are more reliable than French cars.
@@alfonsovelasco9627 Very funny ah ah... French Dassault aircrafts are extremely reliable, you just have to see how many years they remain in service with their degree of availability in the many countries using them.
I may be wrong but I believe they cannot shoot MICA IR, only MICA ER, which is a bit annoying, they may need the upgrade that the 2000-5 has, but beside that they do have the upgraded radar and are multirole. However the range of MICA ER is not as good as recent AMRAAMs. Still, they are very reliable aircrafts but I don't think Ukraine would want a mix of planes, the logistics would be a nightmare.
@Voltaire92 Voltaire92 just kidding.
From the great Ouragan to the amazing Mirage III used in the Middle East conflicts finishing with the great Rafale I have nothing but respect for Marcel Dassault aircaft.
But I hate Renault cars !!
Moot point - there are plenty of F-16s and parts to spare, not the case with Gripen. Gotta go with what you've got
For me the limiting issue is more about maintenance than pilots. As you alluded to Chris, it is possible to train a single role pilot (let's say air denial, no AAR) to an ok standard, in a much shorter time than most air forces' full training programmes. But you can't really take short cuts when it comes to maintenance. So whilst you could focus on 1st line combat support only in the first instance, it is likely that any F-16 would have to be flown back to its parent nation for deeper maintenance for at least the first six months of operation whilst maintenance crews are fully trained. That would definitely be a political hot potato as it would be seen to be the sort of direct combat support that NATO has so far avoided.
As a USAF veteran, I agree with your post.. Everything seems about the pilots. but if there no ground crew, engine, airframe, armourers and fuelers, those planes be it F-16's or Grippins won't fly. On a different note, I don't care which airframe is used, as long as parts and weapons systems can be maintained. It's more about getting aircraft to what Ukraine needs, not wants.
@@VersedNJ Jet's can fly back to Europe for maintenance. I don't see maintenance as being a big problem at all for aircraft. Leaving them on the ground in Ukraine would just invite cruise missile strikes.
For maintenance you can always use volunteers, I'm sure that many people experienced in maintaining the f16 would jump on the opportunity to work as a contractor so the only question is the logistical aspect. Once more patriots and other systems are deployed in UA naturally the amount of jets needed won't be a great number because we are not delusional, UA cannot 1v1 RU in the sky. This capability is required for combined arms
What has the UK got to do with the F16 or the Gripen? I'm just curious.
Basically *uck all mate. The Uk operates neither. And at the time of writing, we can't even fit our own pilots into the training schedule. The uk military is a hollow shell of it's previous self.
I feel like we need to not only specify the aircraft but also the type, because there are large differences between the initial models and modernized version. F16 is one of those airframes that nowadays have little to none resemblance of the initial aircraft.
The question is, what will Ukraine end up with?
Not sure. The Dutch F16 are A and B model, with the MLU upgrade. Very old aircraft from the 80s, with modern avionics and missiles. I wonder how much maintenance they require to keep in working order
He did specify version in the video.
@@AlexKall Insofar as that it's not clear which version will end up being transferred.
I really hope Ukraine gets current models, especially with the latest reports that USAF hopes (re-)training could be as fast as 2 month.
Which version in South Africa? They have 20 or 21.
Gripen
39C
Dear CIA,
I am forming a PMC that will contain experienced F-16 pilots and maintainers. Please fund me and we can then ship F-16s to Ukraine immediately without this pesky training problem.
A few comments to add. Using untrained pilots for F-16 may produce a crop of trained aviators more quickly. The F-16 flies very differently from other aircraft due to five factors. Sidestick controller with very little movement, airframe attitude that is nearly in stall mode at all times, an inclined seat that allows higher G-forces, a completely different training/ doctrinal approach, and maintenance training requirements. To my knowledge, there is no way to separate air-to-air and air-to-ground pilot training. The school is one. As you point out, logistics is very complicated. There would have to be a PMEL, hydrazine, and avionics facilities close to the action. And, as a small airframe, there is a tradeoff between sortie length and munitions load. I have seen no mention of aerial refueling capability in Ukraine's ask. As the F-16 is not an air superiority fighter, there would be no powerful fighters to fly overwatch while Falcons (sorry, I am old school) get down in the dirt. Warsaw pact fighters are not equipped with secure comms or compatible IFF systems. Most of the IFF systems of SU aircraft have been in the OFF mode so far. Any mix of A/B and C/D would be a logistical nightmare. Different avionics LRUs and test stations, powerplant, etc. The last operational F-16A in the US inventory flew in 2007, so good luck finding training, maintenance equipment, and spares. So, where will they come from? Gripen, being simpler is the best bet.
Ukraine’s fighter jet needs are:
1) deep strike, a western platform to carry long range air to surface weapons like Stormshadow and Scalp
2) defensive counter air as they’re surface to air munitions are continually attrited
3) SEAD to neutralize enemy surface to air system, such as with HARM
4) direct action close air support as their SU-25 fleet is continually attrited
The clear roadmap for increasing their capabilities is to get used F-16a models from allies and establish the logistics train in Poland and the west of the country. The F-16 is the platform for this war. Once Ukraine has regained its independence and hopefully become a NATO member, they could benefit from buying brand new Gripens in the future. While the F-16s would represent their older platforms with stronger logistics support in the west of the country, the new Gripens could be largely based as frontline fighters in the eastern areas closer to Russia. Having your newest and best fighters based in the east and able to operate on austere conditions and utilizing the same tactics the Swedes developed for taking off and landing from highways and minimal maintenance crewing would make sense in the future. F-16 for winning this war and a high low fleet mix of F-16 and Gripen in the future 👍
Needs 3 and 4 are not remotely realistic in the short-medium term and 1 is already being carried out by their existing Su-24 fleet.
As for 2, there may be some utility to forcing longer standoff ranges but this is not a game-changer
@@teenybopper777 So then I guess by your logic there is no need for fighters at all.
Maybe the way to go is a semi-clean sheet design on a rush basis. Design something specifically for Ukraine and countries in a roughly similar situation, design for off-the-shelf technologies, turnaround to initial flight, ease of manufacture, supportability, etc... In other words, completely reverse the recent trend for example of F-35 taking 22 years from pen-to-paper to flying in the fleet. It was doable for decades and with modern techniques should be doable now. Share resources across NATO and get something produced.
I'm reminded of a comic book, in which Buck Danny and Sonny Tucson are enlisted in a Squadron of F-16's and surreptitiously bomb the living crap out of Serbs in the Yugoslavian war during the 90's. (Episode 46) It gave a lot of reasons why they used F-16's. It's the most commonly flown jet fighter, it has multi role uses, it's weapons systems are NATO based and you can find pilots to fly it just about anywhere in the world. It also gives deniability to nations. Which is something to keep in mind seeing as NATO and Russia are very strict about not engaging with each other. If for whatever reason NATO would want to be able to deny sending pilots of other nations to fly for the Ukrainians, like The USSR and China denied sending pilots to fly MiG's for North Korea during the Korean War, it would help if Ukraine would already be flying F-16's...
War isn’t something that comic books accurately describes, except to the mind of a child lmao
@@deedeeramone34 You obviously haven't read the right comic books then. If you're thinking of superman or the fantastic four, sure, i can go along with that. But plenty of graphic novels exist that show the bleakest and grittiest examples of warfare. But i wasn't referring to realism, but to the scenario of using F-16's in a clandestine role.
You hit upon the real world problems with transferring any modern fighters to Ukraine. Training, logistics, and support. Ukrainians have been very motivated to learn the new equipment that they currently have or will soon have which is a plus. They have been hindered by the reluctance, primarily from the US, to transfer F16's. I can't help but think this would be much further along if the US just bit the bullet and commit to transferring the F16's. At least they are willing to train Ukrainian pilots on the F16 which is a start, if a late one. I like the point you made that while there are planes available on paper, they are not immediately available because most countries have balanced the number of planes for their estimated needs meaning that while they have fighters, they don't have any to spare, or the ones that they do have available are at the end of their service life and are therefore unusable. Many countries are transitioning to F35's but until complete, the F16's they have are not currently available.. It would be great to be able to give Ukraine F16's or Grippens, but at this moment it is not possible. I hope it can happen before the end of this year.
I have been disappointed and frustrated that the US has dragged it's heels on providing tanks, IFV's, artillery, HIMARS, MLRS, and fighter jets. If they had sent a lot of that equipment much earlier, Ukraine might be in a better position than they currently are. However, the US and it's allies have not been structured for fighting a conventional war, rather it has been structured for small regional conflicts that don't require massive quantities of munitions in particular but also spare equipment. So some of the "foot dragging" may actually be due to not having sufficient munitions and equipment readily available. This war caught NATO and US allies by surprise in that they quickly realized they did not have munitions and supplies for more than a few months of steady conventional warfare so they have been playing catch-up trying to provide supplies to Ukraine.
Well, it was difficult to send Abrams, Challenger and Leopard. It was also difficult to send MLRS, before that - M777. I love you and your channel, but you're German, after all😛
Jokes aside, maintenance difficulties of F16 and the benefits of Gripen (which I like very much too!), do you think maintenance on decades-old MiG-29 and Su-25 airframes in an active warzone is easier? It's just different. Just supply the planes, train the pilots and mechanics & bring the spare parts to the Polish border - leave it to Ukrainian/Eastern European/Post-Soviet ingenuity.
I understand that Russian/Soviet cockpits are practically prehistoric. Functional but very old technology, maybe even dials and switches.
Except for the very earliest F-16, all NATO aircraft have at least some digital readouts. Controls are different, supposed to be more capable and easy to use if you know how but means a lot of skills in Russian jets isn't transferrable to NATO jets. Additionally, unlike NATO equipment sent to Ukraine so far, it will be absolutely imperative that Ukrainian pilots be fluent in English to read the manuals, bulletins and controls. Flying a high performance aircraft is a lot more complex than operating a HIMARS or a MBT.
@@tonysu8860 True, but these are still experienced Fast Jet pilots. We are not talking about training new pilots from nothing, these are experienced pilots with combat experience. Which means conversion training will be relatively short. The USAF has already stated that conversion training for current Ukrainian military pilots will be approximately four months. They have already had several Ukrainian Pilots literally to work out how long conversion training would take. So that is not an unknown there.
Four months is not really that long, and multiple nations have already had Ukrainian pilots for cockpit training at the minimum, so there are probably already twenty or so Ukrainian pilots already trained on Western style cockpits at least, which will simplify their further training significantly.
Twenty pilots will definitely win the war.
Just like Steiner’s counter attack.
@@deedeeramone34 Dude, in Ukraine's position, fighting on home turf, under Patriot cover and against the outdated, semi-depleted, semi-professional Russian VKS, 20 modern F16s with modern A2A and HAARM missles is a big deal.
Besides, Zaluzhny's counterattack is not Steiner's and Zelensky is not Hitler. Referense: Kharkhiv and Kherson counteroffensives.
Watching this I started wondering what happened to the Viggen that were taken out off service. Would there be some knocking about that still could be made airworthy?
What about F-16s stored in the desert? How many might be sitting there that could be made battleworthy in a reasonable time frame? Airworthiness to a point where Ukrainian tablet-hacks are possible might be all they need to get going, with upgrades to follow.
One of the (potentialy) downsides of the F-16 is the (potentialy) to confuse it with the I-16 that Russia may (potentialy) pull out of storage soon.
Just out of curiousity, what happened to all the Gripen A airframes that were NOT converted to Cs? Are they still in storage or were they reduced for spare parts?
Cut up for scrap and spares.
@@mytube001 Thank you.
For once people can't be mad at Germany for refusing to send arms to Ukraine.
Except I understood that even now it's not Germans sending anything, but just Germany gave their approval for it.
Who in Europe could get mad at Germans? 😹
@@MsZeeZed Racist?
@@gerhardkoster9485 They hate white people?
@@gerhardkoster9485 How is that racist? Are Germans a separate race from other Europeans? Some kind of Übermensch?
that was so kool to see my old 18Cs (VFA-94) at the beginning (0:09)of the vid. the paint scheme is after i left the squadron, tho. we were NH and 400s when i was there.
We hear a lot about fighters but for ground attack although this won’t make a perfect replacement for the su25s. It is still very useful and that is the L139.
I think this will be a very very good replacement although that’s a stretch for su25s if the active fleet of su25s begins to get worn down from combat losses.
Love the video, very informative, covered a bunch of things about European military flight logistics that I didn't know about. But I have a criticism that doesn't have to do with the substance of the video: you have a fairly soft speaking voice, and the transition music comes in significantly louder than the rest of the video. It's a bit overpowering compared to the talking portions (which is what we're all here for).
The only realistic option is for the planes to operate from Nato airfields with volunteer pilots. In the Korean War, Soviet pilots flew Migs from Chinese airfields. We have already seen what happened to the SU24s delivering Storm Shadows destroyed on the ground
Indeed.
something that I always found intresting is that the first real push for sending F-16s happend about as long after the start of the war as it would take to train the pilots. Like I have no evidence for this position but I would not deem it unlikely that NATO has been training pilots in secret for atleast some time.
We do almost nothing in secret, certainly not training pilots. Ukraine pilots could be trained well in 4 months,private parties could be hired for maintanece. A small number of Grippens,would be most welcome to provide immediate air cover.
@@paulbedichek5177 Just wonder how you know how much we do in secret
The idea that either Brazil or South Africa would send jets is politically dead.
These people are delusional and pretty uninformed on this conflict.
@@deedeeramone34 They should stick to jet talk lmao
A group of Ukrainian pilots have already been assessed by instructors in the US on the F-16 simulator. The report stated that the pilots would be trained in 4 months. The main problem was language since everything in the aircraft cockpit is in English. So the training is already underway and by the time the political wrangling over the aircraft is done the pilots will be ready. Four months not nine. The F-16 will be in Ukraine in the Fall.
Four months was the time needed to train the most basic mission within visual range.
To do a full suite of all mission types was 6 months or more.
The war will be over by then.
Great video, Chris. Thanks. Thanks to its availability in large numbers the F16 seems to be a first hand choice. But looking at which overall system that would suit the current needs, the Gripen seems to be the best option. Base dispersal, logistics and fast turnaround are crucial key factors. Beside that, the F16 will need to operate from fixed bases requiring adequate air defence resources when the bases will become high priority targets.
@@phillipbanes5484 Haha I love all these fantasies about jets etc. I mean, it's not gonna happen but what's strange is the orgasmic rapture about the potential. I guess we just don't give a shit about nuclear war anymore. Okay fine. But I for one don't want that for Europe. The Americans sure as shit seem to want that which is also strange. Because they are purportedly allies. Unless it's about diffusion. I.e. let Europe absorb the hits and then just ghost the whole continent. The Russians have already said they'll target the airfields if we send jets. Even if that airfiled is in say, Poland or romania or whatever. Okay so fly them from the highway. Which highway do you propose? If in Ukraine they'll be found and bombed pretty quickly. It's clear the Russians, contrary to what the NYT and the BBC would have you believe, aren't stupid or incompetent. If they manage to fly they'll be shot down. Russians have thousands of aircraft and layered defences. What's 24 jets going to do? Well probably not much. Other than escalate to the point where the Russians now start bombing airfields in Poland or Romania. And how is that good for Europe? Now, putting the whole boasting thing aside, Ukraine did not shoot 6 out of 6 hypersonic missiles out of the sky like they claim. Russians aren't running out of missiles either (like the Guardian or the BBC constantly yap on about). Ukraine has no pilots either. So doing the math on all this and how is any of this supposed to work? All this just strikes me as wishful thinking. If realized we could all end up dead. But I don't see how it can be realized. But people on here still fantasize that it be realized. What a bizzarre f**ing time to be alive.
As so often the procurement of military hardware is a political question first and foremost. For many reasons, the F-16 is a much more politically viable jet to send to Ukraine. F-16 will be replaced by F-35 in many countries, a lot of inventory is basically looking for a new home already. Relatively, there is a lot of supply and little demand for the F-16. The situation surrounding the Grippen is totally different. Sending Grippen is politically much more difficult. Countries like South Africa and Brazil are certainly not amongst the strongest supporters of Ukraine (both are of course BRICS countries). This is a political question and politics follows the path of least resistance which is F-16, there can be no question about that.
Mirage 2000 is an obvious pick that somehow gets left out of discussion
The mirage 2000 is complex, outdated and not a great BVR let alone dogfighter by any means
@@andrasbrnk7863 The most recent upgraded versions are OK, they are good dogfighters but that is not the issue. True, MICA ER do not have a great range but they are still Fox3 and better than current Ukrainians missiles, and they are multirole (can fire SCALP and guided bombs). They also have a much shorter take off and landing distance than F16. But Ukraine needs a single airplane, not a mix.
Also it deserves to think in terms of geopolitics, Brazil and other nations are pushing for a ceasefire, one that maybe sending Grippens might be perceived as making things worse... invited to send ammunition to German tanks, Brazil declined... and the alliance of tech transfer to Brazil as well as partnerships might come into play in the sending of Grippens to the battlefield ( as opposed to selling Grippens in the future peacetime after the conflict is done, for self defense purposes ). Those fights might come into a future scenario of defense, rather than the current conflict.
I prefer the option that never gets mentioned in the mainstream media - the option of sending them nothing.
Yeah really because most of the stuff they get is "lost in shipment" aka they sell it on the black market
bedtime ivan.....off you go
"colderwar" is an absolutely ironic screen name.
@@bonvoyage5377 I bet you're on your 19th booster shot as well.
@@infernoking7504 That white powder isn't cheap you know...
A great, enjoyable video and informative video. You produced a well written discussion here mate.
F16 and Gripen aren't the only two good options. I'm an Aussie and more people need to be publicly discussing our 40 or so upgraded FA18 Classic Hornets that we currently have moth-balled with no apparent overseas buyers. They come with spares and haven't spent a life at sea like many retiring US aircraft
The Aussie Hornet option has been written about on the WarZone and the Aussie Financial Times. Why it gets ignored is beyond me since these planes are actually available. Yes they might need refurbishing and some upgrades - but that could be done by the Aussies or the US or the US Aggressor contractors that do this stuff all the time - one of which was supposed to be buying the Aussie Hornets in the 1st place. Again - it's all in the above articles. UA-cam doesn't allow you to link articles - but you can Google them.
Australia has 40 F-18 (Hornet) surplus to requirement with spares. Having been used by the RAAF they would be in excellent order. They are for sale. In the late 1980's the surplus French fighters were sold in a 'fire sale', very cheap, to Pakistan. This caused serious diplomatic problems with India. Giving these to Ukraine would solve any end user problems except to Russia.