the F-16 is low cost, high effectiveness. It was built to be produced en masse for NATO to reasonably counter the Red Airforces while retaining better individual advantages. The Falcon can do just about anything it needs to, a good step up from planes like the SU-25 Ukraine is fielding now.
With all of that flight maintenence and infastructure needed, I don't see how it's possible. How are they even going to get these things in the air when the runways in Ukraine weren't in a great condition when they where built, let alone how they are right now. Suitible for a Flanker, Fulcrum or Frogfoot sure but how is a Falcon with those weak gear legs going to cope with them? On top of that you have the issue of it being an incredibly thirsty aircraft with a very small range, which in a large country would mean basing aircraft close to the frontline.
@@yumyunrangLOAL Ukraine has plenty of quality runways left, even close to the front lines. The F-16 not only has external fuel but can take off from short or rough runways, it was built at the peaks of the cold war for total peer to peer warfare and took virtually everything into consideration
@@teatanks6481 Yeah Ukrainian runways just aren't quality, especially the taxiways, plus the main issue with keeping them close to the front lines is making them easier attacks for Russia to carry out. Giving up 2 or 3 hardpoints in favour for very heavy fuel tanks that would need to be jetisoned nearly every flight when going into dangerous airspace is not exactly a great thing when the Ukrankains could use those hardpoints for much more important things like jammers, HARMs and JDAMs. Also the F-16 was designed at the start for one thing, and that was dogfight performance, the first officially 9G rated jet airframe. Early Falcons didn't even have AIM-7 support, only a handful ever even could carry it, and the AMRAAM was still a few years off by then, not to mention that a lot of early F-16s lacked air to ground munitons completely. Still a great plane, but in the case of operarting in Ukraine it would mostlikely have short comings, especially since the airframes that they'd get would probably be ex European ones from countries like Denmark which underneath are just F-16As
Agreed. As with Bradleys - this is a piece of tech that was created to directly oppose soviet/russian equipment. So it will be invaluable to Ukraine now.
@@jeraldkozey6095 It's not at all trash, it's just unsuitible for Ukraine's use case, what they need is eastern bloc aircraft since they would be way better at operating within Ukraine than most western aircraft
Last year RUSI was recommending that the Saab Gripen be sent to Ukraine instead of other western fighters like the F-16 and F-15 which need long runways and have higher maintenance requirements. The Gripen with its rough field capabilities and low maintenance requirements would be more suited to Ukraine, but if they aren't available and we do start sending F-16s then we also need to send the air defense systems to protect the fields they are based at. Russian long range missiles are still a very real threat.
There simply aren't enough Gripens available that could be sent to Ukraine. The F/A-18 Hornet has similar short take off & landing performance and can be maintained at small dispersed airfields. The Finns operate their Hornets in a very similar way to how Ukraine is currently operating their Su-27s and Mig-29s. The most important thing about the Hornet though is that there are way more jets that could be sent to Ukraine as compared to the Gripen.
you can feel the frustration of Ukraine. All the talk of training and logistics. So start NOW! Yesterday! like he said at the end, when war is at doorstop training time is cut and these would be super experienced fighters. They could have at least trained them in secret and if they decided not to go ahead with it then at least it would lay the ground work for the future.
I don’t see why the UK and Germany couldn’t send the tornadoes as the UK have retired them so I’m sure some are mothballed and Germany still have some operational I believe so would be a good plane to send also
I don't see why all these decisions are taking so much time to be honest. Be it about jets or about tanks - everybody knows Ukraine will get them sooner or later. So why stall for time?
@@jeraldkozey6095 becuase its a poltical game of chess. If you do too much at once it it will force russias hand to retaliate in a harsher way, but if you do it slowly, the battle fields evolves and and so do the stakes so the potential risk of retaliation isnt as higher. ITs not as easy as just send everything. especially economically. Also if we send everything that will take a large chunk of ukrainian forces out of operation to be trained. while russian soldiers have no need for training as they know they equipment. Your comment shows quite alot of ignorance to the many factors involved.
@@orvalprosacco1951 Becuase closing the sky means destorying all sam systems in and close to the no flyzone, if nato is to enforce a no fly zone it means actively engaging in combat with russian systems. If a no fly zone was so easy it would have already been done.
@@jeraldkozey6095 because it is a war of attrition. no one is in a hurry to go to the next world, and therefore it is desirable to go to nuclear weapons as late as possible. although that moment will come soon enough.
Even if the F16 isn't supplied to Ukraine, I'd still start to prepare airbases in Ukraine for the use of F16's. Western jets are more delicate than Soviet/Russian jets, requiring a clean and smooth runway and a lot more supporting equipment. If Ukraine starts to alter their airfields to make them suitable for the use of F16's then Russia may think that Ukraine will start using F16's within foreseeable time, forcing them to attack these airfields to prevent it. So if Ukraine makes sure that these airfields are well defended with SAM's and/or rocket artillery, it may provide a chance to take out some high-end Russian hardware. Even if Russia thinks it might be a bluff, I don't believe they're willing to risk to let Ukraine have Western jets at their disposal. And even if Russia does not attack these prepared airfields, then Ukraine has some good installations at their disposal should NATO decide to provide Ukraine with F16's in the later future.
No, it’s giving Ukraine the capability to be a threat to Russian people. We can’t allow them to be able to press Russia, because then it would be US vs Russia. We just need to give them enough to fight, get the money from the world, but we don’t want this to be more than a defense. Ukraine wants to go on the aggressive, and WE CANT BE APART OF THAT.
the MiG -29 is older fighter jets, so the Ukrainian need the latest fighter jets in combatting the Russian latest fighter jet since they upgraded the SU-35 better than the MiG-29.
Sweden should donate their entire airforce so Ukraine can have fighter jets able to land on their rugged airstrips. Meanwhile, the US can patrol the skies while SAAB builds new planes.
Non-starter. How many ground maintenance hours are required for every hour of flight? Where does Ukraine get *trained and experienced* maintenance personnel to keep the aircraft in the sky? You don't simply hand them a foreign aircraft, a maintenance brochure, and send them on their way. This is a western aircraft and completely different from any experience they currently have. This is not a video game. It's real life and much more complex. If you want to bolster their Air Force, you give them aircraft that they already have had in inventory and that their maintenance personnel would already know how to maintain.
The types of aircraft they have are no match for Russian jets. You hand them the capabilities they need to win and solve those other problems. Any other way of thinking is being a loser before one has began.
@@RussiasSufferingInUkraine You cannot hand them a foreign aircraft and expect them to be able to operate it, and more importantly, be able to maintain it without literally years of experience. That is a single non-changing factor that doesn't change, no matter how much you want it to be. If all of your military knowledge has been what you have gained by playing video games, you are woefully uninformed on the topic.
@@nian60 So, these aircraft will operate out of the Czech Republic? Because, they require maintenance after every single flight. Who would refuel them so that they could fly these long flights? NATO tankers? Wouldn't that be a violation of neutrality? It's a non-starter.
@@leisakovacek8965 The US will never give you air superiority.. you could start attacking Crimea, and Russian land. Then America will have to fight this war for you. You have enough equipment to repel Russia. That’s all you should be worried about. Any offensive into Russia will bring our men into this war. And we just don’t care that much!
Viper technology is far superior to Sukhoi SU-27/30 & MiG-29, i seen many Sukhoi SU-27/30 & MiG-29s including Russians, don't have MAWS, digital RWR, Jammers, SAR, IFF, AFCS & SDT BUS( to carry targeting pod & Upgrade avionics). But a normal F-16 (block 50) can give you everything you want in air including things i mentioned up. The SAR mapping is very useful in SEAD to DEAD missions.
It's been a great plane, and still has it's purpose for sure, but I wouldn't want to be in a 40 year old F16, flying near S400 AA batteries. Even the F35 would be playing cat and mouse with the S400. Theoretically The F35 should be able to get within 20 miles of an s400 before it's in danger of a weapons grade radar lock, and The F35 has antiradiation missiles that can hit AA batteries up to 60 miles away, so advantage F35, but............ That doesn't mean that the S400 system it tries to attack, isn't luring it in, and then a different S400 previously unseen, switches on directly underneath, and takes out an F35. What a lot of people don't know is that Russian and Chinese radars can see our stealth planes. It's the weapons lock they have an issue with. So even though the S400 couldn't get a lock until it was too late, it's multi spectrum radar can see it coming, and alert another battery to turn on at the right time. That's my long way of saying, the surplus F16s Ukraine gets, are going to have a very hard time being successful and staying in the air.
The F-16 is a great aircraft, but they need to send A-10s as well. If the Airforce wants to get rid of the Warthog so bad, there's no better use for them than chewing up Russian Armor in Ukraine!
Not to mention, Australia is willing to give away 40 of its F/A18 Hornets since they retired them from service. That could make the numbers well for the Ukrainians.
I hope other countries who still have soviet jets will send them to Ukraine too. It's obvious that while F-16s are a great solution to many problems Ukraine has, they need aviation yesterday, not in 6 months. Soviet jets are much easier for Ukrainian pilots to handle. As for F-16s - sooner or later US will change their mind and it will be the same as it was with tanks. Hopefully it won't take too long for this to happen though. It's obvious that only by using our joint effort and Ukrainian army's resilience we will be able to stop putin from dragging Europe into WW3.
In reality they need FA 18 Growler and F 16s if they are going to effectively counter the Russian air defenses and Air force. Unfortunately there is way too much top secret tech inside the FA 18G for us to ever hand it over. Its the same reason we aren't putting our best armor packages on the tanks we are sending
Yeah the EA-18G is probably the most classified 4th gen fighter in the world just due to the electronic warfare capabilities that it has, incredibly powerful tech but I doubt such an aircraft would be given even to most loyal NATO allies (except Australia)
John H Everyone talking about F-16'S etc. Ukraine do not need fighter's, they ground attack aircraft, send the US's outdated fleet of A-10'S over there, those things will massacre Russian ground forces.
The F-16 has been a great plane, and still has it's purpose for sure, but I wouldn't want to be in a 30-40 year old F16, flying near S400 AA batteries. Even the F35 would be playing cat and mouse with the S400. Theoretically The F35 should be able to get within 20 miles of an s400 before it's in danger of a weapons grade radar lock, and The F35 has antiradiation missiles that can hit AA batteries up to 60 miles away, so advantage F35, but............ That doesn't mean that the S400 system it tries to attack, isn't luring it in, and then a different S400 previously unseen, switches on directly underneath, and takes out an F35. What a lot of people don't know is that Russian and Chinese radars can see our stealth planes. It's the weapons lock they have an issue with. So even though the S400 couldn't get a lock until it was too late, it's multi spectrum radar can see it coming, and alert another battery to turn on at the right time. That's my long way of saying, the surplus F16s Ukraine gets, are going to have a very hard time being successful and staying in the air That's not even taking into account some of the modern SU flankers with multi-scan array radar systems, and electronic warfare systems.
Ukraine should be given all ex soviet aircraft, countries have, and those countries that donate should be reimbursed with f16s. This should have been done already. Ukraine's best bet is Gripen aircraft, which should be done.
The Gripen is more suited but there arent that many that can be spared at this current time. Production times would take too long and Sweden needs the current aircraft in their inventory for self defence
@@slooob23 @slooob23 Swede here. Yes I would be very happy to donate Gripens to Ukraine. You orc bots can't do anything about that. 95% of Swedes dislike or hate orcs.
@@nian60 orc bot? I'm a kiwi bro, got no ties to Russia whatsoever. Just watching you mad Swedes trying to destroy yourselves from a distance. Good luck!!😘
The F-16s would be the best thing in the sky there. 99 percent of Russian fighter aircraft still use 1950's PESA technology, almost none have AESA radars. The F-16 would jam them, see them sooner, and win the majority of air to air battles. SAMs would be their only real worry.
He says more importantly they've been upgraded constantly. Yeah, not the surplus f-16s Ukraine will get. They're going to get F16 AB or maybe D if they're lucky. Not the modern F16V Block 72 S400s will eat those alive. Especially with green piolets.
I’m Soo glad that the excuse of not being able to train experienced Ukrainian pilots to US / western aircraft has finally been exposed for the lie it is. Give them the fighters Slava Ukraini Heroiam Slava 🇺🇸🇺🇦🇪🇪🇩🇰🇨🇦
This video completely ignores the logistics necessary to keep the F-16s flying. Unless other countries are going to send their own trained personnel to maintain the jets, it's a terrible idea to send F-16s to Ukraine. 😕
Final part of the jigsaw to complete Ukraine's objective to kick the Russians back behind their own borders. Let's hope they start to supply these sooner rather than later. The delay with tanks was bad enough.
It's too bad the tanks won't hit the battlefield until March, but they will make a big difference then. We hope that the necessary f16 Ukraine also received as soon as possible
A more practical aircraft for Ukraine is the A-10 Warthog, at this stage of war. Ukraine should be asking for 2 dozen A-10 Warthogs or the new Super A-10 Warthogs. These angels would be cheaper, simplier to maintain, easier to learn and far more effective against Russian battlefield strategy and tactics currently being used in Eastern and Southern Ukraine. They can use a wide variety of modern armaments, even take out Russian radar sites, before the radar sees the warthog. They could even help eliminate the Black Sea fleet. F-16s are great dog fighters and delivery of smaller payloads. The A-10 is the best for ground support and would be great against current Russian tactics, large troop concerations, tanks, and even ships.
I think Ukraine needs A-10s too, and needs them fitted with a .30 caliber minigun pod, or two, under the wings, to take out troops and soft targets more efficiently than with its 30 mm tank killer Gatling. But wouldn't the A-10 be vulnerable to faster Russian fighter jets? Wouldn't an A-10 squadron doing the dirty work down in the weeds appreciate an F-16 squadron flying high cover for them?
The best missile for Ukraine would be the Meteor because All Russian jets would have to keep at least 150 kms distance from any Ukraine jet with this missile! No Russian Jet detected inside 150 kms range could avoid being shot down by Meteor
Russia has R37M missiles with a range of 300 kilometers, the Su35 detects targets of the F16 type at a distance of 400 kilometers and can give target designation for ground-based air defense. S400 has missiles with a range of up to 400 kilometers with a homing head (over-the-horizon interception of targets)
I feel like the long range himars missiles would be better for ukraine, russia has proven time and time again that it can't defend against himars strikes. The F16 while a great plane is very maintenance intensive and in the long term yes they will need western jets but for now the missiles would be better.
That would be great for sure, but I doubt Gripens will be delivered first. In any case Ukraine surely needs aviation and they need it yesterday. It's high time to forget about hesitating and to finally unite in our effort to help Ukraine in stopping russian occupation. Putin can only be stopped with force.
@@jeraldkozey6095 Yeah, even though Gripens is my first choice I will take any Western fighter jets at this point. I suspect the reason my government doesn't want to send Gripens is due to us not being in NATO. It doesn't look like we're getting into NATO any time soon either. So it will be up to others (F-16's or other planes).
@@nian60 Sweden will be in NATO soon enough. We will just have to wait for the election to be over in Turkey. The rest of NATO will probebly but immense pressure on Erdogan to finish the ratification if he is elected once more.
Nonsense. An aircraft is more than just technology and remembering the switches and buttons. The newer F-16 would take more time and more skill to fly due to the technology. Also, successfully using the aircraft in combat is not the same as just being able to fly it. The F-16 is also going to have very different tactics in combat than the Soviet/ Russian aircraft. There is also the big problem of maintenance. A tank or truck can be used and abused, until it fails. An aircraft cannot. Any aircraft given to Ukraine will need to stay in Ukraine for maintenance, because no other country wants to base the aircraft.
Not only f16 even the gripen would also be required for the Ukraine Air force..!?! Even Ukrainian required much support of mig 29 in their air superiority purpose..!
Combination of western tanks and armoured infantry carriers with artillery and jet fighters in enough quantities and time would end the war quicker since taking loading exceeding 300,000 to 500,000 in the next 2-5 years would devastate 🇷🇺.
Yeah, it's clear that F-16s will solve the issue with rusisan air superiority. Sure, their usage requires a lot of training for both the pilot and those who will maintain these jets. But in the end this is what Ukraine needs to stop putin, especially considering that the IFVs and tanks that we are providing need the air support. Hopefully Ukrainian pilots have already started training and pretty soon we will see this decision approved by US and other countries that own F-16s.
F16s are not the right plane needed for the job. They require too much infrastructure and will require even more aid to go along with them in order to stop the planes being destroyed. Firstly F16 needs longer runways and because it has a massive intake along the bottom of the fuselage it needs very well maintained runways. The amount of runways that are not close to the front are limited this means russia can easily destroy these airstrips with long ranged missiles making the aircraft redundant becuase it cannot take off. Secondly if they do get F16 they are going to need dedicated SAM systems in order to protect the fields from missiles and drone attacks. Thirdly its much better if ukraine can get FA18 or Gripen. FA18 is what america is using on their carriers, thus it requires a shorter runway, its airframe is far more rugged due to being used on carriers. Meaning it can be used at almost any runway in Ukraine, The ukrainains could actually even make quick pop up runways to avoid russians knowing where their airfields are because the thing with airfields is your enemy knows where they are all the time. Being able to have make shift runways is going to be key to a successful airforce. Just like with the UK during the battle of britiain.
@@leisakovacek8965 Problem is its not about making decisions about about strategic planning. Working out the effectiveness of using such planes. And also sending them when there is the least risk that it will create a large escallation. For example sending tanks at the start of the war may have made it easier for russia to use their long range tacticle missiles.
@@phillipbanes5484 i never said they require less support. I said that f18 and Gripen are made to operate on rugged runways making them ideal. Yes F16 can be used on highways, but how much highways are there that have long stretches without tolls and security checks. F16 has more downsides then it has possitive sides compared to Gripen or F18, that is a fact.
Su 35 detects F16 type targets at a distance of 400 kilometers. R37m missiles with a launch range of 300 kilometers. The F16 radar is not able to detect the SU-35 at maximum range, I don't know its range, but it will be less than the maximum distance.
@@СерхиоБускетс-ф7я NOT TRUE ! Russian Radar reach maksimum 100 miles / 160 km . At 100 km the front of those jets is very small you have to see the side or full profile . The SU 35 is much larger and quite easy to see then . Ground radars awacs and sattelites will pick them up much sooner
@@jacobschnberg5382 160 kilometers is the Su30SM radar of the first modernization (the same for the F16 of the best modification), the Su-35 and MiG 31 see RCS 3 m² targets at a distance of 400 kilometers. The Su-35 also detects radar exposure at a distance of 400 kilometers. The RCS of an aircraft of type F16 is definitely not less than 3 m². Russian aircraft are armed with R37M missiles with a range of 300 kilometers (US max 180 km). AWACS A50 sees targets such as F16 at a distance of 1000 kilometers. Ground-based radars of the NEBO-M type detect RCS 0.1 targets at a distance of 650 kilometers (360-degree viewing mode). We measured the RCS of the F22 aircraft. If the aircraft and the enemy radar are at the same altitude, then the RCS is 0.1; if the altitude is different, then 0.3; in the lateral projection, 0.5. Su35 or NEBO-M type radar can give target designation to other systems. Also don't forget that US planes won't be able to use the radar because the SU-35 will quickly pick up the signal. What do we get as a result? Even if the US sends the F22 there, they will not be able to use the radar, they need an AWACS from behind (which will be shot down by a long-range missile). F16 and F22 will not be able to fly at high altitude, radars see them at the maximum distance to the radio horizon line. So they will fly at low altitude. This deprives Stealth of any advantage. You are very vulnerable at low altitude. Russia lost only 2 Su-35s, but they were shot down at low altitude by hand-held MANPADS. Also, US planes cannot use Ukraine's bad runways. As you can see, in any case, Russia will easily destroy any American aircraft there.
The Haymars have already proved their worth, and now Ukraine is waiting for more weapons, because this is the only way to protect not only itself but also the whole of Europe)
Repent and believe in the Gospel! Regret your sins and repent! Pray that the good Lord God will help you! Only Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord! Only Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life! The good Lord God loves you and wants you to achieve eternal life in unending love...
@@sharwama992 teaching pilots from scratch is one thing. Teaching experienced pilots transfering from one level of technology to a higher one is far less difficult and takes less time, the more so when suitably motivated in war time.
@@RandomGuy9 it could have been done in the past year. Problem is the lace panty brigade in Washington, both military and political, much of it Trump appointments, which does not want to upset Putin too much.
@@vwtransportersandmotorcycl3729 Harrier isnt even super sonic. The quicker the aircraft flies the higher its chance of survival. Harriers are also incredibly complicated to to use during Hovering maneuvers. Many pilots have been killed due to slight lapses in concentration. Hovering planes would be ideal yes but harrier is a terrible plane for the job and its also very old not has been modernized in decades.
Well it will. Modern jets was always going to be the last thing to deliver to Ukraine. No big secret that their pilots have been training in the States.
Given the state of current Russian vehicle hardware that's been deployed since Feb 2022, surely donations of the F14 would be more than enough for overkill?!?!
@@TheHappyRacket World War III would have started if Ukraine had no weapons. Russia would then have attacked the countries of Europe with all its might. And now helping Ukraine is about preventing World War III
No way in hell the US would give up any of their F16's, way to much classified tech on them, especially the targeting pods. Would make way more sense for Ukraine get Migs from Poland since they are more familiar with them.
A mix of F-15EX’s and F-16’s along with some pretty high tech drones would be better. Their huge radar and long range missiles loads would be more effective in the long run. Add 20x the number of Patriot missile systems, snd and hundreds of LPWS (Land Phalanx Weapon System), and the SeaRAM system, which pairs the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile with sensors based on the Phalanx would help reduce Russias success. Ultimately the US and NATI will need to spend about $1.5 trillion to win this war. Nations like India, China, Turkey, Iran, and dozens of other nations are pumping billions into Russia as Russia sends millions back in bribes to those nations leaders. Chinas Emperor Xi is now the richest man in the world by far. He has stolen $2 trillion dollars from the Chinese people. Putin has done the same but his wealth is closer to $1.3 trillion dollars. These men use war to keep their own populations inline. What’s truly scary is how rapidly they are building up their nuclear first strike capability’s. Both China and Russia believe they can hit the US and it’s Allie’s first and stop retaliatory strikes. The western democracies better wake up.
Ukraine already has decently advanced drones but the f-15 is a stretch not only is do they have some jobs but the Ukraine would benefit more from the f-16 due to the low flying and cas common in the war
@@bennittotheburrito9606 I don’t disagree. I do believe the Ukrainians would benefit from something like the F-15, Eurofighter, Rafael simply because they can fly well past Mach 2.0 (with the F-15 hitting 2.5) with very long range missiles. My experience is with F18’s and F-14’s and occasionally when war gaming F-15’s, F-16’s and much older aircraft like the Italian and German F-104’s. The F-14 and F-15 could see so much further out and could go very fast and on a CAP mission, loiter for a much longer time. What would benefit Ukraine would be a plane that could launch in under 5 min on a ready status (pilot sitting in cockpit or lounge chair nearby) and an aircraft equipped with meteor, AMRAM etc. I’d really like to see a missile like the last version of the Phoenix in terms of speed, range and sensors. Then to supplement/support the fast interceptors, I like something like the Mirage 2000, Saab Gripen, F-16 or F-18. Ukraine is capable of operating these aircraft successfully.
No. Support Ukraine with peer weapons. Provide Ukraine with top notch Russian fighters. Ukraine leadership has been consistently chipping away asking for more and more USA specific weapons. There are plenty of Russian or European weapons platforms . Don’t draw this into an US versus Russia conflict. It’s Russia vs UA. Unless the US leadership formally declares war upon Russia don’t get sucked in.
the F-16 is low cost, high effectiveness. It was built to be produced en masse for NATO to reasonably counter the Red Airforces while retaining better individual advantages. The Falcon can do just about anything it needs to, a good step up from planes like the SU-25 Ukraine is fielding now.
With all of that flight maintenence and infastructure needed, I don't see how it's possible. How are they even going to get these things in the air when the runways in Ukraine weren't in a great condition when they where built, let alone how they are right now. Suitible for a Flanker, Fulcrum or Frogfoot sure but how is a Falcon with those weak gear legs going to cope with them? On top of that you have the issue of it being an incredibly thirsty aircraft with a very small range, which in a large country would mean basing aircraft close to the frontline.
@@yumyunrangLOAL Ukraine has plenty of quality runways left, even close to the front lines. The F-16 not only has external fuel but can take off from short or rough runways, it was built at the peaks of the cold war for total peer to peer warfare and took virtually everything into consideration
@@teatanks6481 Yeah Ukrainian runways just aren't quality, especially the taxiways, plus the main issue with keeping them close to the front lines is making them easier attacks for Russia to carry out. Giving up 2 or 3 hardpoints in favour for very heavy fuel tanks that would need to be jetisoned nearly every flight when going into dangerous airspace is not exactly a great thing when the Ukrankains could use those hardpoints for much more important things like jammers, HARMs and JDAMs. Also the F-16 was designed at the start for one thing, and that was dogfight performance, the first officially 9G rated jet airframe. Early Falcons didn't even have AIM-7 support, only a handful ever even could carry it, and the AMRAAM was still a few years off by then, not to mention that a lot of early F-16s lacked air to ground munitons completely. Still a great plane, but in the case of operarting in Ukraine it would mostlikely have short comings, especially since the airframes that they'd get would probably be ex European ones from countries like Denmark which underneath are just F-16As
Agreed. As with Bradleys - this is a piece of tech that was created to directly oppose soviet/russian equipment. So it will be invaluable to Ukraine now.
@@jeraldkozey6095 It's not at all trash, it's just unsuitible for Ukraine's use case, what they need is eastern bloc aircraft since they would be way better at operating within Ukraine than most western aircraft
Last year RUSI was recommending that the Saab Gripen be sent to Ukraine instead of other western fighters like the F-16 and F-15 which need long runways and have higher maintenance requirements. The Gripen with its rough field capabilities and low maintenance requirements would be more suited to Ukraine, but if they aren't available and we do start sending F-16s then we also need to send the air defense systems to protect the fields they are based at. Russian long range missiles are still a very real threat.
There simply aren't enough Gripens available that could be sent to Ukraine. The F/A-18 Hornet has similar short take off & landing performance and can be maintained at small dispersed airfields. The Finns operate their Hornets in a very similar way to how Ukraine is currently operating their Su-27s and Mig-29s.
The most important thing about the Hornet though is that there are way more jets that could be sent to Ukraine as compared to the Gripen.
rusi is a joke
@@frankrenda2519 id rather use their information then yours.
@@afc8981 I think FA18 Is the best plane to use for ukraine, As the US navy is phasing them out.
We may well deploy our F-16s at Polish airfields
you can feel the frustration of Ukraine. All the talk of training and logistics. So start NOW! Yesterday! like he said at the end, when war is at doorstop training time is cut and these would be super experienced fighters. They could have at least trained them in secret and if they decided not to go ahead with it then at least it would lay the ground work for the future.
F-16s should have been given to Ukraine years ago.
The F-16s would help Ukraine a lot, so give them. Our support is very important
Olaf Scholz gave the go-ahead for the delivery of the Leopards. The only thing left to do is to provide Ukraine with F-16s to close the airspace.
I don’t see why the UK and Germany couldn’t send the tornadoes as the UK have retired them so I’m sure some are mothballed and Germany still have some operational I believe so would be a good plane to send also
I don't see why all these decisions are taking so much time to be honest. Be it about jets or about tanks - everybody knows Ukraine will get them sooner or later. So why stall for time?
@@jeraldkozey6095 becuase its a poltical game of chess. If you do too much at once it it will force russias hand to retaliate in a harsher way, but if you do it slowly, the battle fields evolves and and so do the stakes so the potential risk of retaliation isnt as higher. ITs not as easy as just send everything. especially economically. Also if we send everything that will take a large chunk of ukrainian forces out of operation to be trained. while russian soldiers have no need for training as they know they equipment. Your comment shows quite alot of ignorance to the many factors involved.
I don't understand why they can't close the sky
@@orvalprosacco1951 Becuase closing the sky means destorying all sam systems in and close to the no flyzone, if nato is to enforce a no fly zone it means actively engaging in combat with russian systems. If a no fly zone was so easy it would have already been done.
@@jeraldkozey6095 because it is a war of attrition. no one is in a hurry to go to the next world, and therefore it is desirable to go to nuclear weapons as late as possible. although that moment will come soon enough.
Even if the F16 isn't supplied to Ukraine, I'd still start to prepare airbases in Ukraine for the use of F16's.
Western jets are more delicate than Soviet/Russian jets, requiring a clean and smooth runway and a lot more supporting equipment.
If Ukraine starts to alter their airfields to make them suitable for the use of F16's then Russia may think that Ukraine will start using F16's within foreseeable time, forcing them to attack these airfields to prevent it.
So if Ukraine makes sure that these airfields are well defended with SAM's and/or rocket artillery, it may provide a chance to take out some high-end Russian hardware.
Even if Russia thinks it might be a bluff, I don't believe they're willing to risk to let Ukraine have Western jets at their disposal.
And even if Russia does not attack these prepared airfields, then Ukraine has some good installations at their disposal should NATO decide to provide Ukraine with F16's in the later future.
Then why don’t those multiple nations give the too Ukraine ? The USA has done enough
Pilot training isn't the principle issue. It's training mechanics and weapons technicians. There are 25 maintenance personnel needed for every pilot.
No, it’s giving Ukraine the capability to be a threat to Russian people. We can’t allow them to be able to press Russia, because then it would be US vs Russia. We just need to give them enough to fight, get the money from the world, but we don’t want this to be more than a defense. Ukraine wants to go on the aggressive, and WE CANT BE APART OF THAT.
the MiG -29 is older fighter jets, so the Ukrainian need the latest fighter jets in combatting the Russian latest fighter jet since they upgraded the SU-35 better than the MiG-29.
could help.... lets talk about if they SHOULD.
Sweden should donate their entire airforce so Ukraine can have fighter jets able to land on their rugged airstrips. Meanwhile, the US can patrol the skies while SAAB builds new planes.
1 year after the need, let's start to talk about use.
Freaking pathetic and criminal.
You forgot cowardly.
Ukraine needs more weapons especially Air Force
I think then the war would have ended soon and the Ukrainians would have liberated the territories and people would have stopped dying
Only modern weapons will help Ukraine bring peace to the country and the world, and destroy a huge enemy!
Tx
That's interesting about the russia sam op's not wanting to open themselves up to being detected.
F16 will not be flying over Ukraine any time soon! For all sorts of reasons! That's it.
Non-starter.
How many ground maintenance hours are required for every hour of flight? Where does Ukraine get *trained and experienced* maintenance personnel to keep the aircraft in the sky? You don't simply hand them a foreign aircraft, a maintenance brochure, and send them on their way. This is a western aircraft and completely different from any experience they currently have. This is not a video game. It's real life and much more complex.
If you want to bolster their Air Force, you give them aircraft that they already have had in inventory and that their maintenance personnel would already know how to maintain.
The types of aircraft they have are no match for Russian jets.
You hand them the capabilities they need to win and solve those other problems.
Any other way of thinking is being a loser before one has began.
Gripens can be serviced in the Czech Republic, for example.
@@RussiasSufferingInUkraine You cannot hand them a foreign aircraft and expect them to be able to operate it, and more importantly, be able to maintain it without literally years of experience. That is a single non-changing factor that doesn't change, no matter how much you want it to be.
If all of your military knowledge has been what you have gained by playing video games, you are woefully uninformed on the topic.
You're just an orc troll. You're not even listening to us debunking your BS.
@@nian60 So, these aircraft will operate out of the Czech Republic? Because, they require maintenance after every single flight. Who would refuel them so that they could fly these long flights? NATO tankers? Wouldn't that be a violation of neutrality?
It's a non-starter.
And all the Kings horses and all the Kings men couldn't put [NATO] together again..
America F*** Yeah
Yes but America won’t send the stock
America might not but Belgium, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Greece and plenty of other countries have plenty of spare stock they can always send over.
Russia won't be happy if mighty USA sent fighter jets bro.
@@m4a1z1 @m4 ez Who cares what Mordor wants? By the way you bots really suck.
Their is over 300 F16s in the Boneyard Arizona.
Just saying.
@Ni An 🇺🇦 I'm not a bot bro, I am on Ukraine side
Ukraine Need f 35
Nice to see someone who states realistic conversion times from Russian jets.
Inexpensive, easy to operate and very effective in combat, the F-16 will be a good cover for our tanks.
We are waiting for good news about the transfer to Ukraine f 16, and then there will be good news about the liberation of cities 🙏
It would also be nice to close the sky over Ukraine
ww3 here we come
@@glenda917 In your head
Russia will not survive the day when the whole world, including China and India, will attack Russia
@@leisakovacek8965 The US will never give you air superiority.. you could start attacking Crimea, and Russian land.
Then America will have to fight this war for you.
You have enough equipment to repel Russia. That’s all you should be worried about. Any offensive into Russia will bring our men into this war. And we just don’t care that much!
Viper technology is far superior to Sukhoi SU-27/30 & MiG-29, i seen many Sukhoi SU-27/30 & MiG-29s including Russians, don't have MAWS, digital RWR, Jammers, SAR, IFF, AFCS & SDT BUS( to carry targeting pod & Upgrade avionics). But a normal F-16 (block 50) can give you everything you want in air including things i mentioned up. The SAR mapping is very useful in SEAD to DEAD missions.
I'M going with that !! Sounds right anyway ......
F-16 is one of if not the very BEST fighters ever. Over 40 years of VICTORY in this beautiful and very fast bird.
Rubbish. The F16 has never been tested against a well trained, well equipped tier 1 adversary and you know it.
It's been a great plane, and still has it's purpose for sure, but I wouldn't want to be in a 40 year old F16, flying near S400 AA batteries.
Even the F35 would be playing cat and mouse with the S400. Theoretically The F35 should be able to get within 20 miles of an s400 before it's in danger of a weapons grade radar lock, and The F35 has antiradiation missiles that can hit AA batteries up to 60 miles away, so advantage F35, but............ That doesn't mean that the S400 system it tries to attack, isn't luring it in, and then a different S400 previously unseen, switches on directly underneath, and takes out an F35.
What a lot of people don't know is that Russian and Chinese radars can see our stealth planes. It's the weapons lock they have an issue with. So even though the S400 couldn't get a lock until it was too late, it's multi spectrum radar can see it coming, and alert another battery to turn on at the right time.
That's my long way of saying, the surplus F16s Ukraine gets, are going to have a very hard time being successful and staying in the air.
The F-16 is a great aircraft, but they need to send A-10s as well. If the Airforce wants to get rid of the Warthog so bad, there's no better use for them than chewing up Russian Armor in Ukraine!
Not to mention, Australia is willing to give away 40 of its F/A18 Hornets since they retired them from service. That could make the numbers well for the Ukrainians.
Common Australian W. world away but still helping
Poland has ex soviet stock they want to donate.
I think they've already donated most of it in anticipation to get F-16s in return. Good thing there's a lot of F-16s out there 😊
Most was 'donated' under the guise of 'spare parts' in March.
I hope other countries who still have soviet jets will send them to Ukraine too. It's obvious that while F-16s are a great solution to many problems Ukraine has, they need aviation yesterday, not in 6 months. Soviet jets are much easier for Ukrainian pilots to handle. As for F-16s - sooner or later US will change their mind and it will be the same as it was with tanks. Hopefully it won't take too long for this to happen though. It's obvious that only by using our joint effort and Ukrainian army's resilience we will be able to stop putin from dragging Europe into WW3.
In reality they need FA 18 Growler and F 16s if they are going to effectively counter the Russian air defenses and Air force. Unfortunately there is way too much top secret tech inside the FA 18G for us to ever hand it over. Its the same reason we aren't putting our best armor packages on the tanks we are sending
Yeah the EA-18G is probably the most classified 4th gen fighter in the world just due to the electronic warfare capabilities that it has, incredibly powerful tech but I doubt such an aircraft would be given even to most loyal NATO allies (except Australia)
No need to complicate, just need to give Ukraine the most accessible and easy to learn, and this is the F-16
Olaf Scholz gave the go-ahead for the delivery of the Leopards. The only thing left to do is to provide Ukraine with F-16s to close the airspace.
What's wrong with a MIG 29?
@@user-yp9nz6bs9q saw a mock dogfight between the viper and fulcrum. The mig stood no chance against f16.
John H
Everyone talking about F-16'S etc. Ukraine do not need fighter's, they ground attack aircraft, send the US's outdated fleet of A-10'S over there, those things will massacre Russian ground forces.
The F-16 has been a great plane, and still has it's purpose for sure, but I wouldn't want to be in a 30-40 year old F16, flying near S400 AA batteries.
Even the F35 would be playing cat and mouse with the S400. Theoretically The F35 should be able to get within 20 miles of an s400 before it's in danger of a weapons grade radar lock, and The F35 has antiradiation missiles that can hit AA batteries up to 60 miles away, so advantage F35, but............ That doesn't mean that the S400 system it tries to attack, isn't luring it in, and then a different S400 previously unseen, switches on directly underneath, and takes out an F35.
What a lot of people don't know is that Russian and Chinese radars can see our stealth planes. It's the weapons lock they have an issue with. So even though the S400 couldn't get a lock until it was too late, it's multi spectrum radar can see it coming, and alert another battery to turn on at the right time.
That's my long way of saying, the surplus F16s Ukraine gets, are going to have a very hard time being successful and staying in the air
That's not even taking into account some of the modern SU flankers with multi-scan array radar systems, and electronic warfare systems.
Ukraine should be given all ex soviet aircraft, countries have, and those countries that donate should be reimbursed with f16s. This should have been done already. Ukraine's best bet is Gripen aircraft, which should be done.
You mean the western tax payer should 'give' them to Ukraine.
I'd like to put that to a referendum
The Gripen is more suited but there arent that many that can be spared at this current time. Production times would take too long and Sweden needs the current aircraft in their inventory for self defence
@@slooob23 @slooob23 Swede here. Yes I would be very happy to donate Gripens to Ukraine. You orc bots can't do anything about that. 95% of Swedes dislike or hate orcs.
@@MrFruitstick We have enough Gripen C's to donate a few.
@@nian60 orc bot? I'm a kiwi bro, got no ties to Russia whatsoever.
Just watching you mad Swedes trying to destroy yourselves from a distance.
Good luck!!😘
The F-16s would be the best thing in the sky there. 99 percent of Russian fighter aircraft still use 1950's PESA technology, almost none have AESA radars. The F-16 would jam them, see them sooner, and win the majority of air to air battles. SAMs would be their only real worry.
Su 57 has AESA radars
Russia stopped developing in early 19s. So we can help Ukraine to get their victory earlier by giving them the modern weapons
@@AtrueservantofAllah As stated " 99 percent of Russian fighter aircraft still use 1950's PESA technology"
start de-escalating get to the table and talk
Surrender all ruscist forces in Ukraine, get back to 1997 borders anda pay reparations, it's easy.
If you are so smart, then take the initiative and negotiate with Putin. Is it not clear that it is useless to negotiate anything with him?
Send them now plus 50 A10 warthogs aka the tank killer!
He says more importantly they've been upgraded constantly.
Yeah, not the surplus f-16s Ukraine will get. They're going to get F16 AB or maybe D if they're lucky. Not the modern F16V Block 72
S400s will eat those alive. Especially with green piolets.
I’m Soo glad that the excuse of not being able to train experienced Ukrainian pilots to US / western aircraft has finally been exposed for the lie it is. Give them the fighters Slava Ukraini Heroiam Slava 🇺🇸🇺🇦🇪🇪🇩🇰🇨🇦
Why ukrai wants F 16 - because it wants everything
We still have those Antonow crop dusting planes - want them ??
This is one of the most qualified people on the subject. He spoke on Geopolitics Decanted and I wish more people listen to him more
This video completely ignores the logistics necessary to keep the F-16s flying. Unless other countries are going to send their own trained personnel to maintain the jets, it's a terrible idea to send F-16s to Ukraine. 😕
F-16 is a highly capable 4th Generation aircradlft!
Can't wait to see Ukraine conduct successful sorties on the F16s....
Beware of our mission creeping on , on our weapon systems . Remember Afghanistan . I might be wrong but it's only my opinion.
send 'em
This is a very informative video. Thank you.
Why not combat helicopters? Black Hawks or just rescue helicopters.
F16 is ok .. JAS 39 Gripen is beter
We know that, but Norway alone had 57 F16 for sale in 2019. How many Grippens are available?
Final part of the jigsaw to complete Ukraine's objective to kick the Russians back behind their own borders. Let's hope they start to supply these sooner rather than later. The delay with tanks was bad enough.
I hope for a prompt resolution of the issue.
For Ukraine, this is very important. People die every day...
It's too bad the tanks won't hit the battlefield until March, but they will make a big difference then. We hope that the necessary f16 Ukraine also received as soon as possible
A more practical aircraft for Ukraine is the A-10 Warthog, at this stage of war. Ukraine should be asking for 2 dozen A-10 Warthogs or the new Super A-10 Warthogs. These angels would be cheaper, simplier to maintain, easier to learn and far more effective against Russian battlefield strategy and tactics currently being used in Eastern and Southern Ukraine. They can use a wide variety of modern armaments, even take out Russian radar sites, before the radar sees the warthog. They could even help eliminate the Black Sea fleet.
F-16s are great dog fighters and delivery of smaller payloads. The A-10 is the best for ground support and would be great against current Russian tactics, large troop concerations, tanks, and even ships.
I think Ukraine needs A-10s too, and needs them fitted with a .30 caliber minigun pod, or two, under the wings, to take out troops and soft targets more efficiently than with its 30 mm tank killer Gatling. But wouldn't the A-10 be vulnerable to faster Russian fighter jets? Wouldn't an A-10 squadron doing the dirty work down in the weeds appreciate an F-16 squadron flying high cover for them?
The a-10 is only practical in someone’s dreams
It can go pretty fast and pretty high who made this Kermit the frog
Just keep dreaming lol.
The best missile for Ukraine would be the Meteor because All Russian jets would have to keep at least 150 kms distance from any Ukraine jet with this missile!
No Russian Jet detected inside 150 kms range could avoid being shot down by Meteor
Russia has R37M missiles with a range of 300 kilometers, the Su35 detects targets of the F16 type at a distance of 400 kilometers and can give target designation for ground-based air defense. S400 has missiles with a range of up to 400 kilometers with a homing head (over-the-horizon interception of targets)
I feel like the long range himars missiles would be better for ukraine, russia has proven time and time again that it can't defend against himars strikes. The F16 while a great plane is very maintenance intensive and in the long term yes they will need western jets but for now the missiles would be better.
US is going to provide new rockets for HIMARS that can be launched from 150km. Not ATACMS sadly but still better than nothing.
I also think that long-range missiles would solve the problem with Russian ammunition - they would destroy them.😉
Olaf Scholz gave the go-ahead for the delivery of the Leopards. The only thing left to do is to provide Ukraine with F-16s to close the airspace.
Ukraine needs as many different weapons as possible
Fingers crossed for Gripens. 💛💙
That would be great for sure, but I doubt Gripens will be delivered first. In any case Ukraine surely needs aviation and they need it yesterday. It's high time to forget about hesitating and to finally unite in our effort to help Ukraine in stopping russian occupation. Putin can only be stopped with force.
@@jeraldkozey6095 Yeah, even though Gripens is my first choice I will take any Western fighter jets at this point. I suspect the reason my government doesn't want to send Gripens is due to us not being in NATO. It doesn't look like we're getting into NATO any time soon either. So it will be up to others (F-16's or other planes).
@@nian60 Sweden will be in NATO soon enough. We will just have to wait for the election to be over in Turkey. The rest of NATO will probebly but immense pressure on Erdogan to finish the ratification if he is elected once more.
they wont, end of discussion
Not going to happen...next!
Всім, велика подяка за допомогу Україні !!! СЛАВА Україні ! ГЕРОЯМ СЛАВА ! Виборемо свою свободу разом !
an indian mig 21 shot down a pakistani f16 some year back are you sure ?
Really show up the proof. The only one that did get got was a mig-21
😂😂😂😂 Am.America shi8
I hope for a prompt resolution of the issue.
For Ukraine, this is very important. Every day there are people dying in battles...
Every day Russia kills civilians on purpose. Their airspace must be closed
Olaf Scholz gave the go-ahead for the delivery of the Leopards. The only thing left to do is to provide Ukraine with F-16s to close the airspace.
Ideally, of course, close the sky.
Tanks and aircraft are exactly what Ukraine needs to defend not only its territory, but the whole of Europe.
150,000-225,000dead,500,000wounded,all for greedy,corrupt,USUKNATO proxy war against Russia.
Release the falcons!
because they are being phased out anyway , and very many F 16s have few flying hours left before major repairs
Nonsense. An aircraft is more than just technology and remembering the switches and buttons. The newer F-16 would take more time and more skill to fly due to the technology. Also, successfully using the aircraft in combat is not the same as just being able to fly it. The F-16 is also going to have very different tactics in combat than the Soviet/ Russian aircraft.
There is also the big problem of maintenance. A tank or truck can be used and abused, until it fails. An aircraft cannot. Any aircraft given to Ukraine will need to stay in Ukraine for maintenance, because no other country wants to base the aircraft.
Not only f16 even the gripen would also be required for the Ukraine Air force..!?! Even Ukrainian required much support of mig 29 in their air superiority purpose..!
Combination of western tanks and armoured infantry carriers with artillery and jet fighters in enough quantities and time would end the war quicker since taking loading exceeding 300,000 to 500,000 in the next 2-5 years would devastate 🇷🇺.
Ukrainians would also like a large order of fries with them...
Yeah, it's clear that F-16s will solve the issue with rusisan air superiority. Sure, their usage requires a lot of training for both the pilot and those who will maintain these jets. But in the end this is what Ukraine needs to stop putin, especially considering that the IFVs and tanks that we are providing need the air support. Hopefully Ukrainian pilots have already started training and pretty soon we will see this decision approved by US and other countries that own F-16s.
F16s are not the right plane needed for the job. They require too much infrastructure and will require even more aid to go along with them in order to stop the planes being destroyed.
Firstly F16 needs longer runways and because it has a massive intake along the bottom of the fuselage it needs very well maintained runways. The amount of runways that are not close to the front are limited this means russia can easily destroy these airstrips with long ranged missiles making the aircraft redundant becuase it cannot take off.
Secondly if they do get F16 they are going to need dedicated SAM systems in order to protect the fields from missiles and drone attacks.
Thirdly its much better if ukraine can get FA18 or Gripen. FA18 is what america is using on their carriers, thus it requires a shorter runway, its airframe is far more rugged due to being used on carriers. Meaning it can be used at almost any runway in Ukraine, The ukrainains could actually even make quick pop up runways to avoid russians knowing where their airfields are because the thing with airfields is your enemy knows where they are all the time. Being able to have make shift runways is going to be key to a successful airforce. Just like with the UK during the battle of britiain.
I wish they would make this decision sooner. It really is very important in a war, you can't drag it out, people are dying :(
Olaf Scholz gave the go-ahead for the delivery of the Leopards. The only thing left to do is to provide Ukraine with F-16s to close the airspace.
@@leisakovacek8965 Problem is its not about making decisions about about strategic planning. Working out the effectiveness of using such planes. And also sending them when there is the least risk that it will create a large escallation. For example sending tanks at the start of the war may have made it easier for russia to use their long range tacticle missiles.
@@phillipbanes5484 i never said they require less support. I said that f18 and Gripen are made to operate on rugged runways making them ideal. Yes F16 can be used on highways, but how much highways are there that have long stretches without tolls and security checks. F16 has more downsides then it has possitive sides compared to Gripen or F18, that is a fact.
F16 has 100 miles radar range and can carry AIM-120 AMRAAM !
Su 35 detects F16 type targets at a distance of 400 kilometers. R37m missiles with a launch range of 300 kilometers. The F16 radar is not able to detect the SU-35 at maximum range, I don't know its range, but it will be less than the maximum distance.
@@СерхиоБускетс-ф7я NOT TRUE ! Russian Radar reach maksimum 100 miles / 160 km . At 100 km the front of those jets is very small you have to see the side or full profile . The SU 35 is much larger and quite easy to see then . Ground radars awacs and sattelites will pick them up much sooner
@@jacobschnberg5382 160 kilometers is the Su30SM radar of the first modernization (the same for the F16 of the best modification), the Su-35 and MiG 31 see RCS 3 m² targets at a distance of 400 kilometers. The Su-35 also detects radar exposure at a distance of 400 kilometers. The RCS of an aircraft of type F16 is definitely not less than 3 m².
Russian aircraft are armed with R37M missiles with a range of 300 kilometers (US max 180 km).
AWACS A50 sees targets such as F16 at a distance of 1000 kilometers. Ground-based radars of the NEBO-M type detect RCS 0.1 targets at a distance of 650 kilometers (360-degree viewing mode).
We measured the RCS of the F22 aircraft. If the aircraft and the enemy radar are at the same altitude, then the RCS is 0.1; if the altitude is different, then 0.3; in the lateral projection, 0.5.
Su35 or NEBO-M type radar can give target designation to other systems. Also don't forget that US planes won't be able to use the radar because the SU-35 will quickly pick up the signal.
What do we get as a result? Even if the US sends the F22 there, they will not be able to use the radar, they need an AWACS from behind (which will be shot down by a long-range missile). F16 and F22 will not be able to fly at high altitude, radars see them at the maximum distance to the radio horizon line. So they will fly at low altitude. This deprives Stealth of any advantage. You are very vulnerable at low altitude. Russia lost only 2 Su-35s, but they were shot down at low altitude by hand-held MANPADS.
Also, US planes cannot use Ukraine's bad runways. As you can see, in any case, Russia will easily destroy any American aircraft there.
In an airspace with numerous long range anti aircraft systems how would these aircrafts fight effectively???
Most match to this country (experienced fighter pilot)
Arms deliveries to Ukraine must increase and become more serious. Tanks, planes, helicopters. Ukraine must get everything to reach its 1991 borders
It saddens me that it takes a long time to make decisions. Putin must be stopped as soon as possible. Stop and punish this terrorist
The Haymars have already proved their worth, and now Ukraine is waiting for more weapons, because this is the only way to protect not only itself but also the whole of Europe)
Olaf Scholz gave the go-ahead for the delivery of the Leopards. The only thing left to do is to provide Ukraine with F-16s to close the airspace.
I agree, that would be great.
The sooner Ukraine receives tanks and aircraft, the less Ukraine and the whole of Europe will suffer.
Ukraine had 300 planes, where are those planes?
The Serbs destroyed your F 117. The Russians will eat your F 16. Who are you lying to?
There a lot of serviceable F16's stored in Victorfield than can be used.There is speculation some are being readied for operational use in Ukraine.
Repent and believe in the Gospel! Regret your sins and repent! Pray that the good Lord God will help you! Only Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord! Only Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life! The good Lord God loves you and wants you to achieve eternal life in unending love...
FWIW, it's the radar antenna that becomes the target.
The Poles transferred from Mig29s to F16s years ago. It was not as difficult as some would claim and Poland uses both types of aircraft.
Poland had all the time to do that.
@@sharwama992 teaching pilots from scratch is one thing. Teaching experienced pilots transfering from one level of technology to a higher one is far less difficult and takes less time, the more so when suitably motivated in war time.
It takes 4 months according to the Pentagon.
@@RandomGuy9 it could have been done in the past year. Problem is the lace panty brigade in Washington, both military and political, much of it Trump appointments, which does not want to upset Putin too much.
Don’t give them! Stop 🛑
Time for British Government to lead the way as it did with tanks.
Ukraine needs more air capability in the coming months
No. No one should expect us to lead. Our economy is so low that we don't even have much fighters to give. Plus, typhoons and f35s are to much money
We are waiting for good news from Ukraine when they get tanks. And I really hope that Ukraine will also get f-16s
The aid to Ukraine must increase every day, otherwise this war will drag on and last for years.
Imagine if we had sent all this weaponry to Ukraine at the beginning of the war. We could have avoided a lot of casualties...
The sooner Ukraine receives tanks and aircraft, the less Ukraine and the whole of Europe will suffer.
We could’ve also had ridiculously high levels of escalation and total war.
Yep. Our "leaders" lack of courage cost Ukraine a lot of lives.
The Harrier would of been an aircraft ideal for the conflict
too complicated and too slow.
No need to complicate, just need to give Ukraine the most accessible and easy to learn, and this is the F-16
@@ashleygoggs5679 Too slow for what? Ideal for landing when there’s no runway, ideal for straffing runs and support to ground troops
@@vwtransportersandmotorcycl3729 Harrier isnt even super sonic. The quicker the aircraft flies the higher its chance of survival. Harriers are also incredibly complicated to to use during Hovering maneuvers. Many pilots have been killed due to slight lapses in concentration. Hovering planes would be ideal yes but harrier is a terrible plane for the job and its also very old not has been modernized in decades.
@@ashleygoggs5679 and yet still used by one of the most powerful militaries on the planet……USA🤔
CAS
Biden says no
It's temporary:)
It will never happen. I’m surprised tanks are going over.
Well it will. Modern jets was always going to be the last thing to deliver to Ukraine. No big secret that their pilots have been training in the States.
I'm not surprised. We are obliged to supply Ukraine with arms
I would not give the F-16's to Ukraine. I would instead, give Mirage 2000's and Panavia Tornado to Ukraine.
Ukraine needs more modern weapons. They need to get out from their territory Russian army
@@melidareichert6720 then Europe should arm Ukraine.
or the polish mig 29s
Given the state of current Russian vehicle hardware that's been deployed since Feb 2022, surely donations of the F14 would be more than enough for overkill?!?!
that russian hardware has 110.000 sq km of ukraine with western hardware failing to get it back
@@frankrenda2519 You really need to check your facts, as that's nonsense
@@frankrenda2519 aahahhahaahahah Kharkiv oblast and Kherson says hi.
Excellent video. Thanks for an honest assessment of why we should give Ukraine F-16’s
I wish these governments would stop messing around and give the Ukrainian airforce the F16's Gripens and all the weaponry possible !
Agree.
Ww3
Disagree.... why support a bunch of nahzees
@@TheHappyRacket World War III would have started if Ukraine had no weapons. Russia would then have attacked the countries of Europe with all its might. And now helping Ukraine is about preventing World War III
I hope that Ukraine will continue to get all the weapons it needs to help it kick out the Russian occupiers
PLANES TANKS AND MORE TANKS🎺💛💙💪🔱👍🔰SLAVA UKRAINI 🔰👀= FREEDOM
No way in hell the US would give up any of their F16's, way to much classified tech on them, especially the targeting pods. Would make way more sense for Ukraine get Migs from Poland since they are more familiar with them.
A mix of F-15EX’s and F-16’s along with some pretty high tech drones would be better. Their huge radar and long range missiles loads would be more effective in the long run.
Add 20x the number of Patriot missile systems, snd and hundreds of LPWS (Land Phalanx Weapon System), and the SeaRAM system, which pairs the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile with sensors based on the Phalanx would help reduce Russias success.
Ultimately the US and NATI will need to spend about $1.5 trillion to win this war. Nations like India, China, Turkey, Iran, and dozens of other nations are pumping billions into Russia as Russia sends millions back in bribes to those nations leaders.
Chinas Emperor Xi is now the richest man in the world by far. He has stolen $2 trillion dollars from the Chinese people. Putin has done the same but his wealth is closer to $1.3 trillion dollars. These men use war to keep their own populations inline.
What’s truly scary is how rapidly they are building up their nuclear first strike capability’s. Both China and Russia believe they can hit the US and it’s Allie’s first and stop retaliatory strikes.
The western democracies better wake up.
Ukraine already has decently advanced drones but the f-15 is a stretch not only is do they have some jobs but the Ukraine would benefit more from the f-16 due to the low flying and cas common in the war
@@bennittotheburrito9606 I don’t disagree. I do believe the Ukrainians would benefit from something like the F-15, Eurofighter, Rafael simply because they can fly well past Mach 2.0 (with the F-15 hitting 2.5) with very long range missiles. My experience is with F18’s and F-14’s and occasionally when war gaming F-15’s, F-16’s and much older aircraft like the Italian and German F-104’s.
The F-14 and F-15 could see so much further out and could go very fast and on a CAP mission, loiter for a much longer time.
What would benefit Ukraine would be a plane that could launch in under 5 min on a ready status (pilot sitting in cockpit or lounge chair nearby) and an aircraft equipped with meteor, AMRAM etc. I’d really like to see a missile like the last version of the Phoenix in terms of speed, range and sensors.
Then to supplement/support the fast interceptors, I like something like the Mirage 2000, Saab Gripen, F-16 or F-18.
Ukraine is capable of operating these aircraft successfully.
Next they will eed Ohio-class submarines, Aircraft carriers, ICBMs, Space Programs..
So many orc bots in the comments, spreading BS.
Ukraine been getting whatever they ask and we haven't seen any good these arms been doing
Go give them the jets 🇺🇦! Slava Ukraini! Onward to Victory!
Thanks to the latest weapons, Ukraine is breaking many of Russia's arms supply chains, so only more and more aid to Russia in the near future.
No Ukraine is asking for to much stuff
Second tier. Wake up and fix the situation!
No. Support Ukraine with peer weapons. Provide Ukraine with top notch Russian fighters. Ukraine leadership has been consistently chipping away asking for more and more USA specific weapons. There are plenty of Russian or European weapons platforms . Don’t draw this into an US versus Russia conflict. It’s Russia vs UA. Unless the US leadership formally declares war upon Russia don’t get sucked in.
gimme gimme more more more. no matter how much dis little man gets it
will never bee enough.
It will be enough when Russia is driven out of Ukraine and Ukraine comes under NATO's umbrella.
@@johnorenick9026 Amen.