Ukraine: The F-16s are Useless!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 тра 2024
- Are the F-16 in Ukraine useless, some in the Ukrainian high command thinks so. This is a speculative view about the F-16 in Ukraine.
Join this channel to support it:
/ @millennium7historytech
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Mille...
Join the Discord server / discord
Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/?aff=173
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the UA-cam Partner Program, Community guidelines & UA-cam terms of service.
Here’s the actual quote: (Politico April 3, 2024 4:00 am CET By Jamie Dettmer)
“But often, we just don’t get the weapons systems at the time we need them - they come when they’re no longer relevant,” another senior officer said, citing the F-16 fighter jets as an example. A dozen or so F-16s are expected to be operational this summer, after basic pilot training has been completed. “Every weapon has its own right time. F-16s were needed in 2023.”
And that’s because, according to this officer, Russia is ready to counter them: “In the last few months, we started to notice missiles being fired by the Russians from Dzhankoy in northern Crimea, but without the explosive warheads. We couldn’t understand what they were doing, and then we figured it out: They’re range-finding,” he said. The officer explained that Russia’s been calculating where best to deploy its S-400 missile and radar systems in order to maximize the area they can cover to target the F-16s, keeping them away from the front lines and Russia’s logistical hubs... [quote coninues]".
Je jedno či je to F-16 alebo Su-35.Dôležitý je ľudský faktor.
this seems "italian strike" thing... deliberate delay which acts as not denying it outright for PR, but effectively hampering it as much as possible.
Politico's source: Trust me Bro
AH YES PLEASE FORGET ABOUT SEAD...
No doubt _with the best ECM gear_ those F16s would be able to penetrate Russian air defenses. But what are the odds the US would export the "Good Stuff" like that?
Having extra aircraft in your pocket with extra capabilities is not useless. Will it be a game-changer? Nope. Useless? Nope.
Adding an asset that requires extra logistics extra weaponry just for it to work and when it does work it doesn't do much to change the title of the war I would say that's pretty damn useless and a waste of resources
@@AmirShafeek not wasted for everybody 😉😉😉
It has a potential to be a net *loss* if it consumes more resources to field the aircraft than are gained by using them. We don't know.
@@AmirShafeek
You are not aware that the sovjet airframes they are having right now are very much less capable AND are reaching the end of their lifecycle. The comparison would be F-16 to no fighter jets at all at this point.
And we are not looking at a singular weapon system that would change the war on its own. The F-16 was desperately missing last summer during their offensive. And it could help them today against those glide bombs. Pretty risky to deliver those 70 km range glide bombs to the front, when there are 160 km air to air missles pointing in your direction.
🚩 🇷🇺 👾 RUSSIAN TROLL ALERT ❗
Aircraft is expensive to maintain, expensive and extensive to train, expensive to source parts, expensive to hide/store, expensive to use, expensive to have shot down, but priceless when you absolutely positively have have to kill everything on the land, sea, and air.
"Remember boys, there are no points for second place." - Slider
Just like the Abrams they got, pulled them back already 🤣😂
@@PK-pp3lu A lot of that is down to use case. If you run up on a Russian tank column in an M1, you can look to be destroyed one way or another. ANY tank that is attacked from above by an Su-25 or A-10 is really in a bind. Every tank has a shot trap somewhere. Every tank has a weak spot.
@@PK-pp3lu Tank warfare is obsolete in 2024.
This video is just all wrong
Ukraine's main weakness is a corrupt subservient government being pushed to destruction by the equally corrupt US and its EU partners. Ukraine didn't mind killing its own people for eight years after the US backed coupe and NATO training of Nazis. The only side that has ever called for diplomacy, the only side that has upheld it's agreements to ceasefire and withdraw is the Russians. What happened to Amnesty international's report on Ukraine using human shields, placing weapons on the roofs of schools, hospitals and apartment blocks. What happened to the independent investigation into the Bucha massacre or the bombing of the nuclear plant.....
I support the people of Donbass and Crimea and the support Russia is giving them. It's sad so many Ukrainians have to die for the west to kill Russians and civilians.
Some youtube video titles are useless
99%
By some you mean almost all.
you're hurt
When you can't accept reality you make useless comments like this one.
This video is mostly speculation. Ukraine is running out of fighter jets, and at some point they will need new ones.
In the long run they will have to transition to western fighter jets to have access to spare parts.
Yes. It will be years in the making but Ukraine can’t continue to use soviet jets indefinitely. They can’t order new ones from Russia so the options are to develop there own aircraft or use another countries jets.
It's not like Ukraine is building the air force from scratch. They are using the infrastructure and training in other countries. The equipment, everything is out of country. Repairs and maintenance will partially be done in Poland. By who knows? It will be an international fleet that is stationed in Ukraine (at times). The only thing Ukrainian about it will be the pilots and maintenance crews in Ukraine. Which could change because some countries are probably going to send support personnel into Ukraine.
F-16 in Ukraine was never intended to have a big role in the front since Rus has a masive air defense. The main role of F-16 was always to shot down Kamikaze drones and cruise missiIes, probably drop some JDAM close to the front lines, but they will be playing with fire.
At about 4:00 Greece is keeping its assets in case they have to go to war with Turkey.
The greek goverment will fall the same day if they try to give even 1 airplane.
With friends like Turkey, who needs Russia. Well, technically they are just supplying Russia with a large amount of the resources needed to make artillery rounds and other commodities, but you get the picture.
@@user-rr6vn1ks2yRussian bot
Both are NATO members. Not going to happen.
@@LackofFaithify We don't afraid Russia. There is no war between Nato and Russia. Russian and Ukraine people can travel and live in my country. Zelensky cancelled peace in Istanbul 2022 tell Boris Johnson to fight for Ukraine war. We will never fight for Ukraine against Russia.
Lets see how this ages
As counterintuitive as it may sound, sending less experienced pilots is better than sending pilots with expertise in, say, MiG-29. They already have "muscle memory" set for that type of plane and if sent into a new plane, when under pressure they will have the reflex to do something or try to engage a device that exists on MiG-29. That will cause a delay until they remember new training and new type of plane...
This. Don't have to erase a blank slate.
The Mig pilots are still needed to fly the soviet aircraft. Those aircraft are not being retired anytime soon. The F16 are to help not fully replace.
This comments section is like a party of fan boys and wiki stats.
What matters for the airforce is the weapons available on aircraft and how often the aircraft can complete a mission.
Given the quality of runways, infrastructure and support that the F16 requires, i do not understand how they will be able to operate from within Ukraine. Russia will simply need to damage the rumways to neutralise them. In order to guarantee ongoing availability of these aircraft, they will need to be based outside the Ukrain, and the risk of escalation are immense. The huge reliance on the logistical tail has shown (to me, at least) a glaring weakness in NATO planning. The Swedes have the right idea with their dispersed approach. Its all well and good having the most technologically advanced fighter aircraft in the world, but if they cannot get off the ground, they are utterly useless, and a major drain on resources. These modern day wunderwaffe do look vwry pretyy, though. Without runways, they are little more than insanely expensive paperweights.
No it would not risk a major escalation. It would guarantee it.
@@rosomak8244You may be correct. Having said that, Putin has issued many "Red line warnings", but has done nothing when they have been crossed. There is only one way to find out.
There is a reason Soviets back then and Russians today ALWAYS include austere basing capability in technical requirements. That's why MiG-29 and Flankers have FOD suppression hardware and Gripen is designed to also operate from austere conditions. It seems only Swedes haven't forgotten that airfields can be taken out with ease.
The answer is they wont be operated from Ukraine 😂
The F-16 can land and take off from the road section without major problems. I don't know about Ukraine, but in Poland many such roads were prepared during the Cold War.
Your analysis is right on the money. To use an F-16 in real-time operational duty, the pilots must have at least 800 hours of flying experience on this platform, and there is no way around that. The ground staff, radars, and decision-makers must be familiar and proficient with American and Western air defence, communications, and real-time battlefield management experience to fly missions.
On the contrary they can use the 2 seat variant for evacuating Mr Zelensky in case of defeat
!5.4 hours per week for one year = 800 hours
Yes, the math is right, but 800 hours not robotic flights, it's active training in tactics, aerial refueling and war games in a hostile, heavily contested air defence environment.
@@misterbig9025 hahahaha, if he can survive 8 G's to escape the Russian R-77. He will pea in his pants seeing incoming missiles in no escape zone.
I think this is what Ukraine meant:
- F-16 combat radius vs the volume of missile attacks by Russia and airfield operability. (though they are getting the CFT's installed, which helps)
- BVR performance of AIM-120 (likely A or B) vs Sukhoi/RJ-37m, with no RCS advantages, and high-density of RU theater radar, means there will be no air superiority sorties.
(fly high, and you're S-400 fodder, fly low and you don't stand a chance in air to air BVR contests due to lack of missile energy)
- GBU-53 could be effective if the platform could get high enough, and close enough to combat lines to use effectively, but that's not the case with the F-16's RCS.
- F-16 is not going to stand out in ACM vs Russian gen 4.5 aircraft. It's agile enough to make pilot skill a big factor, but it's not going to be dominant in ACM, particularly with 1 year or less ACM trained pilots.
- 60 aircraft, plus "potentially/eventually" 80 or so more, doesn't represent a particularly major threat vs the Russian VVS.
Main 3 roles it could be useful for:
- CAS, with enough speed and climb rate to be _somewhat_ more survivable than an A-10 vs MPADS.
- Storm Shadow launch platform (of which Ukraine has limited supply
- HAARM platform (of which Ukraine has limited supply, and somewhat weak RCS/Jamming opportunity vs S-400/500)
General-role, or low-tech/cost platforms from the cold war, even with modest upgrades, are not highly survivable or useful in 2024 ...unless they have specific performance metrics with intrinsic value (like exceptional range, payload, or EW capability). F-16's are just not _highly_ useful in 2024 vs. near-peer. Doubly so if they lack some of the latest tech or ordinance options. They make ok "low-filler" in a high/low mix, but they certainly can't perform the 'high' role vs near peer. Gripen-E would be somewhat more useful with austere airfield, greater range, and moderately smaller RCS... but would encounter many of the other limitations. I just don't think anyone is going to significantly challenge russian air power, with gen 4, or gen 4+ aircraft, numbering less than 500+ units (which Ukraine couldn't possibly provide enough pilots for anyway).
The logistics issue is certainly a factor too though, yeah.
Useless? not exactly, no. But game changing? Not even close.
I also agree with Ukraine about how much more useful they would have been during 2023's summer offensive. If treated as a high-attritable resource, they could have at least applied a lot of pressure on the ground.
"2024 Russia is well positioned to handle cold-war-era 4th gen US aircraft in very limited numbers" should not exactly be shocking news.
Anyway, the war is closer to over than western media really lets on. Ukraine is short on manpower and ammunition/ordinance, lacks the resources to lay mines to slow Russian advances, and Russia is about to open a new front, which will spread out Ukraine's resources even further. The days of fighting incompetent 'political favor' commanders, 'imaginary russian supply stockpiles', and Russian 'peacetime' manufacturing rates, are long gone. Russia is out-spending the foreign aid given to Ukraine, by a large margin. Manufacturing supply chain problems (due to sanctions) are largely gone at this point. Ukraine's troop rotations are nearly nonextant, and have been for a long time. They're in really serious trouble. 60 F-16's in hand, with _maybe-eventually_ 100 more, isn't going to have a large impact at this stage. France's "boots on the ground" in Ukraine, though largely symbolic in number, are to help ensure that the war in Ukraine remains about "territory", rather than about Ukraine's continued existence. I'm not highly optimistic that the recent $60B aid approved (moving at the speed of bureaucracy) will be in Ukraine's hands in the form of equipment and ordinance before the war ends.
Thank you Catherine, yours is the most realistic scenario I have seen. Do you think unmanned combat aircraft could make a difference. I would suggest the mq 28
@@mikefallwell1301 They're not gonna send Ghost Bats to Ukraine. Too high-tech. Anything sent to Ukraine will eventually end up in a russian warehouse being picked apart by very competent engineers. And likely the findings will be sold to China as well.
Ukraine suffers from the fact that nobody will send them "game changing" hardware, because they don't want to give examples of truly modern tech (even if damaged) to Russia.
MQ-28's would kinda help deal with the lack of pilots though. I think I see where you're coming from. And they're _very_ subtle on RCS... which would open up a lot more usefulness. Ghost Bats are firmly in the "Keep in case of WWIII" category though.
If 100 F-35's (with good pilots and ground crews) showed up in Ukraine, Russian advances would immediately halt, and they'd probably slowly withdraw a couple kilometers while digging in for defense instead of offense. But again, nobody wants an F-35 that close to russian hands, unless the war is spreading beyond Ukraine. They only get stuff like HIMARS, GLSDB, HCDS, artillery, old migs, old F-16's, low-cost drones, etc. Things which help, but aren't exactly state of the art.
Similar situation in Taiwan. Even without a war, there's a lot of chinese nationals in Taiwan...
MQ-28 (or an iteration thereof) is fairly intimate with the NGAD program... so it would be viewed as very sensitive tech.
It would not surprise me at all if Russia "wins" (forces Ukraine's capitulation, or partial capitulation, in some form) before 2024 is even over. I could even see it happening in late summer.
But the fact that they've had this much of a struggle with an opponent so limited in tech and manpower, should realistically be regarded as "deeply concerning" by any analysts in Russia who aren't drinking the war-time-koolaid. Realistically the Ukraine conflict _should've_ been Russia's "Desert Storm" moment, but it's taking upwards of 3 years and 6-digit casualties, instead of 2 months of air power, a 4-day ground war, and 2-digit casualties.
But it looks like Russia will achieve it's monopoly on the deep-drill fossil fuels of the Caspian basin area. Probably not worth the cost to grab that last chunk in Ukraine though.
The last bit about not seeing the $60billion aid before the war ends is nonsense. The war has already been going for a couple of years and Russian advances are at a snails pace whichever way you look at it - literally a few km here and there at the cost of many thousands of casualties on their side. The US has massive airlift and shipping capability which they’ve already shown they’re happy to use.
@@dutchroll The war won't go another couple years. Ukraine doesn't have that much blood to bleed. But everyone's entitled to their own opinions.
@kathrynck
The actual deal is probably some bullshit like "you'll get 80 by 2030 if they perform to satisfaction*"
Or something along those line's, given that they're only getting around a dozen or so this year and they'll likely start getting reduced in number in no time it's hardly believable to me that they're going to dump that many on em knowing it's all going to be a fruitless endeavour and they're never going to get them back.
I'm sorry but the F-16 is only useful as stand off missile truck at this point. Russian air defence has not been stretched to the point where they are running out of long range AAMs or SAMs, meaning these F-16s (particularly with low experienced pilots) are only able to survive at longer ranges. This means that only very small numbers of high cost weapons are available for strike operations, and AMRAAM for air to air. I completely agree with M7* here: this is symbolic at best and NATO doesn't understand the issues at play.
Nato in particularly by country America have a very clear understanding down to the people who live here we're all aware that F-16 won't win the war for Ukraine to be quite honest we just don't care I don't think my government really ever cared if you claim one as long as the Russian military and economy were weakened in some shape or form I could be wrong though. 🤷🏾♂️
I am of the opinion that the NATO generals know very well what they are doing. Without the West, this war would have been over quickly and the Russians would have had a fraction of the losses of what they have now. NATO is creating a kind of swamp in which the Russian army is supposed to sink. Afghanistan 2.0, so to speak. The propaganda says that NATO is incompetent, etc. Sun Tzu says: If you are strong, make it look like you are weak and if you are weak, make it look like you are strong.
oh they do understand. It's just a PR move for them, nothing more
Yes, NATO support will be F16 bloc 30 and Mirage 2000C RDM, missiles will be Fox 1 and Fox 2, or fox 3 with 30 miles. Pilotes will be rookies. And don’t worry, Russia will be fine. If anybody do understand that truth is no longer available to internet users. We are in a prewar situation. Russia knows it, we do know it as well. Let’s stop pretend. All Europe is expending at fast pace military productions. Plans to double, triple or even more fold production are on the way. So how could it be possible for all of us to have a real view of what is happening? Soon, even budgets may be classified. Millenium is doing a fantastic job trying to explain us what is going on. Reality is like in all previous war in history, we are late, we need time we don’t have, weapons we don’t have, factories we don’t have and shells we don’t have. We need men not available. This is what is happening.
Absolutely nothing indicates Russians are running out of missiles. Recent deliveries to Syria, Algeria. Niger and Iran suggest their production capacities are very high.
I wonder how this video is going to age🤔
Very likely its going to be very stale in a few months time when the upgraded F16s start doing their thing.
@@nozhki-bushait doesn’t matter how good is the aircraft, if there aren’t pilots to fly it.
Probably quite well, the time to have utilized the F-16's advantages has passed. This is a near stagnant conflict where injections of high technology aren't providing the push that's needed.
like how the Abrams aged exactly
I wonder how much uncle Vladi pays per disinformation video. May be a good business.
Not one crew chief or F16 pilot in this chat, and it shows. Just people that can google numbers.
Crowds of fools are rarely successful
No F-16 pilot alive has flown against a robust and comprehensive integrated air defense system with consistent combat air patrols. That's not to say that F-16 pilots wouldn't have valuable things to say but rather there are unknown factors that we probably don't think of asking that will have an impact on the efficiency of the F-16's in Ukraine.
F35 fall out of sky when Sukhoi are neer by ask Israel and Jordan lol..........
@@matteusvirtanen392 Yeah, they did in Iraq, 1991. They absolutely smashed Iraqi air defenses and almost completely destroyed the Iraqi air force.
Ironically, the US was disappointed with its performance in Desert Storm, so they proceeded to upgrade their aircraft, weapons and tactics to address the shortcomings they found.
@@dancingferret6654 - "so they proceeded to upgrade their aircraft, weapons and tactics to address the shortcomings they found"...
no, that is what they told you, so that you could keep regurgitating the same old shite - has it been proven in combat against an equal force ?
Did not understand what "hermit" said.
Same audio was terrible there
Could've done without the goofy nonsense.
Dude, it is most likley a lie...
M7* replied below that its just nonsense. A bit of comedy.
"remember the leopard tanks"
The f16s main use is part of an integrated layered air defence system.
F16s are tactical role. For example youd use a MIG for in and out speed or dropping glide bombs
Mig-23 was a large part of Soviet NETWORKED air defense. As for MiG-31: it was networked with Su-27s from the get go.
someone has a brain
without high density SAM coverage they will be in constant danger to the longer range a2a and s400s on the russian side. They wont get near the zero point contact line. They can defend the airspace from larger incursions but at $50,000 and hour its an expensive prospect. The air bases that will house them will also be few and an absolute magnet for iskanders, They may have success as HARM launching platform i guess but trying it on with anything carrying an r37m is a terrible plan. ukraine needs patriots and lots of them to be able to make the f-16s a viable weapons platform for this conflict in my opinion.
There's very limited number of patriot systems available globally and many countries already are at or below minimum for their national security needs.
Patriot interceptor production is around 500-600 missiles a year. From October 2022 until the end of 2023 Russia launched some 7,000 cruise and ballistic missiles at Ukrainian targets, mostly new production, not stock, plus half as many Geran drones. The current annual Patriot production wouldn't be enough for a month in Ukraine.
What Ukraine would need is 5-10 uninterrupted years for the US and NATO to return to cold war production levels, starting with changing educational standards (150 kilo things with blue hair and a major in lesbian dance theory won't be able to work in factories), and someone to pay for all that. A bit too late in my opinion.
But the problem is, do the west ready to replace Patriot (with costs a lot) each time it gets destroyed?
@@volvo245 there are 300 patriot batteries in Europe right now
@@imrekalman9044 russian bot be careful your sex bias is showing
The guy behind "War in Ukraine" channel said that every flight of the F-16 will be probably a one way suicidal mission ... maybe a bit exaggerated but I guess not far from the truth.
poor guess
then why isnt any other flight by the ukr a dead trip,?? this is misinformation, some make money on that, and helping the orcs
Unlikely. Ukraine has been using MiG-29s, Su-24s, and Su-27s extensively. F-16 will likely be more survivable than any of them, so at the absolute worse they will they will have the same attrition rates as their current aircraft. More likely, the F-16s will be provided with AGM-88s to take out Russian air defense radars and AIM-120 air to air missiles, which will give the F-16 a significant advantage compared to Ukraine's older aircraft.
The AIM-120 in particular will be a huge deal. Currently, Ukraine only has semi active missiles, which require the launching aircraft to obtain a continuous lock on the target the entire time the missile is in flight. If the lock breaks, even at the last second, the missile *will* miss. Russian missiles have their own radars, so they can guide themselves in. The AIM-120 also has its own radar, so it will will eliminate this advantage and give the Ukrainians the ability to fight the Russian Air Force in air to air combat on relatively even terms.
The Ukrainians will be able to use the F-16s to cover their ground forces against the glide bombs the Russians have been so hyped about, forcing the Russians to increase the presence of their own fighters on the front, exposing them to Ukrainian SAMs. Also, unlike Ukraine's current aircraft, the F-16 is compatible with NATO datalinks, so they will be able to coordinate with western air defenses quite easily. F-16s may be able to fire AIM-120s without ever using their own radars, instead using data provided by Patriot / NASAMS radars, or in some regions, NATO AWACS aircraft flying outside of Ukraine. In this case, a Russian aircraft wouldn't know they're being targeted until just moments before the missile impacts.
That's absurd lol. If you just throw the planes out without any prep work or caution, of course you will lose them. No one plans to do that. These people are asinine.
Well OK... here it is, first 6-7 minutes of speech:
ua-cam.com/video/Fytoofdy84g/v-deo.html
Bear in mind that he correctly predicted pretty much every single course of this war in advance. I'm following him from the beginning and he has the most correct predictions among all youtubers that are involved in covering of this conflict.
More to the point is what missile fit they get and what electronic warfare systems they have fitted, if the missiles have sufficient range that reduces the chances of AA missiles getting to them and EW systems improve survivability. As long as they reduce the capabilities of the Russian airforce to be able to drop glide bombs with impunity that will be a win, anything over that is a bonus.
This is exactly correct. The weapons are the most important part. Ukraine still has integrated defence network. A lot of here think all that matters is the sensors on the aircraft.
The Ukrainian airforce still flies missions a lot so they obviously know what they are doing.
It’s not a game changer but working in combination with other weapons all helps defend from the Russian invasion
Polish F-16s have reached IOC Forceval status 3 years since the introduction into service, NOT 10 years. Just sayin
the key is the word INITIAL
Having flown with the Poles. Those Polski's are fine aviators.
Introduction date to Initial operations are not that interesting for Ukraine, Order to Fully operational are what matters.
On paper. Sure. Paper is very patient and can bear every lie.
university alone is 4-5 years for pilots followed by other more advanced training. in 1-1.5 years they can barely take off and land.
There are things it can be used for, but expecting them to be wunderwaffe capable of single handedly bringing about Desert Shield is not one of them.
A fine explainer, M7.
If I heard correctly, I think the Mig 31 radar could see much further than the F-16 and which could enable them to kill them from a distance.
The 31's old Zaslon radar could see an F-16 from 120 km away. Since 2008 the radars received upgrades, now the detection range against an F-16 is 200-250 km. Against something big like a B-1B or AWACS it's around 400 km.
Russia has made a lot of claims for its equipment, most doesn’t perform anywhere near as well as expected. We will see.
@@StillAliveAndKicking_ reducing 70% accuracy to only 6% of the west smart guided missiles...and considering the sanctions against them...i would say that the Russians are adapting and improving very quickly
The F-16s will not be useless, first off, if Ukraine has air defence such as patriots covering them, no Russia aircraft can be in the sky when the F16 is on a mission, the F-16s can then fly closer to it's target, release cruise missiles Which will take less time to reach it's target, others can release HARM anti radar missiles on the same mission to attack Russian air defence
@@Kullgan You mean by buying Iranian and North Koren weapons? Russia relies on brute force and ignorance.
I think they are pissed off they didn't get them sooner. Even Bulgaria received some last week.
Bulgaria would have ordered/bought them years ago and only just received them....
They should have purchased aircraft years ago
I swear Bulgaria is also a paying customer
@@AmirShafeek Very much so, but then some way, somehow, someone is also paying for the training and the jets.
@@icu17siberia Absolutely, but then we couldn't have a proxy war. Plus, the Military-industrial complex doesn't get to build and design shit.
If F16’s are “useless” then why are the Russians encouraging the west to give them to Ukraine as soon as possible.?
Sorry I meant to say Why don’t the Russians encourage the west to give Ukraine lots and lots of f16’s?
🤣🤣🤣
What part of "Bring it on!" Do you fail to understand?
Venäjä ei kannusta, tietystä syystä.
Yep, just like they encouraged sanctions.
As good as the F-16 is, nobody can beat logistics. And the logistics of fielding a new type of aircraft with barely trained crews in the middle of a war are Freddy Kruger's wet dream
Ukrainians won't be flying them.
They're not 'barely trained'.
We're talking already combat experienced pilots transitioning to a new type & new weapons.
It takes 4 years to get a highly competent pilot. Ukraine already lost all of their experienced pilots so why do you think it will be different this time?
@@GARDENER42 the f16 honestly is not an impressive technology better to get more air defence systems rather than f16's at this point , my opinion only tho.
@@SteelheadCrusher who told you Ukraine had lost a majority of its experienced aircraft?
I love it when everybody forgets about sead... BTW tactics matter. If it didn't, Ukraine would have been overrun already.
I heard one time that (some) Russian airplanes have an attached device outside the cockpit for scraping mud off your boots before getting into the pilot seat. It is a different way of thinking, not at all impractical
Hi
Yeah, it's called an airbase with paved surfaces.
F16 is not even capable of taking off from a mud/dust covered runway! The inlet would suck in those particles thus damaging the turbine.
@@killerbeukBecause Ukraine is operating from improvised runways right? Nonsense
Very Russian
The phone call seems in italian language, but probably not related to the subject, were you asking for directions to a
good restaurant?😊
😂
😆
@@Millennium7HistoryTech I could just understand few words I know "destra" and "sinistra".
It takes about 6 years to train operational fighter pilot. Fighter as weapon system is just too complicate that it would be kind of stop cap system.
It would take less time as the pilots are already operational. They just need to learn the f16. It's not far fetched we have pilots that fly multiple aircrafts from multiple services.
And I suppose youre gonna say it takes a minimum of a year to train a tank crew too, lol.
@@user-xp5id1kh4r obviously the more experience the better but after gunnery tables and NTC you're considered trained. That could be less than a year if you're getting ready to go overseas. Obviously some crews will be more experience than others.
Well there are mercenary air forces out there...
Air combat is much more complex to gauge. Yes, they get f16's but in what role. CAP, SEAD, A2G, intercept... What version of amramm would they get? What precision munitions? For sure they'll get much improved situational awareness than on an A version of a mig29 or a su27, but to what means.
If Ukraine is not on the offensive and the a2a munitions are not state of the art western weapons, why? Why send them at all?
The F-16 will have to be limited in its employment. Ukraine just doesn't have the time or experience being the aircraft to use it to its full capabilities, and the battlefield is nowhere close to being prepped for its use. Like he said, the F-16 is only a tool that is used with a lot of other tools to achieve the desired goals and to maximize its effectiveness, like AWACS, EW platforms, ISR, ground support... everything. The Air defense environment is not degraded enough to the point where the aircraft can be used effectively. As everyone said, it's going to be a standoff bomb and missile truck and to get the hell out of Dodge once the ordnance is expended
Isn’t it strange that America has ‘bone yards’ full of F-16’s yet the F-16’s involved in this are all from small NATO nations… we also need to keep in mind that these are upgrades A models.. All they will be good for is continuing the hit and run tactics the Mig 29’s have been used for… but as others have said, F-16’s are terrible without decent quality runways (unlike Mig 29’s) and Russia has finally taken it’s gloves of and will keep the UKr airbases on notice of being hit
Still not seeing the pattern?
Yup, same with the abrams, thousands piling up in the desert yet only likw 40 were delivered after like a year
They're A models upgraded to the level of block 50 C models of the 2000s.
Correct we do have boneyards full of f-16s that would require millions of dollars can you put in a usable condition and in the end we all know Ukraine won't win how is that smart investment for the American people are keeping ways to weaken the Russian military and economy you guys haven't realized that that's what we're trying to do not help ukraine win
Why would you purchase F-35's if your air force is full of F-16's?
Remember the what?
I replayed that hermit bit 10 times and still couldn't understand it
It is just nonsense. A comedic interval
"Remember the leopard... something"
@@Millennium7HistoryTech - haha, I know - but I'm always on the lookout for wisdom - even if it's in jest
The F-16 requires 17 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. It's a real hangar queen, in other words. So that factor alone - along with myriad other logistical and operational issues - strongly suggest that the F-16 is indeed a useless weapon for Ukraine in this particular conflict. The resources that Ukraine will have to expend to operate these aircraft would be far better spent on other weapons.
The F-16 isn't abnormal in maintenance needs.
Don't misunderstand this as praise for the F-16... I think it's a low-budget option which has always been very questionable (at least until block 50/52), and even then is somewhat overshadowed by it's big brother the Eagle. And I don't think the "luddite mafia" has been right about much of anything since the 1960's. F-16 fanboy-ism is silly.
But it's not _unusually_ hard to maintain :) A good chunk of the 17 hours can be handled concurrently, you just need the manpower & depot assets to do it. There's also "ideal maintenance" (for high safety) vs. "wartime maintenance" (much higher acceptable risk).
@@kathrynck True that there are fighter aircraft that are more labour intensive to maintain than the F-16, but then there are examples that require much less - like less than half the F-16's requirement. But there's also the 'mission-capable' metric to consider. For these older cast-off F-16's one imagines they'd struggle to hit 50% at best. But the issue with any such fighter jet that Ukraine gets is who is going to maintain them and where? That's a huge logistical challenge and one that no one, at least publicly, is addressing.
And when all is said and done, even if Ukraine can field those F-16's they'll have to deal with Russia's best-in-class air defences. To make a difference on the ground the F-16's won't be able to stay safe loitering over west Ukraine. They'll have to get close to the line of contact, where I expect Tor, Pantsir, S-300 and S-400 systems - not to mention Sukhoi and Mig interceptors - are likely to make short work of them.
The F-16 is a useless weapon for Ukraine not because it's a useless weapon in general, but because the nature of this conflict is not suited to it. The effort and expense of fielding F-16's would be far better spent on other weapons, battlefield drones for instance. Those are weapons that make a difference on the front line day in and day out.
All that's pretty much beside the point, however. Ukraine is going to lose the war and realistically there's nothing they can do about it.
@@richardroskell3452 I agree with all of that. 50% might be overly generous even, given rush-trained ground crews, and periodically having missiles blow up supplies.
And I agree with you (and the Ukrainian general) that they won't mean much. Fly low and you might get to the front line, but then you're MPADS fodder. Fly high, and you're Su/Mig/S-400 fodder. So apart from air defense far from the front lines, and the occasional storm shadow launch sortie... what will they do? Could "expend" them (high attrition) for some leverage, but then they're gone.
Only nitpicking that they're "average" for maintenance, as fighter aircraft go :) "Lawn dart" (until block 50/52)? Yes. Very limited value near hostile air space in 2024 vs near-peer? Definitely. Hangar Queen? ehhhh... I wouldn't go that far :) It's "ok" on that front. hehe.
@@kathrynck Hangar princess then? :) Just kidding, I'm sure it's a fine aircraft. Thanks for your feedback.
@@richardroskell3452 hehehe. I mean, I feel really awkward defending the F-16 :P
I don't think it ever should have been built, not with the F-15 available instead. And I don't think it was worth much until block 50/52 at least (better radar, avionics, true day-night-all-weather, true multirole, much more thrust, etc). But it did eventually grow up into a decent 4th gen light fighter. _Still_ its no Eagle... but it became 'ok, for 4th gen' by sometime in the 1990's.
I'd better not call it a princess on top of all that though, or some falcon jockey will track me down and slash my tires :P
Wish F 16 Block 50 were given to Ukraine as Block 50 uses APG 68 radar with 200km range as the MLU F 16 uses only 83 km APG 66 Radar which seems insufficient
it would certainly help, but the other thing is that NATO AWACS is flying and link16 might give them some advantage.
Wouldn't make a difference. 200km range is against a target of certain RCS, illuminated from a certain attitude. And AMRAAM fired from below up at a rather slow speed would have a far shorter range than from above down at high speed. And that's where F-16 would still be at a huge disadvantage to Flankers and Foxhound. AMRAAM is also not known for high kill probability, with combat effectiveness of ~60% in a benign environment without ECM and with AWACS support against unaware targets.
The only aircraft that WOULD make a difference once in the air are latest F-15s and F-22s. Noone would send THOSE to help Ukrainians.
@@Max_Da_G Of course that would increase the lethality of the aircraft although maybe not to the degree necessary to offset the technological gap between older F-16 and more modern Su-30/35. Also a part from Su-57 (rare) Su-25, Su-24M, Su-27/30/35 and Su-34 are not low RCS aircraft at all.
On the other hand F-16 would lead to a decrease in RCS on the Ukrainian side especially compared with the notoriously bad RCS of the MiG-29 because of its clear view on the engines rotating compressor blades.
When considering RCS it's also important to note that weapons carried externally significantly increase the radar returns.
That is a huge issue, people keep sayign F16 are game changer and compare the Block 50 numbers and ignore NONE are involved.
you could have written that differently
The F-16 are not useless. Your "speculation" is not only wrong but also too shortsighted.
Ukraine is running out of, planes, spare parts and weapons for its russian made fleet.
Building up an air force build on western tech was neccessary and obvious from the first day of the war.
All we have seen since then were delays and dumb excuses like "Ukraine doesn't need that right now".
F-16 have a max range of over 4.000 km. There's no need for forward bases if missions are planned accordingly.
The F-16 is the most easiest, most versatile choice after the Gripen. Over 50 nations managed to operate it.
There is also western volunteer ground personal possible acting as instructors.
Ukraine declared a volunteer program for F-16 already in 2022. Senior pilots like Dan Hampton declared their will to join it. Let's see.
Norway said publicly to update the avionics to newest standard. That means they can operate these jets to maximum radar range an therefore are competitive to SU-35.
If Ukraine shall prevail, the implentation of western jets is long overdue and without alternative.
NATO (Biden + Scholz) didn't want the offensive in 2023 to be (too) successfull. It was a political restriction. 20 ATACMS in June'23 could have made the difference already (like seen on the airbase strikes with them in Nov'23).
This BS talk is of no help for Ukraine. Start talking how to enable Ukraine to win this war!
so whuts the combat radius of the f16 with bombs and missles? wich airfields will be in prisitine condition with support to lunch missions and and then have rotate base to land on with same support, is it possible to keep this a secret or are you thinking of sending up a wing of 2 or 4 each time and keep it low profile?
from my understanding russia have 8-12 caps with mainstay support and mig31/SU35 always ready + mayby 30-50 s400 systems in the area rotating and changing firte position all the time. Whuts the role here for a few F16?
@@mikael5938 So was Russia already in Feb'22. How come Ukraine still have MiG-29, SU-24, SU-27 in operations?
Because it's not a simple numbers game.
Ukraine does its best to prepare for the conditions. Bases in carpathians are way harder to attack and coverage with PATRIOT and SAMP/T air defense will help.
Ukraine has to make the switch to western jets. That is not debatable - it's imperative.
And since best option - GRIPEN - is not on the table, the second best will do the job.
The mission set will increase over time.
It's promised to eqip them with newest AMRAAM variants and partially newest radar systems. That makes them pretty capable for long range fights and they can deter russian planes from front line much better than before.
The PATRIOT success from Feb'24 has proven that already.
It will never be easy.
But You have to start.
The F 16 are about to meet the S 400
and SU-35 (and proly 57 too) and MiG-31
Considering how many of them have been popped by ATACMS in the last week probably not.
@@aidensman ATACMS hasn't popped shit.
@@Max_Da_G
Ask the over 100 dead Russians about ATACMS that were forcefully retired in a staging area last week. They’ll tell you all about being “popped”, big boy.
@@Max_Da_G My brother in Christ there's been 6 separate incidents of S-3/400 being successfully attacked by GLSDB and ATACM's in just the last 3 weeks
So really they will have to have hybrid training, hope to fly the f-16 whilst running A-10 missions.
Just watched video w declarated lt colonel us pilot was asked second time if he would be willing to fly to fill gap until young ukrainians are trained. Without pause he said sure why not. I got goosebumps bc of how confident he was and not worried. HUGE STATEMENT since he is retired and living a good life.
Drones, air defence and missiles have replaced aircraft on the battlefield. What were aircraft originally used for? Reconnaissance and photographing enemy lines or bombing. This is what drones and missiles can do today. Aircraft are only useful as delivery systems for cruise missiles and glide bombs well away from the battlefield.
Hah ha haha yeah sure!
So what is the problem then? more delivery systems, means more weapons on targets
@@davedixon2068 And a massive amount of new weapons, this is where I think the F16s will benefit Ukraine. They won't need to sneak up ground launchers close to the front line which makes them vulnerable. Now they'll be able to deliver weapons anywhere at anytime to occupying forces. That IMHO will be the game changer. And the Patriot systems will be required before the F16s can be utilized, both to protect the airfields and keep Russian aircraft away. Not one system can be a game changer, it's the whole package, and Ukraine will get the F16 platform to fill in a huge gap in their defensive/offensive "package".
I think I will have to ask some Su 25 or Ka 52 pilots what they think about that....
@@rosomak8244 The ones that were killed by the Ghost of Kiev?
I’m sure it will be as effective as all the western game changers
It's foolish news stations that propagate the term "game changer", and it's not really a dynamic or logical way to explore a topic. -- Also, Javelin has a good success rate.
Like the Javelins?
@@appa609 Javelins are great, but how many do they have compared to the amount of Russian vehicles?
Oh yeah which one, there’s HIMARS and there’s the MBTs
One completely reshaped the battlefield and only recently got its first loss. The other was immediately destroyed the moment it deployef
@@PK-pp3lu I have once out of curiosity watched a video where Russians solders asked an ukrainian to demonstrate how to use a Javelin. The procedure was so complicated and protracted that you could literally manage to "make a child" in about the same time when hurrying up a bit. Since then I don't really believe they had as much impact as media made them up to have. Those days the hype around them went completely silent anyway.
These F-16's are the minimum needed for a war, so no, they would not be too much, or useless, or resources consuming. They will add to the air defence capabilities, which are critically low now.
It is similar to the USA's M1 Abrams tanks. M1 Abrams tanks would have been hugely useful when the war began in February 2014 or when the war resumed in February 2022. Now, newly developed drones and drone tactics "greatly impair" their usefulness. So now the Abrams tanks are so useless as to be embarrassing to the USA as a nation, so the USA has asked to have them returned. I do not think the F-16 will be that bad, it won't be totally useless. But it will not be the game changer it could have been if deployed 2 years ago, in March 2022, when it was first needed.
ummm, I don't think we've seen the last of the Abrams. Yes, as has been said, the version Ukraine got were "old", but lets wait and see
who said the americans wanted their tanks back???
@@icu17siberia I like that thought !
So you think Biden or Trump might send newer versions of the Abrams, versions that didn't have the extra top secret depleted uranium (or whatever) layer of armour stripped out, or that will maybe have some new self-defense system.
That would be lovely if they do it quickly.
But commercially, if the latest and greatest Abrams is a flop in combat that puts a lot of sales and a lot of careers at risk.
I have no doubt that one day tank designers will find a way to defeat drones, either now or within a few years.
Just can we get the tank to the war before it becomes obsolete?
The problem isn't the soldier or the equipment, it is getting the politics to move fast enough.
I dunno. I just hope new Abrams show up and make a difference, like you suggest.
They would have been useless equally in 2022. The design is plain bad for this war. Tank is heavy and has no drone protection. None. Nada. Zippo. Today one got smashed. Yesterday one as well. Two days, two Abrams smoked. One hit and its gone.
@@tomk3732 APS is a thing, but no way in hell they'd give them those.
Sending young pilots make sense in that Western aircrafts pilot surrounding/instruments are very different from USSR aircraft, and relearning might be harder than learning new pilots
These are the reasons why Gripen makes more sense, can use Meteor(if sent), dont have the runway problem and I do believe the Swedish design philosphy is simpler than the US one who tend to overcomplicate already complicated machines. Then again, the F-16s sent are ready for retirement while the Swedish Gripens are fairly new and in fewer numbers
It took Hungary 8 years to adopt the Gripen, without regular Kalibr rains interrupting the process.
@@imrekalman9044 Exactly.... in peace times.
Or the more obvious: the older are largely dead by now.
The Gripens radar is too weak to actually use the Meteor at anywhere max range, the plane is probably the tiniest, and has a tiny single engine
@@xblade11230agree, they would only get Gripen C, not E, and also Meteors would not be provided with the Gripens as it'd be a massive risk to have such a technologically advanced missile system placed within arms reach of Russia
Each F16 is an air defense battery in it's own right.
Ukraine lacks medium range SAMs, f16 will help with that.
Likewise, having F16s will probably help facilitate future JASSM and maybe even AARGM deliveries, which would be of great help.
Not game changers, but help nonetheless.
You can almost bet, Russian fighter jets would be flying right behind the missile salvos, waiting for F-16s, ground based ADs to popup on Russian ISRs, they have already shot down Ukrainian jets from super long distances. JASSMs are expensive and in fairly limited supply, the US produces them in smallish numbers, they would be needed against China soon.
Yes Ukr pilots are not being trained in that way. They are being taught the typical NATO syllabus.
That's right. Fighters can also shoot down cruise missiles and medium-sized drones. The defensive aspect of a fighter aircraft is well underestimated.
@LucasFelipe356 each 2 ship f16 formation will have air defense potential of an s300 battery, against air breathing targets ofc
What's also underestimated is the number of AMRAAMs and sidewinders that'll offset the SAM shortages.
US makes over 1000 AMRAAMs per year and there are huge stocks across nato already
@nuhomusic9343 pretty fanciful idea.
I think the logistic pressure the Ukrainian armed forces face with all those different weapons supplyed by NATO is not to be underestimated.
You need to handle all that and more for such an aircraft.
They say EACH F-16 would need 40 people to maintain. Plus supplies - fuel, lubricants, spear parts, you name it. It is enormous lift, not just trained pilots. My guess they will be able to prepare a few successful attacks to show off. Not a game changer.
F16 are more complex then F1 car with errors spread disaster
@@eioclementi1355 Just found another data: 1 hour of F-16 fly time requires 17 hours of maintenance. Similarly 1 hour of Abrams tank fight time comes with 8 hours of maintenance. Good luck with that.
If F-16s come to Ukraine soon, as per their reports, I question who will fly them. According to informations from NATO members who are training them, they will be ready towards the end of the year, at best.
Cool story bro...
I think that anonymous sources are not official sources -- they are one person's opinion. I think the F-16s will be valuable, but nowhere near as valuable as they would have been when the war began in February 2014 or when the war resumed in February 2022. Now, newly developed drones and drone tactics greatly impair their usefulness.
Actually drone-hunting is what F-16 would excel at. PSU use their MiGs to hunt drones, and F-16 - even the very old ones that were pledged - have much, much better radar. Not to mention that PSU MiGs have already been used far beyond the designed lifetime of their airframe to the point that they are disintegrating in mid air.
Also the hope is that they will be used with long-range A2A missile to deny airspace to Russian interceptors.
Or at least their radiation detection system and EW add-on is good enough to give PSU pilots a chance against R-37.
Ukraine has had enough time to build underground bunkers across the border into Poland with road ways to travel completely undetected until they come out and take off from and land upon inside Ukraine and then travel under ground across the border and yes Russia will protest and will know the bunkers are across the border but I can’t see them targeting inside Poland so this could be done
The F-16 story is a consequence of NATO focus on air power. Since NATO don't rely on artillery, we are incapable of helping Ukraine unless they have an air force that can drop the bombs, we have a plenty. So after having learned this, our incompetent political leadership came up with the solution of giving Ukraine an air force, not having an inkling of knowledge, of the lead time for building up said air force. It will, as everything else, fail spectacularly.
Ukraine asked for F16, it wasnt some Nato Generals wanting to built up air power. The only thing to blame is that the decision to give it to them took so lang that at the point were they would have been the most usefull last year was over.
Why do you youtubers always think that people in "power" have no idea what it takes to do something? The military and intelligence services are there advising and it is also what is available in numbers, the aircraft have been allocated, do you actually think that they will just be dusted off and sent out, there will be upgrades to many of the systems and weapons. For the Falklands war over 40 Harriers were put through an upgrade program in a matter of a few weeks, its surprising what can be done when working 24/7.
@@davedixon2068
It seems that all this experts seriously miscalculated everything. They overestimated our capabilities and our influence on the world scène and underestimated RF.
If they knewcwhat they were doing they wouldn't have got into this war in the first place. All these lives lost because of Western hubris.
We are fully aware that this war is not a "walk in the park.". The F-16 is a multi-role, all-weather platform with a successful performance for more than forty years. There is no denial that a pilot needs time to be trained not only for flying but also to be part of the "big picture." This "big picture" is what sets western pilots apart from Russians and other foes. The F-16 avionics, combined with the radar and the weapons suite, make it an incredible asset. If anything, they are a year late for this. The F-16 was given to Ukraine not only for the war but also as a future NATO member, and this is no secret. Logistics will be complicated, but the F-16 compare to other platforms is manageable. Technology has set the bar, and the adaptability of the F-16 to different missions will make the difference. Combined, all the elements of plowing a "land corridor" and surgical strikes can be achieved deep in Russian-occupied territories. If this is done, I can assure you that the Russians will think twice about sending their best platforms, even if the F-16 pilot at that moment is considered a rookie. Ukraine's inventory is a pile of Soviet junk, and they have done an excellent job with it. They deserve something better, like this bird. The irony here is that I never like those fighter boys because the only thing that matters to them is their plane, and second is their crew chief, whom they love more than their wives.
War in Ukraine has been really tough on presumptions, some tools proven to be no more useful as before, some found new use and some unlikely tools found their footing on the frontline, at the end of the day tactics will determine the level of success, I'm afraid, presumptions will cost Ukraine some airframes and even pilots to figure it out on the job, but we should trust them on it, with their own lives on the line, they've proven resourceful and adaptive fighters. They'll find their way around it.
Well said. I highly doubt that Ukrainian pilots undergo standard training from any specific NATO nation. The timeframe is too limited, necessitating a focus on mastering the fundamentals. While Ukrainians will undoubtedly become adept at efficiently utilizing this platform, proficiency comes at a cost - after all, it is wartime. Moreover, when someone claims that a particular weapons system is a game-changer or that it's entirely futile, be sure it's either misinformation or a display of ignorance.
"they've proven resourceful and adaptive fighters."
They've proven they care nothing about sacrificing hundreds of thousands of people in battles they go into KNOWING they wont win.
Bakhmut, 73 thousand Ukraine KIAs that we know of.
Russia, probably around 1500 Wagner and around 6 thousand ex-convicts KIA. And at least half the ex-convicts died because they were overenthusiastic because of the financial rewards they got for good performance were a lot higher than was probably a good idea.
"War in Ukraine has been really tough on presumptions"
The west believes its own propaganda.
Oohh the incompetent, badly equipped, badly supplied, will turn and flee the moment anyone shoots at them Russian military...
Meanwhile, out in the real world, the Kherson offensive probably says it best, 55 thousand Ukraine troops attacked, 6+2 thousand Russian troops defended.
2 weeks later, 31 thousand Ukrainians were KIA, the rest of the force was WIA.
Russian losses, less than 200 KIA.
Even massively outnumbered, the Russian military keeps on utterly trashing Ukraine.
And ironically, the Ukraine troops that have performed best, were the old guys in their 50s and 60s, whose only training was as Soviet conscripts.
That says a lot of very bad things about Nato. Because out of the 700 thousand troops Ukraine started 2022 with, nearly all of them were trained by Nato to what they considered elite level.
Or as the Florida colonel bragged as he left Ukraine, "the best Nato army in the world and they're going to be marching into Moscow before the end of the year".
@@DIREWOLFx75brain rot comment
@@DIREWOLFx75 typical Russian chest pounding... well go on then... my grandfather had a way with fools, he said, you tell the child once, to not bend over into the well, if he persists, just give him a kick in the butt and let him cry for help down there in the dark for a while, he will then understand clearly what he was being warned about previously...
well....i don't see anybody adressing the elefant in the room.
1)
ukrainian airspace is HEAVELY CONTESTED and the amount of SAMs present in the area is gonna be a MAJOR PROBLEM TO DEAL WITH.
the LEVELS OF LETHALITY against aircraft ( on both sides ) are such that EVEN RUSSIANS have been using their airforce with EXTREME CAUTION.
so while i don't agree that F-16s are gonna be "usseless " ,i perfectly understand the argument that they are not gonna change the overall trend of the war.
2)
russia have demontrated multiple times that they can strike anywhere in ukraine ( all up to livov ).....so my question is HOW SAFE ARE THOSE F-16s gonna be on those airfields ?
if i was russian comander...IT WOULD SEAM IDEAL TARGET FOR ME TO STRIKE BASES WHERE F-16 ARE OPPERATING FROM.
Ukrainian airspace is not really contested. Russians have TOTAL air supremacy. Glide bombs fall onto Ukrainian heads with impunity, Ukrainian armor and fortifications cop lots of fire from attack helicopters, Ukrainians are totally unable to conduct any air support for their troops in contact since Russians shoot everything down, or cause mission abort. Are Ukrainian SAMs a threat? For sure, hence the caution, but even now Russians know that the amount of holes in Ukrainian air defense is growing. Not a reason for complacency though.
@@Max_Da_G
well that might be the case NOW...IN THIS MOMENT sure ,russians do have freedom to opperate their airforce....but that is a RECENT DEVELOPMENT ( maybe in the last few months ) , and FOR THE MOST PART OF THIS WAR flying aircraft in ukraine was a risky task.
but what i actually wanted to say here is that UKRAINIAN AIRFORCE ( with their new F-16s ) might have hard time opperating because russia do not seam to be lacking air defences.
@@Max_Da_G The Rusians dont have air supremacy. They have localized air supremacy near certain parts of the front, at certain times. Near enough to the front to release glide bombs.
But in general, the Russians are exceedingly cautious when flying any type of missions near the front and will try to get back to a lower risk distance ASAP.
One thing to remember full military aircraft combat aircraft are weapons platforms first and foremost what the F-16 is capable of accomplishing will depend largely not only on pilot quality, but also the weapons provided. I would expect, as was said, 2 to 4 ship missions. The first set of missions are likely to be anti-air against the aircraft dropping glide bombs , trashing radars and SAM sites. A small number can you make a difference as long as they stay undercover of the Ukrainian air defenses.
A point to note with regards to this "new" air force is the one thing that Ukraine doesn't have a lot of and that is manpower. If you discount pilots each aircraft will need a team of engineers and technicians of all trades that will all have to be trained in their respective fields even if second line servicing if conducted in another country you still need around 30 people per aircraft to spilt in to 2 teams of 15 to run a 24 hour ops cycle. Then you need all the logistics support spare parts, fuel, ammunition, operations, ATC, airfield security, chefs, accommodation the list is long.Thats more people you could be using elsewhere in the battle space in roles that have a tangible benefit to your aim. If you can't man it, it won't work.
thats why its taken this long. "cafe heroes" don't seem to get it though
Even if Ukraine operates the F-16 as it does its current fleet of MiG-29 and Su-27, they'd still be useful due to better weapons available (AIM-120 AMRAAM) and additional modes available (AGM-88 HARM, JDAM or AASM Hammer 250).
It was always expected (tbh) that Ukraine was forced to retain its asymmetric air-warfare posture given the extend and complexity of F-16 deliveries. I have always considered them primarily as a means to account for combat attrition and airframe degradation with small increases in capabilities (primarily compared to export MiG-29 variants).
There is however some room for surprises as well: upgrades to Block 50/52 with AN/APG-68 radar or advanced targeting and signal intelligence pods could make for some nasty ambushes (again no wonders) and would make it very difficult for Russia to figure out (passive sensors).
This isn't War Thunder.
Those weapons have already been integrated on to Ukraine's existing Mig29 and su27 fleets so they don't gain any capability by fielding the F16. The only thing gained by the F16 adoption is additional airframes and it will be a small number of them for the next few years.
Your content is really good, but the nonsense back and forth with Otis is really weird and distracting. Your audience are all nerds, no need to do this.
Dunno...I like Otis. But he got a little too much script time in this video, & the ending to the little skit was pretty...uh..."crappy"? 💩🙄
I love Otis ❤
I think every rookie F-16 pilot would be able to deploy American JDAMs and French HAMMERs miles from the frontline away from Russian air defenses. The rookie pilots will also use AIM-120 AMRAAMS from miles away.
To a competent military, no weapon is irrelevant. However it is possible that the F-16 will be limited to launching air-launched cruise missiles. That still doesn't make them useless or irrelevant as it could free up other aircraft for the front. But it certainly won;t be a game changer.
In such low numbers prob. so. This pigeon feeding of armaments to Ukraine is just kicking the can down the road. Now I believe if they were provided in adequate numbers with other air assets and the LATEST abrams would make a difference. I pray for peace and hope this mistake is over soon. Should of kept our word of keeping nato out of Ukraine!
Praying is about as useful as tits on a crowbar. NATO is not operating in UA.
Sending the F-16 to Ukraine was more about forcing the NATO members, that weren't in a hurry to replace their derelict F-16 with brand new F-35, to go on the podium to convince their taxpayers it was the logical thing to do with their money. The US military has no real need of 70% of their F-35 and is spending no money to upgrade them or maintaining them operational.
only 29percent of the u.s f35 is opprative...its a bad bird
Sending them to Ukraine was in response to Ukraine request. There are hundreds of F16's still operational in the US (air national guard), and many still being ordered by other countries
Exactly! It’s all about MIC getting richer
A number of points to make:
- The numbers and quality of air assets are overwhelmingly on Russia's side
- Grounds-based AD are way more dense, layered and overall more capable on the Russian side of the theatre
- Pilot experience will be overwhelmingly on the Russian side. They have been actively flying those SU's and MIG's for years and have a vast knowledge base that goes with it. On the opposite side you have NATO training and military doctrine that is out of touch with reality. NATO has only been facing opponents armed with AK's, who could not disrupt what is otherwise a slow, cumbersome, expensive and fragile way of conducting operations.
- There is no reason to think that Russia will not spot the air fields hosting the F-16's and annihilate them
Lastly, even if an F-16 takes off, avoids all Russian ground AD, avoids all Russian pilots, then what? It will launch a missile at some ground target, presumably? A bomb? And then what? The point here is that for F-16's to matter there have to be loads of them, there need to be lots of experienced pilots who can fly them, there needs to be a bunch of very well protected and fully equipped air bases to host and maintain them, and the lifespan of each fighter needs to be more that one or two sorties. None of this is the case.
To conclude, I see not a single aspect in this whole affair that could make one think "Hmmm, maybe they actually have a chance, maybe they can actually make a difference!". Facts and basic logic say they are irrelevant. All NATO wunderwaffe (Leopards, Abrams, Challengers, Himars, ATACMS, Storm Shadows, SCALPs, Excaliburs, etc.) have fallen very short of the great expectations. All of them were supposed to be "game changers" back in the day when they were first introduced. We know the story from there.
The mighty flying shovels are waiting for them
The game is over. Russia always harness slow, but rides fast...
I think that you tend to overestimate the capabilities of modern Russian technology quite a bit.
If used with contemporary effectors (kinetic & EW), the upgraded legacy F-16s Ukraine 🇺🇦 does receive, will match the capabilities of Su-30s and Su-35s.
The most critical value that an F-16 Vann offer Ukraine is a delivery system for glide gps guided SDB. These cost 1:20 what any payload in an HIMARS cost. And the F-16 can deliver then more safely to targets deeper into russian held territories. We also have a considerably larger stockpile of these over Rocket munitions. More we can offer to Ukraine. Any other use of these would have considerably less impact overall.
JDAMS are allmost useless....thats why we saw them in use for aboy 14 days....not anymore as gps jamming is tooo good by Rus
btw US inteligence says Excalibur gps guided shell had 70% hit rate when delievered, and after 14 days of use its hit rate dropped to 7%....
thats about as good as ordinary unguided shell
Something to note as that Russia is already using GPS jammers to effectively jam western GPS guided muntions used by Ukraine. So the impact made by having access to more GPS guided PGM's is really limited.
Useless is a very specific "choice of words"
When Ukraine is using Su-24 for VERY usefull missions.
Imagine all types of missiles F-16s can use in the war, compared to soviet crafts.
There are no Runways for F-16s? Ukraine has Plenty of runways for F-16, literally every public airport can be used with F-16s. And its not like Ukraine can't pave a runway. lol
And why would Ukraine need tankers, when F-16s can fly across whole of Ukraine and back without fueling? 900km
I don't think this guy understand how logistics and Air defence and missiles work. All the nato operations are done in middle east are from safe distance 100s of killometers away out ranging anything enemy has. You can't do that in Ukraine. Russians will see it on the ground and will blow it on the ground .
Well they will be usefull as cruise missile trucks and intercepting cruise missiles, the migs and sukhois they have been using are close to expiring for the constant attrition
How do people even like the amount of stupidity you spewed?
I will make it simple for you if someone shoots a bullet will you send a plane to intercept it? Police show up after the crime concept.
That analogy makes no sense in that a bombing of a city by a foreign state is not something of a law enforcement situation, a state has the responsibility to protect civilian life and infrastructure, that is why the israelís invested heavily on the iron dome, and the makers of the patriot system spent a lot of capital in developing anti ballistic capability
You use what you can to protect the lives
Depends on the upgrades
How long does it take make an F-16 force combat ready? Exactly the same amount of time it takes to send experienced F-16 crews to DLI to learn Ukrainian. #Lafayette Escadrille #Eagle Squadron #AVG.
Didn’t you see the movie “iron Eagle”???
fantastic documentary.
Only the second one.
CHAPPY! 😱😱😱😱😭😂😭
Firefox was better
dont watch movies to find out what an aircraft can do.
If the F16 fail it will be fault of crew just like that other game changer the Abrams
How exactly did the Abrams fail? Last time I checked they are doing they're job pretty well
@@MrNaranhito pretty well at moving frontline to west, stop coping
Lol. Abrams, like challenger, were getting smoked so they were pulled back. Another abrams was lost yesterday or day before.
@@flyingegle4099 the frontline has barely moved since Ukraine successfully pushed Russia out of Kyiv and the Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts. Stop coping...
@@MrNaranhitoThe frontline is where a war of attrition is being conducted, not a land conquest. At least it's not a true land conquest yet.
I don't think Kazakhstan will allow the purchase of its old aircraft to avoid the deteriorate its relations with Russia.
That's not true. The F16 is NOT useless.
Someone shot an AMRAAM at a Russian cruise missile the other day…🤔
From a nasams
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Okay, thanks, I haven’t kept up very well with SAM systems.
@@Millennium7HistoryTechdid it shoot down ?
And it missed.
Could the purchase of old Soviet planes from Kazakhstan be mostly for parts? It's known that the USAF kept a working squadron of Migs for training back in the day and I've heard stories of the effort they needed to put in to machine parts they couldn't get otherwise. Being able to cannibalize what's left of what they bought from Kazakhstan might have some value.
The story the USA bought these planes is not verified.
Probably just a trick for Russians to have doubts in Kazakhs. But they all know the whole shipment worth as much as its weight in scrap metal.
they buught all old warsaw pact gear from all over the world, su 27s 15,2 cm arty shells,t72s, bmp1 stuff, mi 24 parts and so on. To give ukraine spare parts. All this was payd by freshly printed dollars way over market value to keep some ukrainan systems with parts. Its now all gone from entire world and usa now must supply ukraine with western/nato gear/parts, wich means less production for nato.
since most Ukraine and maintainers pilots are qualified on the Mig 29, could mean more planes in the air, faster
Having more and newer aircraft will sure come in handy, tho I doubt they will dramatically change anything.
The biggest issue for me with the F-16 is the runway requirement. Any badly aimed drone/old S300 missile on a runway and the Ukrainians cannot fly.
So in a certain way donating the F-16 looks more like a PR campaign rather than giving Ukraine something with the understanding of the conditions Ukraine faces.
The usability of any NATO equipment Ukraine receives is cut significantly because they simply don't know how to use it properly and there is no way to do proper maintenance. Ukraine was most successful in early phases of the war when they had massive amounts of Soviet equipment because they knew what to do with... now they have dozens of different vehicles, artillery pieces, AA, missiles each of which has different strengths and weaknesses. You need some kind of genius AI to tell Ukrainians how to use each weapon to its maximum effect.
The Militavia channel had a good analysis of the F-16 in Ukraine, ua-cam.com/video/0CJOPFen4Us/v-deo.htmlsi=8nG9ZZAyQba8zvQC .They won't be doing much better than the Soviet aircraft Ukraine had. They still will be outranged and they might be good for firing western weapons because they are better integrated but the disadvantage/inferiority against Russia is still huge.
only if you believe russian propaganda, Drones keep attacking the AAmissile systems that are supposed to be able to shoot them down maybe that is something to think about.
The problem is the Ukraine has blown their manpower and a lot of the good kit they had on last years offensive.
They needed all the good stuff, ATACMs, F16 and all the stuff they had last year at the same time for one good offensive. But the west has restricted them and eeked out kit in dribs and drabs then demanded an offiensive.
The West lost the war for Ukraine and unless we give them all the goodkit at once - and somehow work out how to get more troops on the line, then Ukraine may never reocver.
It won't recover now. Point of no return is past. Unless NATO enters war directly, it's not a foregone conclusion as to how it all ends.
The west also doesn’t want a global nuclear holocaust.
Ukraine lost long time ago. Very little own production, heavy reliance on NATO, no AD, no manpower
@@innelator6941 Lost eh ? I don't see Putin drinking champagne in Kyiv.
@@paulmitchell5349 bro, I said Ukraine lost, not NATO. Cut off NATO supplies and guess what would happen. That’s how Ukraine lost.
USELESS- absurd of course. but they were NEVER going to be a game changer.
We-USA- repeatedly TOLD UKRAINE that ABRAMS tanks and F-16's were NOT what you-UKRAINE most need
We-USA-told Ukraine these are not what you should be spending your "political capital on" but Ukraine thought otherwise-so
both Abrams and F-16's were authorized, Abrams-just a good tank-and tanks-are just TARGETS now-so...
Now to be fair-we-USA- were a bit slow with HIMARS-and they are/were -near game changers-same story ATACMS- important systems.
So CLAIMING what we TOLD Ukraine-nothing surprising.
Of course they-actually their weapons systems they can deliver-will force RUSSIA to be MUCH more careful-those glide bomb carrying planes
could be forced out of range.
The F16 would not have made the spring summer offensive a winner-Ukraine can't do COMBINED ARMS- because a few dozen F16-are not an air
force-and Ukraine has NO NAVY-so no combined arms-
NATO sorta forced Ukraine's hand with the ill advised offensive into well prepared defenses-bad idea-mostly NATO fault.
But everyone learns-
and RUSSIA QUITS LOSES WARS to lesser powers-commonly
1900. 1905 lost 2 wars to Japan-Tzar LOST POWER TO DUMA after those losses
1989-1991 USSR lost to Afghans-USSR collapsed-so
RUSSIA HAS HISTORY OF LOSING AND COLLAPSING-it will can happen again
Just because Russia is trying to win a war of attrition-does not mean they will win-THEY QUIT BEFORE WILL QUIT AGAIN
1905. 1917. 1989. LOSSES FOLLOWED BY COLLAPSE REVOLT ETC- Putin fully aware of it-but not a hell of a lot he can do about it once
his people, turn against him because of LOSSES. ECONOMY ETC
Without the ground based air defense to intercept Kinzal's they become high priority juicy targets.
The runways themselves can be simply destroyed without sufficient air defense.
I've yet to see any credible evidence beyond AFU claims of Kinzhal interceptions.
@@volvo245wdym? You don’t believe ukies? How dare you? They are democratic country, and democracy never lies! You need evidence? RUSSIAN BOT!
Good luck explaining this to the main stream media and people who believe in each magic "game changers" everybody in the industry knows this will be a placebo. Btw you need to remember that the US did have or still have its own soviet era air force, so...dont especulate on how those Kazakh airframes could work or not, until things happen, the US evidently has the industrial and logistic means and capacity to support soviet era airframe operation and weapons integration.
"those Kazakh airframes"
Not airframes. WRECKS. They're planes who has already been used to scrounge parts from to service airplanes.
And they're so old and used up by now, that using ANYTHING from them is probably outright dangerous.
They're being sold at scrap metal prices because they ARE scrap metal.
"the US evidently has the industrial and logistic means and capacity to support soviet era airframe operation and weapons integration."
At the level of money used up? Anyone could support ANY aircraft throwing around THAT kind of resources.
Mostly however, USA is using up spare parts taken from former East Germany in the 90s. IIRC, they also purchased a big chunk of spare parts from Russia in the late 90s.
Basically, for the 10-20% of the Soviet planes they need to maintain from their own resources, they're basically paying enough for Russia to maintain half a squadron per plane.
I am hapoy you belive your own kool aid. ❤
@@acoustic5738 What?
Kazakhstan has openly stated that the planes are literally wrecks.
They're selling them for scrap metal value because they are WRECKS.
Excellent video. From what I read and heard Greece will not donate her F16 and Mirage 2005, but will sell them. If Ukraine finds the money she still could get them.
They definately want cash for them even for them even for other arms like munitions. They are also offering a lot Russian equipment but again the catch is they want an immediate replacement with western analogues.
@@darthnagus5457 The difference between Greece and, say, Denmark, is that most European countries are threatened primarily by Russia, so giving their weapons to Ukraine means they can be put to better use countering that threat in the field than at home as a deterrent. Greece is primarily threatened by Turkey, which hasn't provided any of its own weapons to Ukraine (it has only sold weapons that were specifically ordered by Ukraine, like TB2 drones), so sending weapons to Ukraine without immediate replacement is strategically questionable and politically unfeasible. The opposition would go ballistic over the government 'disarming' the country. Even when a deal was struck with Germany to give Greece a few Marder IFVs in exchange for Greece sending an equal number of (far inferior) BMP-1s to Ukraine, it became politicized within Greece to an ugly degree, with some people arguing that the BMP-1s were actually better in some niche ways and they wouldn't be replaced...
They sell them for top dollar if offered F-35s right away - like next day.
Amazing insight... NATO mission profiles might differ a lot of what is encountered in Ukraine thus making them obsolete for that scenario. 🤔
yes but the Ukrainians have been flying there for 2 years, you really think they dont have any input???
Interesting video, well reasoned. Thank you.
People like to think of Ukraine's F-16s doing Top Gun stuff... Going off and engaging Russian aircraft. This was never particularly likely to happen.
Even if Ukraine had two dozen Block 70 F-16s with AIM-120Ds and JASSMs, (they don't) they're massively outnumbered and cannot be easily replaced. Protracted direct fighting with Russian aircraft is far too risky at this point.
Think of each F-16 as a flying rapid-response NASAMS that might occasionally provide conservative ground attack. Remember that the F-16s will have datalink with NATO AWACS. We aren't talking about it, but its ~totally~ a thing. The AWACS will eyeball the missiles, the F-16s will AMRAAM them.
Air-to-air combat is unlikely to be a thing, UNLESS NATO plays their biggest, scariest wildcards.
If their Vipers get AIM120Ds, and AWACS opt to physically guide the missiles onto target via data link... That would probably work. Hell, it'd probably work extremely well.
I'd be very, very surprised if NATO were willing to do that, because it's pretty unambiguously an act of war-even if it's an act of war that's unlikely to be detected.
"unambiguously an act of war" This is AWACS overwatch two, stand by to reserve fire control data on two Russian Flanker. Do what you want with this information, have a nice day Ukraine F-16.
What shall Russia do about that? The AWACS did not shoot down the Russian Flankers, nor did they order the Ukraine F-16 to shoot, that was all on the Ukraine pilot initiative
Putin can send a angry protest letter if he want, but it will not change it.
Pretty sure no F16 V(iper) is going to Ukraine. Not sure if older F16s that will get there have the same datalink capability, but for sure AWACS tracking a jet are VERY detectable.
They won't get aim120d's though. There's already a shortage of them. They won't get jassm either. These will be early 2000's ish F16's with early 2000's equipment. It's definitely an upgrade from Ukraine's mig29 and su27 fleets, however it's not a serious upgrade and it will be years until it's even possible to field them in the numbers to make them relevant. More to the point, they're still behind Russian Su35's, Mig31bm's, Su57's etc. They will have datalinks, however Ukranian Su27's already have these and those are actually better in this scenario because they're tied into Ukrainian ground based air defenses, which the link16 based datalinks on the F16's will not be.
Uhhh...WHAT Ukrainian AWACS???🤦🤪🤤🤤🤤 Or did I miss something, following the War every day?🫣🙈😎🕳️
And I would hope that the issue of tying the Datalinks between the Ukrainian MiG & Su aircraft with those fitted to the F-16's (& any other future NATO Dumpster-Dive donations) has been sorted out in time for the immediate pending deliveries of the first batch...
@@92HazelMocha LOL, no these are original F-16s upgraded to 1996 standard.
Why useless? The sellers will never again get so much cash for their obsolete junk. Ukraine will have to pay everything back. That's the brilliant plan.
Your not much of a reader are you?
F-16s might not be a short term solution but Ukraine needs a long term plan for the airforce and the sooner it starts, the sooner it will be implemented.
Pilots are one thing but they also need qualified mechanics/engineers to work specifically on the F16 in order to prepare and maintain them. Those people also need formations. You need an "army" of people to get one pilot in the sky.
The only reason this conversation can even take place is due to NATO still having fixed fields to fly from. The moment the Russian Federation decides to start cratering NATO FOB's & their associated radars- all talk of forward deployed fixed wing aircraft starts to unravel. If the Ukr Air Force decentralizes into small road unit capable squadrons- they will cause havoc among their AA missile units that already salvo anything that flies past them.
The old Russia could hit those targets but chooses not to......instead they hit Apartment buildings. Because military airports just aren't important. Right
@@user-pd3gt3tx5ebro read only hohol propaganda and thinks it’s relevant 💀
Nope, it would be astounding if Russia DIDN'T target civilian buildings and hospitals. It's been a running theme and it's become so routine over the decades that the press yawn about it, leading to public ignorance of the systemic nature of it. There is such a thing as objective truth, despite Putin's best efforts to destroy the concept so he can lie wit impunity, and the truth about Russian atrocities is out in the open.
@@innelator6941 🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣propaganda reference from the masters of propaganda!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@davedixon2068 I am not American, so I am not master of propaganda
Maybe. Perhaps the only thing that isn't being considered is that all of these problems existed last year and before. There have been a lot of NATO minds working, and we don't really know what they've come up with. Other than quantity, the Russians have not been impressive.
NATO minds working...Yeah big brains full of wrong things.
U haven't been to the jungle of Russian telegram or just coping hard i assume , there are tons of video evidence of missile strikes just in these two months hitting Radars, Air defences , Drone where-houses , MLRS systems including Himars ,vampire systems posted every day.
“Russians hasn’t been impressive”
Ok, comment warrior, why don’t you go to Ukraine rn? Nothing gonna happen to you, right?
@@innelator6941 Less than everyone but the Russians thought they would when the whole thing started. Other than the fact that the Russians have thrown huge quantities of everything into this mess how has the quality of the Russian military and their armaments impressed you?
@@billsmith5166 bro 💀 with only 1 sentence you just proved to be brainwashed
F16's will be in the Moscow Military museum in a matter of months. Quite an impressive collection of Nato equipment there!!. Never under estimate the power of the humble Russia shovel
F-16s are going to be the biggest game changer since they got Hi-mars rocket systems. Remember not only do they get F-16s they also get all the different kinds of weapons it carries.
F16 were only ever needed for one thing. Launching JASSM. If they aren't doing that, its pretty pointless. Russia has got its act together now. I can't see F16s being much better than Mig29 for air to air. The only other thing F16s may be useful for is launching HARMs.
And HARM itself is not much of a threat when radar is protected by SPAAGMs. Unless it's a large strike package.
It's not about arming Ukraine, it's about funneling money to the MIC you see
americans are too stupid for this
Since the world is at war, may I point out that funneling $$ to the MIC to expand its production base is a pretty smart decision?
Remember that it was industry that crushed the axis powers in WW2.
I was very critical early on because I believed Ukraine needed to order at least 6 patriot systems on the lend lease agreement….sadly this was never taken up and it expired this would have made the f16 more scope to be useful
Great video as usual and I agree with your points made.
The best plane for Ukraine is the Jas Gripen, not the F-16. The Swedes designed the Gripen for this type of hypothetical war in Sweeden against a possible Russian invasion. The Gripen was designed to take off from rough airstrips, easy maintance and can be maintained by a conscript crew. The F-16's large intake will easily clog from rough airstrips and will be a hypothetical head ache for the Ukrainians.
I’ve been saying that for months. The F16 are outdated and was said to be too old to update. They were going to be scrapped so i didn’t understand the American refusal to give them to the Ukranians. Surely it better to be used than just scrapped.
The west is only posturing and not really wanting the Ukrainians to win, if they did they wouldn’t be so bad at giving Ukraine what it needs in equipment.
Grippen orders are allowed for 10 years. Nobody's going to cancel their order to deliver brand new planes. F-16 is the best option because it is free, and there are tons of spare parts. They should have supplied at least 500, not 50 tho
100 Gripen + 100 F-15EX Eagle II. Any donated F-16s could be a bonus on top of that.
@@RonaldShakespeare-tk7jx Most NATO governments do genuinely want Ukraine to win I think, but it’s expensive and they’re scared of the vocal minority who strongly opposes this aid growing bigger if too much money is spent on a war that isn’t theirs when the economy is already struggling.
@@tedarcher9120 With upgrades & refurbishment, that'd be about 10-20 billion worth of F-16's, even if the old airframes were "donated" or pulled from the desert.
That would be a very significant air power change.
But where will Ukraine get 500 trained pilots and 7000 trained ground crew? Then there's the ordinance, which could add up to as much as the aircraft themselves. At least the cost per flight hour would be manageable.