Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

the_Q_spice t1_j6n45rr wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in UK and US rule out sending F-16 jets to Ukraine - as No 10 says it would be impractical | Politics News by BelleAriel

Not really.

A lot of folks have absolutely no idea how impractical sending a completely new type of aircraft is.

The huge issue isn’t that we can’t send them, it is the training pipeline.

It takes months to years to convert pilots, maintainers, infrastructure, weapons, training programs, logistical supply, etc.

My local Air National Guard is currently in month 9 of their conversion from the F-16 to F-35 right now for instance.

It is just too long to be practical and would require planning on the conflict continuing for years for these to see combat. Sending new fighters takes away pilots from current training and combat and would hamstring the Ukrainian Air Force. It always was a dumb idea and is a good thing it isn’t happening.

22

[deleted] t1_j6n5agr wrote

[removed]

−2

the_Q_spice t1_j6n6d8y wrote

Contractors would still be a huge no go.

Especially with the fuel guzzlers that are F-16s, you either need significant upgrades (ie the export F-16Vs with CFTs to operate for meaningful periods of time as CAP).

There is also the issue of mission roles.

The F-16 is a pretty decent multi role fighter, but is really still an interceptor at heart. One, these things aren’t going to be used in ground support if they do go because they only really excel at that role in absence of air defenses or air assets.

The one argument would be SEAD/DEAD, but we have already been able to upgrade the Ukrainian MIGs for use of the HARM, the F-16 offers little more in that spectrum. They also still lack the range needed to allow for safe operation in the current anti air regime that exists.

Basically, we would send them and they would stay on the ground, just like most everything else is right now.

8