F-16’s and Ukraine

      Comments Off on F-16’s and Ukraine

One of the news items floating around recently has been the idea that Ukraine will be receiving F-16’s to use against Russia.  Anyone who seriously understands the operational characteristics of an F-16 knows that this is a really stupid idea.

However, stupid the idea may be, the idiots in Washington will not listen to those who understand these things.  President Joe Biden informed G7 leaders that the US will support a joint effort with allies and partners to train Ukrainian pilots on F-16s.

How long does it take to train a pilot?  Just to become flight capable is at least three months.  Combat operations are another different set of skills.

What about maintenance?  Longer than to train the pilots.

Where would the planes be based?

Will Schryver has an excellent article on the operational problems.

It is effectively impossible to base F-16s in Ukraine. The available runways are woefully deficient, and any aircraft remaining at one base for more than a single sortie are going to become a target of Russian strikes, along with the base infrastructure.

The Ukrainian air force has only managed to retain a handful of airframes to this point in time by assiduously hiding them, and constantly moving them around, using improvised airfields much of the time (highways, grass fields, etc.) The sortie rate of the remaining UAF aircraft is so small as to be nearly invisible. Indeed, with few exceptions, if they fly, they die.

But at least Soviet-era jets were designed and constructed to fly out of “guerrilla airfields”. F-16s are not. F-16s require pristine runways and intensive maintenance after each sortie — almost 20 hours of maintenance for each hour of flight time!!!

This means highly trained / exceedingly experienced NATO ground crews and fully equipped maintenance hangars would need to be available anywhere the F-16 seeks to fly — along with an abundant supply of spare parts, spare engines, etc.

That simply is not going to happen in Ukraine.

This means the only plausible basing option will be at NATO facilities in Poland and/or Romania. And anyone attempting to argue against this reality is engaging in pure fantasy.

And, of course, flying F-16s against Russia from bases in Poland and/or Romania is tantamount to a formal declaration of WAR.

But let’s assume NATO chooses that option …

First, we need to consider what the mission of these F-16s will be. Is it to launch with long-range cruise missiles, rise to high altitude, and fire them from distant stand-off range? Because, as I understand it, the F-16 cannot carry, for example, a British Storm Shadow missile. The F-16 is not well-suited for the long-range stand-off role.

Furthermore, an F-16 at altitude over Ukraine is going to be seen by Russian AD assets from hundreds of miles away, and Russian air to air missiles and S-400 SAMs will outrange the F-16s capability to defend itself in almost any scenario.

Additionally, the Russians have clearly demonstrated the capability to routinely shoot down any stand-off munition NATO has launched against them.

I don’t see how an F-16 mission to launch long-range stand-off strikes against Russian targets is going to produce any meaningful tactical successes, let along appreciable strategic effects. And I am certain it would only take the Russians a day or two to formulate highly effective ambushes against this tactic. Each subsequent F-16 sortie would then become a one-way kamikaze attack.

As for close-air support (CAS) of ground troops or combat air patrol (CAP) against Russian attack aircraft, there is simply no way the F-16 can accomplish either of those missions without readily available in-air refueling! And that is simply not going to happen over Ukraine. NATO’s big, fat, slow tankers will be shot out of the sky at will by the Russians! There is no way of getting around that reality.

Moreover, from the moment the first F-16 commences an attack sortie from a NATO airfield, all NATO ISR assets in the theater will become targets. They will either cease to fly, or cease to exist. And, without them, the F-16 is no longer a useful tool.

Neither F-16s, nor any variety of NATO strike aircraft, are made to function in isolation from the huge logistical infrastructure that supports them. Therefore, the very sentence “Send F-16s to Ukraine” is a logically nonsensical statement.

Simply put, I cannot conceive of ANY way F-16s can be used against Russian forces in Ukraine, even if the latest generation of F-16 Vipers were being flown by experienced NATO pilots.

And, quite frankly, the same limitations would apply to ANY variety of NATO strike aircraft attempting to fly against the Russian military in its own backyard.

If the policy makers of the #EmpireAtAllCosts cult succeed in initiating an air war against Russia in eastern Europe, it will result in catastrophic losses for US/NATO air power and the comprehensive destruction of the myth of US military supremacy.

I agree with Schryver that there is no way that F-16’s will have any impact in Ukraine other than to be death traps for those who would fly them.