Since the start of the Russo-Ukrainian War in February 2022, there have been widespread calls for the transfer of combat aircraft to Ukraine, most notably MIG-29 “Fulcrum” and F-16 “Falcon” multirole fighters.

A number of MIG-29s have been delivered to Ukraine over the past few months, many of which have seen action, perhaps most notably by utilising US-donated HARMS to target Russian Air Defence Systems, however, its use in theatre has been somewhat limited due to said threat of Russian Air Defence.

The author of this article is Defence and Conflict Analyst @Sierra__Alpha, he can be found on Twitter by clicking here and can often be found in the UK Defence Journal as well as other publications providing an insightful view on current events. This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.

Unfortunately, this same limitation would also be the case with any future F-16 acquisition for Ukraine, as Russian Mobile Air Defence Systems still would continue to present a significant threat to combat air operations, no matter the platform in question. The F-16 would provide a solution to this issue to an extent, as its armament options are greater in terms of capability than that of the MIG-29.

Superior avionics pose a threat to Russian platforms

The success of HARMS could be backed up by the introduction of AGM-65 Maverick, a combat-proven and adapted air-to-ground missile system with a range of 22km, enhancing the fighting capability of the UAF F-16s. However, this would depend entirely on the decision of the US State Department to provide this system in the first place, which is far from guaranteed.

The F-16 also boasts a superior avionics and radar package in comparison to its Russian counterparts, i.e. the Su-27 and Su-35 variants, which are known to dominate the Black Sea area for the purpose of standoff munition launches. Couple this with the US Air-to-Air weapons package currently equipped with the F-16 would create a significant threat to the Russian Air Force in this area to the extent in which it would be realistic to expect Ukrainian air dominance to return.

Training and engineering challenge

However. There are several drawbacks to what seems, in essence, like a sound strategic decision.

For starters, the points made above are dependent on training, i.e., a huge amount of time will have to be allocated to Ukrainian pilots in the training pipeline, where many would argue that removing pilots from active duty would jeopardise the operational effectiveness of the Ukrainian Air Force who would inevitably face a shortage of pilots for a number of months at a time.

Learning how to maintain a new airframe type also presents challenges in training engineers and technicians alongside aircrew, which further reinforces the point of removing crucial people from the battlefield when further deliveries of MIG-29s and Western Missile Systems would not require such training.

Advanced weapons but expensive

This is a very brief overview, so to summarise…

Pros:

  • Superior avionics and radar systems alongside Western Air to Air Weapons Systems would perhaps swing air superiority in favour of the Ukrainian Air Force.
  • More opportunity for more advanced weapons loadout, threatening Russian Air Defence and ground positions.

Cons:

  • Expensive. Removes essential personnel from the battlefield for extensive periods of training when focus could be put on more MIG-29s Russian Air Defence threat not likely to change in the short to medium turn, even with improved air to ground strike capability.

As high-level discussions on this topic continue, only time will tell if Ukraine will be donated F-16s. Only last week did the Dutch Minister for Defence refuse to rule out the donation of these aircraft from Dutch stocks, let alone the hundreds that the United States have sitting in storage.

Lockheed Martin’s CEO has stated that the company was “going to be ramping production on F-16s in Greenville, South Carolina to get to the place where we will be able to backfill pretty capably any third party countries that choose to help with the current conflict”.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

165 COMMENTS

    • The AH1 W (plus the,weapons available for it) would indeed be a valuable asset for the Ukraine, especially in the anti armour role. One Ukranian tank commander recently expressed concern to the national newspapers regarding the Russian T90 tank, saying that if Ukranian T72s encountered a much newer Russian T90, two to three T72s would need to be used to take a,T90 out effectively. The AH1W could be a more effective answer for dealing with more modern tanks and artillery.

    • Possibly. Although attack helicopters thus far have proven uniquely exposed over a contested battlefield with prodigious numbers of MANPADS and SAM systems deployed. Starstreak High velocity missile type systems essentially defeat attack helicopters unless they are equipped like Apache D/E for terrain following and pop up attacks from behind cover.
      The experiences of operating attack helicopters in Ukraine has already led to NATO countries revising their operational doctrine and changing tactics.
      The Cobra and Super Cobra series are however small, nimble and heavily armed and might be a good option. I’m sure the Ukrainian military would love to get their hands on a few dozen.
      I can’t see EU countries donating any Eurocopter Tigers or Mangusta helos to Ukraine anytime soon.

    • Not if the aim is to permit Ukraine to gain temporary air superiority or even air dominance over the AO. Once they have, I imagine AH-1W pilots would have a target rich environment to wreak havoc and cause mayhem.

      One question John. Do you know if the Cobras/Super Cobras in storage have cutting edge night vison capability. If so, night time could be the right time. Remember Apache in Desert Storm and the Basra Road turkey shoot.

      • Shoulder launched are a big threat, no argument. But the Russians have the S400 family too. It is a different level of threat entirely. Only F35 would stand a chance of penetrating that airspace. Things like Tornado would suffer losses in excess of the 1991 Gulf War.

  2. The Russian air campaign over Ukraine has been fascinating to watch. They haven’t gone “all in” and deployed enough combat air power to effectively prosecute a strategic air campaign. If they did commit and did go all out to win they probably could achieve air dominance and eventual superiority over Ukraine at mid to high altitude but at what cost?
    The Russian air force hasn’t got the experienced aircrew and enough 4th-4.5th generation aircraft. Losses over Ukraine would cripple Russia’s ability to defend their airspace from China or NATO.
    So … Putin has ceeded the war to be a mostly ground campaign with the only close air support being mounted by drones.
    This plays into Ukraine’s hands.
    Only a willingness to suffer much higher air losses and to really prosecute a strategic air campaign will change this equilibrium.
    Missiles stocks meanwhile are being run down in a poorly executed terror campaign to try to cripple Ukraine’s energy and power infrastructure. The prodigious use of their limited stocks of Zircon, Kalibre type missiles only weakens Russia’s longer term ability to truly prosecute anything approaching a strategic air campaign of the type NATO or more accurately the USA has proven it is capable of.

  3. I think it’s necessary. Ukraine is not going to decisively win this war unless such weapon systems become available. The longer the war continues the greater the chance that China will take advantage and potentially attack Taiwan. Also if it becomes simply a war of attrition then one would have to favour the Russians simply because they have a greater pool of bodies to draw upon. Ukraine must be given tactical advantages that can overcome the more numerous Russian forces which will likely become available if this war continues for years.

    • With their new armour Ukraine can break the land bridge to Crimea. This will effectively mean that the Russian forces there will be unsustainable. I think this will start the end for the Russians in Ukraine.

      Air power will help but SAMs and MLRS will probably have a more powerful impact.

      • Yes while Russia is scared to operate in Ukrainian airspace the urgency for modern fighters is less than many other military hardware the only change would be if the Russians really could reduce Ukrainian missile stocks to dangerously low levels which is where Western missile defence systems are the crucial determinant. It would for now be very useful if weapon options for their present aircraft could be expanded as they have with HARM. Stand off glide bombs of the type often mentioned in new offers but not sure any have yet been supplied, could be very useful indeed as they have considerable range are quite simple and cost effective and are, through gps accurate to a few metres and are in plentiful supply.

        • If the US ever became serious about ejecting the Orcs from UKR, a program to recondition A-10s, B-52 G&Hs and B-1Bs, extracted from the Boneyard and loaded w/ JDAMs, crewed by UKR, might be warranted. Probably a 24-36 month proposition; plenty of lead time for negotiations. At that point, Mad Vlad would have 2 options, in the conventional arena: 1.) Move his Army; or 2.) Lose his Army. Of course he could chose option 3, nukes…

          • A-10s came to my mind. However, co-ordination in all arms conflict is key regardless of types and that requires intensive training too, Is there time? Well, is there any alternative?

          • Harrier was outstanding in the air support role earlier in the conflict, the banned cluster bombs would have been deadly. Although it had it’s drawbacks, harrier had a proven battlefield record that most others haven’t.ocean, with harriers would have been a fabulous asset to all military need a replacement should be on the agenda as well as the T32. A converted roll on roll off could be ideal and fairly easily done looking at the specs of the bay class, there’s not much lot of difference to those of oceanid look at maybe the removal of the Superstructure a bay, and fitting a full length flight deck.

          • Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that it would be straightforward, rapid or inexpensive, simply feasible. Would require significant commitment from USAF and contractors.

          • Agree that the entire available inventory of MiGs should be utilized in UKR, as an initial measure.

          • He’ll have been removed by then if the rumoured grumbling behind the scenes is to be believed. I doubt any replacement would be as wreck less as mad Vlad.

          • You are very simple… All the 52Gs were destroyed over 30 years ago. It’s sad that someone who claims to be ex USAF would not know that.. The B1 B’s are used up.. My God… Educate yourself. Otherwise just stop talking.

          • Congratulations, you got your first fact almost correct, the last B-52 G was destroyed as a compliance measure for the New START Treaty in Dec 2013, a mere 20+ years off your claim, but, hey who’s counting.

          • Start 2 was signed in 1993 Captain uninformed. They were retired shortly after.. that it took that long to destroy all of them is just how the processed worked. They almost all had the tail sections severed with a giant guillotine in Arizona for compliance purposes years before the final airframe was destroyed. Might want to check into that. And yes if you’ve ever been to box elder South Dakota ask about the status of the B1 fleet. They’re still getting yeoman service out of the remaining airframes but their time is getting very very short.

          • Captain Obvious, you couldn’t possibly be so naive that you would believe USAF would retire aircraft in perfect condition, could you? 🙄 OSD for B-1B is projected to be c. 2035.

          • Agreed, significant amount of low cost AZ real estate available for immediate occupancy, prime location, excellent climate, attentive staff! 😳

        • Believe the last publicly reported tally of JDAM kits was 420,000 in Feb 2020. Presume it has increased at least slightly since then. 😉

      • I think in some areas that the West have given the Ukrainian forces enough without depleting our own stores too much.

    • I tend to agree with you but interesting to hear that due to worker shortages that they are drawing industrial workers from prison now to try to keep production going. Yet more familiarity with the 30s as if we didn’t have enough already.

    • The longer the war continues the greater the chance that China will take advantage and potentially attack Taiwan.

      Agreed. The USAF AMC leader has opined that China will make a move in 2025, on the heels of a Taiwan election (the excuse they’d use) and the US election (a nation divided).

      It would be in the free-world’s interests for Ukraine’s situation to be sorted out before that. Not only would it allow the West to put their focus on China, but a Ukrainian victory supported by the West might very well head off China’s ambitions for some more time.

      Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/27/us-general-minihan-china-war-2025/

      • Yes, an extremely intriguing memo, notably from a 4-star. Believe this to be a very consciously timed, preplanned maneuver
        and leak, w/ a domestic and foreign audience in mind. Very restrained response from SecDef. If this remains unchallenged by political masters, may be indicative of true state of American military/political/industry consensus forming re ChiCom intentions. My bad–thought I was the lonely voice crying out in the wilderness re ChiCom intentions in the 2030’s and 40’s! People have rarely accused me of being insufficiently pessimistic/unduly optimistic. 😉😁. Actually proud of senior military leadership on this occasion. 😊

        • In reality anyone who thinks there is not going to some form of US China conflict is very very optimistic. The west seems to have little interest or ability to manage the Chinese Mercantile strategy. A mercantile strategy needs security of both raw materials and resources as well as access to markets..at some point China and the west will be in conflict over this. It’s practically a geopolitical certainty unless the west decided to accept chinese hegemony in a couple of decades…although the other potential outcome now with Russias alienation from the west is China decides Russia would be the best place to focus securing its required resources. Potentially what Putin has done in Ukraine is geopolitically putting a gun to Russias head.

          • A Russian/Chinese merger may be the best of bad options available to the West in the future?!? 😱

          • I keep hoping at least one less awful scenario has magically been overlooked. Amazing that general populations seem to be unable, or unwilling, to connect the dots…

          • Does China need to merge with Russia? China has always looked North at Siberia etc for the resources there with the Orcs stripping out their Far East capabilities could the Chinese see an opportunity?

          • Yes, the Northern Resource Area it was called in a Clancy novel at least I think it was a Tom Clancy novel, may he RIP.😥

        • Not a lonely voice at all. This Ukraine Russia spat, is a side show and possible preliminary to the real war to come. If NATO actually ends up having a war with Russia. You can bet your pension on the ChiCons invading Taiwan. Perhaps even Iran making a dash across Iraq and North Koreans launching the dreaded artillery barrage on the South. All simultaneously or at the very least carefully choreographed. The US would need to make some hard choices.

          I would add a CCP rearmed Argentina invading the Falkland’s again too. All to split the strength of NATO and the USA.

          • The Allies were very stretched during WW II w/ two distinct theaters of operation, even after they had mobilized for total war. Reasonably certain one or more of these conflicts would result in a nuclear exchange, relatively quickly. Almost unavoidable at that point.

          • Fully anticipate Israelis would eliminate Iranian threat. Instant urban renewal, sea of glass variety, if necessary.

            You Brits would definitely have your hands full between Russia and Argentina. Probably not able to provide more than token support simultaneously to AU/NZ 🤔

          • Agreed, to both of your replies. If this has occurred to us, it’s safe to say CCP HQ has already run the numbers through their supercomputers and calculated the odds. Perhaps even asked a few students at military college to devise a plan or two.

            Dangerous world we live in. Just the right time to be downsizing our armed forces.

          • Agreed on all points. Ironic, thirty years of ‘peace dicidends’ may buy all of us a collective grave. 🤔😳☹️

          • Argentina. Are you serious? We have some of the best intelligence abilities in the world. The minute Argentina start being provisioned with armaments from the Sino-Ruskie axis we would just increase our force levels in the Falklands. A single astute would put a stop to any invasion as Argentina doesn’t have the required ASW platforms.
            As for Russia…well their own ineptitude has been shown to the whole world. They can’t even defeat the Ukranians. I think the UK could send reasonable support to Aus/ NZ. Probable a QE carrier strike group. Royal marines/ 5th airborne brigade etc.
            More to the point. What exactly is NZ doing to increase its military preparedness in the face of rampant Chinese rearming ? Australia fair enough but NZ are asleep at the wheel.

          • Probably not manned by Argentinians, but rather ChiComs (SSNs) and it wouldn’t be a one v. one proposition. Astute class is excellent but it becomes more problematic as the odds lengthen.

            Russians would probably not attack NATO w/out employing CBRN. Tends to make ops. more difficult.

            NZ may change its tack, now that Jacinda is departing into the sunset. Please suspend judgment until after the general election.

          • New Zealand’s navy is in a desperate state force number of just 18,000 few ships. I’d like to see them given a retiring type 23 and another one of those to south Africa in return for basing rights at Simon’s town.

          • S Africa seems to be moving into the Russian-chinese sphere, so I’d not be donating any expired frigates unless they commit to the West.

          • British Intelligence was fine. As usual, it was the politicians in the F&CO who ignored the warnings.

          • New Zealand has decided they don’t need a serious defense force. I mean 2 frigates, Zero fighters and 3 army battalions.
            As for Argentina, same thing, less capable than in 1982.Not complaining though.🙂

          • I don’t share your confidence. Before they pressed that button the Israelis would have to weigh up the likelyhoof of their country, not turning into a sea of glass but a smoking ruin post the impact of thousands of missiles and rockets launched from Lebanon and Iran. The accuracy shown by the Iranian attack on the US at al Asad and the downing of the Global Hawk would surely give them pause for thought.

          • Believe I would bet IAW Israel’s previous record of wars since 1948. Remember, this would be a no quarter asked or given, no regard for PR or media, fight to extinction.

          • With the QE carriers and f 3 and a t least one astute ,the argies wouldn’t past go.no worries about them.i was there in 1982 on Antrim and the main worry was the two diesel powered SSK we sunk Santa Fe., But no none of the ssn,’s we had down there for a sniff of the other one they couldn’t even find the Argy carrier in time.ce la vie.

          • Yes, but the RAF and RN may well be preoccupied w/ other events occurring throughout the Atlantic/Med/ME. The one immutable fact is, one a/c, ship or tank, no matter the degree of sophistication, cannot be in two different places simultaneously. ‘Quantity has a quality of it’s own.’

          • The beauty of an astute is, in a way it can be in 2 places at once.

            Announce its in place with orders to sink anything heading to the Falklands and the jobs done. Argie navy stays at home.

            Even if its half the globe away at the time, the argies would never know!

          • One announcement that we have an Astute in the south Atlantic with orders to sink any argie vessel crossing a red line would keep the argies in port.

            They ran with their tails between their legs after belgrano and haven’t forgotten the lesson.

          • Yes, however per previous texts, the Argentinians would not be the principal issue. Potential new allies (e.g., slimeball ChiComs) would be the problem.

          • Yes, understand and agree w/ the presumed reference to Monroe Doctrine (M.D.), originally promulgated in 1823, as amended by Roosevelt Corollary of M.D. in 1904. One caveat however, the US must retain the military capability to enforce the doctrine. Based upon recent simulations of potential future conventional conflict scenarios unfolding in SCS v. PRC, there is cause for concern. Of course, if it transitions into a generalized conflict of unrestricted thermonuclear warfare, there will be no further cause for concern. 🤔😳

          • Oh my god not the stupid Falklands thing again… What threats again was that… Oh the imaginary Chinese one in the western you do love to play to your audience don’t you.

          • Yes, exactly; a potential/probable PLA/PLAAF/PLAN threat in the SA in 2030’s to 2040’s, utilizing the Argentinians as a stalking horse. Given that the British will have two CSGs, seven modern SSNs and CASD, no one credibly believes the Argentinians would engage them on a one v. one basis; however, in concert w/ ChiComs (and/or conceivably, the Russians), it would be distinctly possible scenario. All are entitled to develop unofficial forecasts of possible future scenarios, mine is based on a historical undeclared conflict which included a premeditated, unprovoked attack by a government that has not abandoned a claim to the Falklands/Malvinas. Additionally, the ChiComs have recently constructed a satellite tracking facility w/in Argentina and Xi Jinping has been proclaiming greater Sino-Argentinian friendship in 2022. Further, USAF AMC Commander predicts ChiCom aggression in SCS by 2025; rational to anticipate additional ChiCom aggression by 2030’s. My forecast is based on connecting some existing facts. Care to state what your assessment is based upon?

          • In regards to the Falkland’s, I would say geopolitically it’s going to be a great deal more than a distraction. The falklands is the gateway to the BAT and the BAT is the best bit of the Antarctic. With the Antarctic likely to open up more due to global warming and a willingness to go to more extreme environments to secure resources the Falkland’s is literally the keys to a virgin continent. I would suggest that within a 20-40 years timeframe ( the life of the Elizabeth’s) their is a more than reasonable change that the south Atlantic could turn into a war zone with all major powers having skin inthe game. 2048 is a year to have in the calendar, it’s the year the international community meet up to agree or disagree on the future of a continent. Interestingly China has been one of the more aggressive builders of scientific research posts ( otherwise known as place holders for a claim), but pretty much every nation that has the capacity or has global ambitions has built at least science station. Anyone that thinks hostile conditions or environmental concerns will prevent a resources grab is not a student of human history. We always will and always have flung ourselves into the impossible to gain wealth new places…the species that crossed a vast ocean in a little wooden boats and rafts, developed deep sea drilling and is happy to ride huge bombs into orbit and then-crossing the gulf of space in a cockle shell to plan a flag on a new world…will never ever be stopped for long by the challenge of any environment.

          • You’re mixing your groups…left wing does not equate to Green environmentalism ( there have been lots of very left wing governments that have completely trashed their environment…workers first..green and pleasant land last)…as for open toed sandals anyone can go down that rabbit hole left wing or right….and just for information opened toed sandals are always wrong..especially if your on a motorbike or god forbid in the Antarctic…your toes would fall off.

          • Can we nuke Africa out of existence? We’d all be a lot better off.we could do a lot with the foreign aid we’re not throwing away at it

          • ChiComs’ spreading presence/influence can be analogized to a cancerous tumor metastasizing. 🤔😳☹️

          • At least we’d have better intelligence about their intentions that we didn’t have in 1982.if we hadn’t lost rapiers in the Atlantic conveyor we’d have had better protection in San Carlos and perhaps Ardent and antelope might not have been lost.anyhoo if we could see the future, we wouldn’t keep repeating the failures in the past.

          • I wonder if all the litter is picked up in the valley of arma it might be a massive deal shabbier when it all kicks off Megiddo village is now a massive tourist destination.

          • For the love of God could we stop talking about the stupid Falkland Islands it was almost 50 years ago and there is no threat there and will not be in any of our lifetimes

          • Yes but what about in a decade or two with China as a sponsor, I suspect China would happy engage Argentina to fight a proxy war in the south Atlantic at some point, getting the keys to the British Antarctica territory is potentially a very big long term reward for a global player.

          • And Argentina still says it’s their island and we say it’s our island that’s not going away. Add in the fact we also claim the BAT with all its potential resources and you have a future geopolitical flash point, not now clearly but in a couple of decades when the whole Antarctica treaty gets reviewed who knows.

        • Taiwan better get its war stocks up as re supply would be extremely difficult in an invasion situation.
          Best hope is they can eliminate the threat before they can make landfall.

      • Then rocket boy would invade the south and India and Pakistan would Go at it over the Kashmir It will be a global meltdown!

    • The Russians are probably able to count on limited resupply from Iran and NK at this point. The UKR will be resupplied by NATO and affiliated nations. If PRC throws in w/ Russia, we have ourselves a very competitive ballgame.

  4. Fingers crossed they get all that’s required to defeat Russia.

    Pilots will need six months for F-16 combat training, Ukraine says

    “It will take Ukrainian pilots about half a year to train for combat in Western fighter jets such as the US F-16, Ukraine’s air force spokesman has said.
    Earlier this week, Ukraine got a huge boost when Germany and the US announced plans to provide heavy tanks to Kyiv.

    Now, air force spokesman Yuri Ihnat has said F-16s may be the best option for a multi-role fighter to replace the country’s current fleet of warplanes, which are older than modern Ukraine itself.

    He said Kyiv was currently using four types of Soviet-era planes.

    “The pilots are saying it is not a problem to fly the F-16, they could learn it within several weeks. To fight with these planes is a very different thing, to use all types of weapons,” Mr Ihnat told a news briefing.

    “Pilots say they could master it in about half a year,” he said.
    Mr Ihnat said in addition to the pilots, aviation engineers and other specialists would need training.”

    TANKS ALSO PROMISED BY SPAIN

    “Now, Ms Robles said Leopard 2 tanks stationed at the Zaragoza military base would be sent to Ukraine in the coming months. She did not confirm an exact number.

    “It’s not only about sending tanks, but also about crew training and maintenance,” Ms Robles said.

    It is understood that a total of 321 heavy tanks have been promised to Ukraine so far, by a number of Western allies.

    Vadym Omelchenko, Ukraine’s ambassador to France, said on Friday: “As of today, numerous countries have officially confirmed their agreement to deliver 321 heavy tanks to Ukraine.

    “Delivery terms vary for each case and we need this help as soon as possible.”
    Mr Omelchenko did not provide a breakdown of the number of tanks per country.”

    • I wonder how he got to the 321 number? Does this include the recently announced Polish Pt-91s (think that’s the model number) which are just updated T72s but probably superior to Russian T80 series tanks?
      I make about 100 promised Western MBTs mostly L2s but 14 Challys 2s and upto 31 Abrams.
      I’d like HMG to approach Jordan. Buy as many C1s they can. Bring them back to blighty asap. Get them refitted with some better sights, a commanders hunter scope and reactive armour, maybe even an APS and send them to Ukraine in time for late summer. C1s could be a very useful 2nd wave and possible +70 tanks could be made available of reasonable condition to support Ukraine’s endeavours.
      We’ve got to plan for continuous waves of reinforcements and replenishments.

      • Just checked Pt-91 Twardy 230 available and in service, all have been promised to Ukraine as batch delivery of South Korean K2 Black Panthers continue. Freeing these tanks up for UA use. Bravo Poland. Good allies and singularily determined to stop Russian empire building.

        • there’s quite a lot of confusion about those tanks in the media, the figure is / was correct. In summer 2022, Poland promised it would send ‘some of them’ to Ukraine. Not a single has been sighted, either in battle, training or wrecked (though a couple of Polish t-72s have been both seen in action and captured / incapacitated). Then, the latest announcements re. Pt91 are also conflicting. Polish PM claimed 60 (of them) plus 14 Leo A2A4 would be sent to Ukraine, Zelensky wrote thank-you for 60 + 14 leo – of those sixty, 30 would be Pt91, so what’s the rest, if true?
          Still very intriguing they haven’t sent all of 230 (give or take) by now, and already mentioned Leopards, which is a step up. Perhaps those Pt91 are not in such a great shape (though supposedly very decently upgraded with reactive armour, optics and engine). But they’ve already been demoted to ‘3rd echelon’ so to speak, after Abrams, L2A4 and L2A5, so perhaps need more work.

          • Imagine Poland is gauging deliveries to UKR against projected acquisitions. Anyone responsible for Polish security is acutely aware they are next on the projected target list.

          • Some Polish politicians also seem to be quite keen on reclaiming western Ukraine for themselves if given half a chance, another reason to keep as much of their armour as they can.

          • You can file that in the same bin as your assertion that Romania had designs on Snake Island.

          • I have a gut feeling they want to get rid of ALL their Leopards (logistics and politics), and Ukraine is a great opportunity to do it, at a profit, i.e. money from the EU, or more Abrams, or other kit / deals from the US. Plus some brownie points. What’s not to like? 🙁

          • The u.s army has over 400 tanks of mixed vintage in storage lets spread them around Europe and take the load off the yanks fill our weak areas with buys from t likes of AMARG. And those army reserves, we couldn’t crew a Ticonderoga that’s just retired, or the kitty hawk,th rest of their redderv are mainly Oliver hazzzard Perry frigates which were considered fo trump’s reactivation programme, but when it was found out that bringing back 5 ohp’ would cost more than a new arleigh Burk they gave the idea up
            A

          • Agreed, the timeline however is the open question. Poland appears to be perfectly willing to drawdown legacy systems for UKR, however, requires backfill to be inbound/in hand. SK is apparently better able to fill orders than the US at this point. One begins to get a sense how RAF/RN leaders felt in the later part of the 1930’s, rearming w/ the almost certain knowledge of future war, contemplating whether there was sufficient production capability available.

        • There is much to be thankful for in the general Polish attitude toward rearmament and especially Mad Vlad and the Orcs. There is nothing more incentivizing than living for decades under Sovet subjugation to focus one’s attention. Believe they (and like minded Eastern Europeans) may continue to flourish and ultimately prove to be a counterbalance to the German/French axis.

      • Perhaps the amount quoted suggests that other countries intend to send Ukraine some of their tanks but it just hasn’t reached the public domain to date.

        Spain for example has not said how many they will send, but if that is in fact correct number, and delivered in time, Russia will have its arse spanked well and truly.

        I suggested some days ago purchasing some of the Jordanian stock of Challenger 1 for a nominal fee, if not all!

      • Re Chally1’s interesting idea but likely way too expensive for UK to bear the costs. Reonditioning would take a bit and all the ammo would be bespoke UK 120mm. I think the Germans mentioned this so they could do the refurb – but you can bet they would expect UK to pay for all of it. And ammo – Swiss made now?? And hundreds of tanks – a lot of ammo. So no – it shouldn’t fly unless others pay. UK has done more thsn its share.

    • If the polish and Belgians can fly f 16 then anyon can! My fear is that we’ve given Ukraine too much and are in danger of over stretching ourselves. Our production rate for military kit is nowhere near good enough.

    • Bad news on that front unfortunately, Sleepy Joe announced Monday that F-16s would not be provided to UKR. Practically speaking, this means at least several months of vacillation, before he reconsiders position. 🤔😳

  5. French Mirage 2000 multirole fighters of various configurations are also available from France, and other countries like Greece, Qatar and others who are starting to retire them from their service.

  6. Ukraine is bleeding to death, the West has to recognise this however hard. If Ukraine losses others will be fighting in 5 years.

    • Less than 5 years. I’d say upto 2-3 years before a move on the Baltics/ Scandi and/or down into the Balkans. Probably combined with the Chi-Coms invading Taiwan.
      I think Wallace is awake and alert to this danger and the need to urgently rearm. Not sure rest of HMG are. Sunak and Hunt are suits, only interested in big business and their own wealth generation.

      • Russia would be eaten alive by the Scandinavians even without the rest of NATO. Finland is practically an armed camp..their whole nation is utterly focused on defending themselves….they have literally their entire male population as a trained reserve and more fires per head than anyone else. The rest have small but effective armies, navies and airforces all focused on defence, with some of the worst geography anywhere for offensive operations.

  7. The airspace over Ukraine must be a nightmare for pilots with multiple sam systems from both Russia and Ukraine targeting whatever moves ,a better option would be longer ranged strike missiles and to see if western tech could upgrade the existing Ukraine BUK and S300 to make them more effective in the short to medium term. Thailand has 49 Ukraine made T84 tanks USA has possibly another 5 and Pakistan has 300 t80ud these could be purchased or exchanged and supplied in short term with a logistics and training scheme already in place,

  8. Not a word has been said about supposed vulnerability of F16, i.e. spotless (and long) runways. This has been mentioned many times in popular media pieces as a downside v. Soviet/Russian migs (probably perception carefully ‘curated’ by Russia). Plus infrastructure, Ukrainians are worried it’d be vulnerable to Russian attack and it would be attacked, over and over again.

    • Gripens, anyone? Any convenient stretch of roadway… Wonder whether USMC would be willing to part w/ Harriers? Full rate production of F-35B, by necessity and/or acclamation…

    • You just have to look at photos of Ukrainian/Russian runways and taxiways, compared to NATO’s, with grass growing out of the joints and debris all over the place to judge that that could be a real problem. Migs etc usually have anti stone mudguards on their nose wheels protecting their engine intakes which often have their own protective covers for take-off. Then, as you say, there would be the Russian missiles further degrading the surfaces.

      US/NATO aircraft designs have worked brilliantly over the last decades but were never intended to work in the dirty and disruptive environment of a peer to peer war. Apart from perhaps the Harrier plus F-18 (in Switzerland) and the non NATO Grippen and its predecessors. The F-35B is a step forward.

      • £116, million pounds for 72 perfectly good harriers shows that the MOD and the air force and navy are run buy dinosaurs who should have been extinct years ago. I’d give all those old admirals an archer, send them to the border forces, if they don’t want to, then get rid of them.

    • Operation peace Caesar, where Italy loaned 30 odd f 16’s from the US shows that lots of kit is out there and our peanut 🥜 armed forces could be in far better condition than they are. Paying over £170 million pounds for one fighter jet is thefiscalequivalent of going to Lidl to buy caviar over a billion pounds for one submarine and then complaining about not having enough submarines is just plain idiocy.

  9. Not discount young new recruits coming up through the pipeline. For their sovereignty, they’ll get competent people they need to get the training.

  10. What happened to the time when nations could keep military secrets! My guess is that Ukrainian air force is about to graduate in using F15, 16, Euro typhoon, and even the Harriers including the Apache attack helicopters as the donation of tanks is not a coincidence since they will need aircover to drive out the remaining Russian troops in the next 5 months.

    • Same as what happened to steam power a cretin decided that it was better paying millions for gas turbines than replacing the boilers on our ships. Aaah those were the days tea brewed from the steam drain. Washing clothing in a bucket fitted to the same drain, stirring it around and draping over the pipework to dry in ten minutes apart from it being over 100 degrees nostalgia is good for the soul

  11. One of the things not discussed with the F16 and you can include France possibly sending Mirage 2000s, is their ability to operate from damaged or rough airfields. With the underbelly engine air intake of the F16. It has a propensity to suck up debris, which can either damage the engine or cause the compressor blades to wear down, which inevitably reduces the engine’s power output. The Mirage 2000 being a delta wing, is not a STOL aircraft. They need a long runway for take-offs and landings.

    Unlike the Mig-29, the F16 is not built to operate from rough airfields. It’s undercarriage is also narrow and spindly. If Ukraine go get the F16 or the Mirage, I would expect Russia to launch an all out campaign to take out Ukraines airfields.

    They do have the option of operating from roads. But is the F16 or Mirage able to do this? Can it be serviced, maintained and rearmed like say a Saab Gripen at the side of the road, I’ve never seen either one fly from a road, but it should be doable so long as it’s kept clean and is long enough.

    • The Swiss (plus Finland?) are able to run their F-18 with its strong undercarriage off roads. There are lots of long straight roads in Ukraine.

      • f-18 has been floated in some media as one of the options under consideration (though it was not linked to their better resistance to rough treatment, just a quick “f-15, f-16 or f18”. No, they didn’t continue into f-22, f-35. Or f104 😉

    • If you want a modern fighter in the F16 class with proven rough field capability then the obvious candidate is the Gripen – over to you Sweden.

    • Problem is the volume, there’s not many Gripens that could be handed to Ukraine. If its going to be Gripens + something else then it starts to be a sustainment nightmare. As suggested would F18s be a better option.

    • Agreed, Gripens has a number of desirable features and operational characteristics/capabilities. Should definitely be shortlisted for possible acquisition by small, resource constrained AFs My opinion: F-35, eventually NGAD and Tempest, should be reserved for the major players (and/or deep pockets).

  12. I occasionally look at the American aircraft boneyard in Arizona home to the regeneration group for the u..s air force. It’s inventory is quite breathtaking, over 300 f 16, nearly 200 f15 Even a sprinkling of B1 lancers the army storage is equally impressive. It has led me to thinking about why we spend so much money on crap? Maybe we should go for a first dibs agreement for first option to purchase any piece of hardware that the u.s retires.doing so would stretch the MOD BUDGET further than we are doing especially as anything would actually be built,and up to date.mileage and age don’t have to be the be all and end all if it’s right, at the right price, then we could increase the size and effectiveness of the u.k military for a reasonable price. Ships are not so attractive. Look at the naval inactive ships maintenance facility inventory all the ships in reserve are listed, many well out of date or poor condition,but they are there nonetheless. Certainly worth a look at.

    • Actually, the UK might consider negotiating an agreement to store selected systems in the future; shouldn’t prove to be too expensive, especially when renewing US leases of British territory. 🤔😉

        • A recent report,it might have been the NAO again, made that very point- due to the complexity and long lead times of modern Military Equipment it would be very wise to invest in climate controlled storage and keep say Typhoon T1 and CR2 safe just in case- also Ashchurch is having works carried out for just that purpose in regards CR2.

  15. F16 usefulness would depend less on the weapons fit and more on the ECM kit provided with it.

    It has stand off and precision air to ground weapons, it has AMRAAM so doesn’t need to mix it up close with more modern aircraft.

    It’s survival is at most jeopardy from the numerous SAMs on the ground.

  16. Non-starter IMO. To be effective in a highly contested environment, would need all the hi-tech bells and whistles which I hope hope we’re not going to risk falling into the wrong hands. Better rely on ground forces and GBAD to continue to deny Russia air superiority.

  17. “Russian Mobile Air Defence Systems still would continue to present a significant threat to combat air operations, no matter the platform in question.”

    Based on what evidence? Not trying to start a flame war, but I can’t recall any substantial and consistent documentation that Russian AD is a proven significant threat. Aside from the infrequent shoot down over Ukraine, the stunning repeated incursions of Ukraine drones and helicopters into Russian-controlled airspace, the success of the Russian AD systems seems pretty abysmal. I’m not saying that the Russian AD designs are not good designs, but there is a growing list of examples that indicates Russian offensive and defensive systems are exceedingly prone to several serious failings, not the least of which are lack of manufacturing quality control, lack of consistently trained and motivated operators, and lack of regular maintenance.

    If there is regular, verifiable proof that any Russian AD system poses significant threats “no matter the platform in question”, I’ll be the first to eat crow.

  19. its weird that if NATO set foot in ukraine its WW3 and yet suppling western fighter planes is not breaking a red line. if they get the planes surely they need airborne AEW support

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here