The first cohort of Ukrainian pilots to receive training from the Royal Air Force are now learning to fly F-16 fighter jets in Denmark, having completed a basic programme of training in the UK.
The Ministry of Defence say here that the RAF began delivering flying and English language training in August as part of the UK contribution to the international Air Force Capability Coalition for Ukraine, which sees allies and partners working together to bolster Ukraine’s air capabilities.
“The group was formed of six experienced Ukrainian combat fighter pilots who received aviation-specific English language training to increase their ability to engage with coalition training and support. A further ten Ukrainian trainee pilots took part in the language training and remain in the UK to continue with practical basic flight training, as well as to learn important skills such as aviation medicine and centrifuge training.”
Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said:
“I am proud of the support the Royal Air Force is providing to the next generation of Ukraine’s combat air pilots and ground crew, who will be the first line of defence in protecting Ukraine’s skies. The UK has been instrumental in building Ukraine’s air defences since Putin launched his full-scale invasion, providing hundreds of missiles and munitions, as well as radar and weapons systems.
While Ukraine was highly vulnerable to attack from Russian aircraft, drones, and missiles in the early months of the invasion – with support from the UK and our allies, its Armed Forces are now able to intercept and destroy the overwhelming majority of incoming ordnance – protecting their civilian population and vital infrastructure. Together we’re now going further by ensuring Ukraine has a modern air force in the future, formed around the highly capable fourth-generation F-16 fighter jet. Combined with training from the world-leading RAF, this is a significant step forward from Ukraine’s current Soviet-era capabilities.”
The MOD add that the programme is designed to give trainee pilots the skills required to advance to the next phase of training on fighter jets with partner nations and bring future Ukrainian pilots closer to a NATO standard approach to flying.
“Pilots undergoing the basic flight training scheme are conducting practical lessons in Grob Tutor aircraft with experienced RAF instructors, learning general handling procedures, instrument flying, medium and low-level navigation, and formation flying. Alongside the pilot training, dozens of Ukrainian aircraft technicians are also receiving English language training, geared towards engineering.”
Defence Minister of Ukraine, Rustem Umerov, said:
“Ukraine highly values the pilot training that the UK and other partners are providing, to help us prepare for operating F-16s in Ukraine. It is a rapid and effective programme to equip Ukrainian pilots with the skills they need in the war against Russia.”
Once they have completed their training with the RAF, pilots will be trained by another European nation on advanced flying training. This will prepare them for training on the F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft, overseen by Denmark, the Netherlands, and the United States, which lead the Air Force Capability Coalition.
This is helpful but NOT enough. Instead we read the Typhoon early Mk 1’s are being dismantled for spares. What a disgrace.
These should be refitted for use by the Ukrainians. Is the RAF so strapped for cash it has to continue on its disastrous policies? They seem to only work 9-5 weekdays compared to the RN, who are often on 6 months deployment overseas with ships running 24/7.
Get with it the Air Staff. Stay awake.
What needs the RAF it,s at least 200 aircraft instead of the present ridículous strenght, the thyphoons instead to be scrapped better would stay in the RAF.
I would guess not enough of them to make it worthwhile gifting to Ukraine (unlike tanks etc the expertise and logistics for flying fast jets is significantly more involving), especially when combined with spare parts for maintance. The fact they are being salvaged for parts would indicate the RAF is lacking parts for their own fleet which is more than slightly worrying.
From everything I have seen, Typhoons are not a practical option for Ukraine to use, and we have known that since the start.
The RAF is deployed globally. 24/7. QRA North/South and the Falklands is manned 24/7. Duty tanker 24/7. ISTAR assets are globally deployed. Op Shader out of RAF Akrotiri is a 24/7 commitment. Typhoons will not be transferred to the Ukraine. The engineering and logistics pipeline is to complex. And they would not want the risk of a highly complex 4th gen fighter landing in Russian hands. T1 Typhoon is costly compared to the capability they provide. £2.35Bn is being spent on upgrading the T2/3 fleet. Serious money. Also. The RAF take annual leave just like the RN do. Many RN vessels are alongside during the Christmas period. RAF sqns and RN warships will be back out on deployments and training in early January.
BAE has confirmed to the MoD that the 30 T1 Typhoons to be broken up could be upgraded if the government was prepared to spend the money. In my view that is not the issue, it’s the lack of sufficient trained pilots to fly them.
The RAF has opened a new £1 million facility at RAF Valley to train ground crew maintainers for the service’s Hawk trainer aircraft fleet. Hopefully they will be able to resolve the technical issues with the Hawk II Rolls Royce engines which are believed to have been caused in part by lack of maintainence
It’s costing over 2 billion to upgrade the 40 T3s. The cost to upgrade the T1s would be astronomical. It would be much better to just order new aircraft. By now there isn’t 30 T1s in service anyway as 10 are in storage at Shawbury.
I don’t think it’s due to a lack of pilots on the Typhoon force. The T1 fleet is a fleet with in a fleet. And they are costing the RAF a fortune to maintain. I’m not defending cuts, just offering a balanced voice. As there is often more to these decisions than meets the eye. New builds would be the best option. But the RAF would rather upgrade the remaining T2/3 aircraft to an extremely high standard that will offer force commanders more option’s. A reduction in numbers is never popular. But today’s combat air capability is measured in technical capability more than just airframe numbers.
Like all UK Forces the RAF is a shadow of its former self. As we all know all 3 services have been massively cut back due to the short sighted outlook of the UK government(s) for the past 30yrs.
For the RAF in particular since my time, the RAF is now roughly a 1/3 in size in terms of manpower strength.- down from circa 90000 to just over 30000.
Aircraft might be more capable individually than the old Cold War Jags and Buccs but numbers have a quality. They can’t be everywhere at once. Especially once you factor in training time/aircraft requirements, scheduled maintenance etc etc
But today’s RAF would eclipse the RAF of the 80’s/90’s. Manpower has reduced to much. But todays capability would trump the numbers of the past.
Indeed, I don’t disagree in 1 sense, that individually aircraft are more capable as technology changes etc. However the low numbers of air frames remains a concern. They haven’t worked out yet how 1 aircraft can be in more than 1 bit of the sky. Low numbers obviously means less ability to take combat losses but still have a fighting force. Plus random maintenance failure/incidents or in war repairable damaged aircraft being out of service.
Was it Stalin who said ‘quantity has a quality all of its own’
It does. And our combat air mass should be a little higher than it is. That said. Every air campaign we have been involved in since the end of the Cold War has been as a combined force with our allies. We are not going to be going it alone against another nation. And having the very best capability allows us to operate shoulder to shoulder on the first night of war with the Americans. That might be unpopular. But that’s the reality. You would have to go back to 2003 when the RAF last deployed fast jets in greater numbers than 30. I believe 32 GR4’s deployed and 12 F3’s. And a similar number of Harrier GR7’s. Today, we could deploy a similar number of Typhoons and F35s but with vastly greater capability. And do it from smaller number of available airframes. That is the advances in availability and capability. But agreed, it doesn’t give much capacity if heaven forbid we did suffer losses.
Yes that’s true initially. However statistically things would even out after a week of conflict. This is mainly due to maintenance and logistical supply. If we look at the RAF in the early 90s prior to the full on digital age. In-service aircraft were a lot simpler to maintain and repair. But also the RAF as a whole were more technically savvy.
This meant that if an aircraft suffered battle damage, the Squadron engineers were capable of doing most repairs. Today, you would have to call out specialists. As the RAF dumbed down what engineers are allowed to do, hence why they are now calmed maintainers not engineers. This skill overall has been lost.
Similarly with engines, in the past you were allowed to do certain repairs on the engine’s internals, such as compressor blade blending or even 1st stage blade replacements if they are too badly damaged. You can’t do that anymore. The engine has to be removed and sent to depth for repair.
Avionics wise it has got a little bit easier for the maintainer. As systems are now digital, so their built in test is a lot more thorough. Making it easier to diagnose a problem with system, which usually means box in box out for repair. Which when compared to trying to diagnose a problem with a Tornado’s Foxhunter radar is a godsend. However, when the fault is more than a box change. Requiring a more thorough knowledge of how the system works and how an intermittent fault will show up. The jet will be offline for at least a day, at worst a week, as they try to chase the wiring fault.
For a modern jet the key to maintaining its avionics, is plenty of spare replaceable units. Once the spares have been used up, the jet has to be taken offline for more in-depth investigations. Is this any different to an early 90’s Tornado. No, but we had significantly more aircraft per squadron, so a jet could be offline without disrupting the mission.
Today we have a finite number of Typhoons and F35s. In a peer war, these aircraft would be in constant use. There would be very little downtime for maintenance, as they will be required for 24/7 ops to maintain combat air patrols, along with and tactical strike missions to support the ground elements.
If you ramp up flight operations to meet the demands of conflict, but also include enemy operations against you. Aircraft will inevitably be lost. But also as importantly is that the number of arising aircraft faults also significantly increases. Which means more jets will be offline waiting on repairs. If you already have a small pool of assets that are being reduced in numbers by losses and maintenance issues. You won’t be able to maintain your operational tempo.
Op Granby, highlighted this issue very clearly. At least 1/4 of the aircraft sent were U/S on the first day of operations. It got worse as the war progressed. However, we had sufficient numbers in theatre to cover these losses and maintain the tempo. Sadly I very much doubt the RAF of today could do the same. Regardless of what the Air Staff say. They do not have the depth of aircraft. Plus they are overly reliant on contractors to do the skilled repair jobs.
Therefore, much like the Army and the Navy to an extent, have become political window dressing. It all looks good on the first look, but there is no substance backing it up!
Hi Davey. I’m not sure I agree the RAF were more tech savvy back in the early 90’s compared to today. I would say the opposite is true as aircraft and systems have got ever more complex. Today’s technician training is ever more focused on avionics and systems diagnostics. And techs are dual traded these days instead of separate Avionics, Engines, airframes and electrical trades. We have also been sustaining Typhoon operations overseas for a good few years now on Op Shader with 95% + availability rates. With the logistics chain supporting 24/7 operations far from home. But the way we would fight would be very different from the Gulf War day’s. We wouldn’t be sending a flight of 6 Typhoons flying over heavily defended airfields flying through horrendous triple A and SAM sites like in the Tornado GR1 day’s. The first nights of war would be 5th gen F35’s, F22’s B2’s and cruise missiles only. Typhoons and Strike Eagles ect wouldn’t be sent until some element of air superiority has been achieved. And even then, targets can be taken out from 300+ miles away with StormShadow. The same sortie rate can be achieved with a smaller number of aircraft compared to the past. But I do agree. We do not have much resilience in the fleet if we did suffer loses. 👍
Agree. The depth of knowledge and experience has gone. Second line maintenance has been contracted out. While maintainers are now called “dual trade” the depth of training in each trade isn’t as it was with the previous practice of single trades. Seems geared to first line only.
I watched a Ward Carroll /Justin Bronk video on the challenges that Ukraine faces just getting the F16 into service, I think the Typhoon would be too much of a burden at this time. Justin Bronk said that to operate a fleet of 200 F16’s ( a reasonable amount considering the circumstances) would take them around 5 years to achieve.
The early Typhoons are NOT air to ground capable. Their air defence role only severly limits their use in Ukraine. That’s why the F-16 is a much better option.
And yet you can grab a relatively worn out F16A, delivered in 1980, put it though Falcon UP and upgrade the avionics to something approaching Block 60 plus and redeliver a highly capable fighter at a reasonable price.
That’s on a design 15 – 20 years older than Thypoon, that can’t be upgraded in the same way without massive and prohibitive cost.
Makes you think the RAF should have just bought 150 F16C’s, they would have done everything the RAF wanted to do over the last 30 years and been swing role from day one!
They could have also been upgraded to the latest block 70 spec easily and affordably.
Not as capable as Thypoon, no, more than capable enough to meet any likely threat, absolutely.
I’m not knocking Thypoon, it’s an an excellent fighter, a true thoroughbred, but it will never reach its true potential because of its dithering and penny pinching parents that have robbed it from being what it should have been a decade ago.
We effectively paid an absolute eye watering fortune for a capability that was available at a fraction of the cost already and it’s the RAF who have suffered as a result.
I’ll guarantee if you asked the RAF in the mid 90’s if they would like F16, delivered in 2000 and genuinely multi role from day one, or Eurofighter, the vast majority would have said F16 now please.
We can only hope the lessons have been learnt with Tempest.
It would be interesting to see some
Cost analysis of how much of the money the typhoon programme has benefited the U.K. economy. When exports are taken into account it could be it’s made more money than the MOD has spent. That is a huge reason why other government departments should be funding U.K. defence projects as well as the MOD. The money spent on foreign projects, paid for in dollars only helps the country it’s purchased from.
This is not an MOD problem. Their budget shouldn’t be a jobs creation program. Skills retention is important for the MOD for future projects.
If the U.K. stands to benefit from a U.K. based program by say 50% more In money value than an equally suitable foreign design the treasury/other depts should give the MOD a portion of the cost as it benefits them.
There’s always a very fine line between national Geo political, industrial interest and actually providing the equipment needed.
Incidentally I recall speaking to a small group of 11squdron aircrew at Farnborough back in the early 90’s, I remember asking them if they were looking forward to Eurofighter, their ‘ideal’ at the time was, sod that, they would rather have an Su27 with Western avionics!
To be fair, everyone (aircrew too) stood open mouthed at Anatoly Kvochurs Flanker demos appeared to defy the very laws of gravity!
It totally captured the Zeitgeist of the time, but in reality, it’s circus trick pony antics really meant very little, the small F16 was still quite capable of hammering by the big Sukhoi into next week, it was then and is still perfectly capable of destroying it’s descendants today…..
If the Ukrainians manage to replace their various Soviet scrapheap challenge jets with a a unified fleet of upgraded F16’s, the Russians will have lost air superiority for good over Ukraine and they absolutely know it.
Bearing in mind when Eurofighter was first envisaged. It was to be a replacement for F4 Phantoms, F104 Starfighter and Tornado ADV. Primarily as an air defence and interdiction fighter. Ground attack was seen as a secondary role. As the Future combat air system was going to replace Harrier and Jaguar for tactical strike. Except these requirements got subsumed into the Tornado ground attack requirement. Which is now the F35, originally the RAF wanted a separate tactical strike aircraft to the long range strike aircraft. But with the “peace dividend” and financial constraints. Typhoon was asked to do more, hence Project Centurion.
I suppose so Davey, but it’s beyond obvious that Eurofighter should have been aiming at F16’s market and been multi role from the start.
By the time Typhoon was easing into service in 2003, the F16 had been fully (swing) multi role for many years, with a massive arsenal of AA/AG ordnance available to it.
Project Centurion has been slow as molasses and still, a full 30 years on from first flight, the aircraft has yet to complete multi role development. Quite frankly that’s pathetic…..
Tranche 1 Typhoons have always had the capability to drop Guided Bombs ,its the array of Missiles available that they cannot Launch.
It’s called reduce to produce as the tornado fleet got older they stripped the older aircraft for parts they did the same with the vc10 certain aircraft were stripped as parts became scarce due to age. The Americans bought our harriers not to fly to strip them for spares
Urgent order for F16, gripen should have been placed months ago. Newer radar, ECM and meteor. Folks wondering why Russia has been losing more aircraft recently. F16 has arrived. SU30s down at opposite ends of the country.
The Russian aircraft were doing high altitude drops of glide bombs. Hopefully these shoot downs slow that down. Russian MOD says it’s already eliminated 6 F16s the other day.
They always pump out a story after taking a hit. When atacams hit the helicopter base Russia said it took out 20 Ukrainian aircraft in one day. 😂😂😂
The long awaited F16’s have only just arrived in Ukraine,i doubt that they have been involved in operations of any note yet.Russian claims of destroying F16’s can obviously be taken with a massive pinch of Salt but if true these would have been hit on the Ground not in the Air.
It could just be a coincidence that a lot more Russian aircraft have been dropping out the sky at Kherson and mauripol. A long range SAM could have done it but it’s at opposite ends of the country.
The high altitude needed to drop the guided bombs, with an F16 coming head on would give AMRAAM a long range.
Maybe we will find out in several years
All the information available suggests that the Ukrainian Pilots are still learning on the F16’s, those Aircraft losses are the result of an extra or redeployed Patriot Battery.
The report from Ukraine is that availability of more Patriot systems thanks to the generosity of Netherlands and Germany enabled AFU to build a trap for the SU-24s used to launch gliding bombs and successfully spring the trap on 5 aircraft.
Thus the orcs are grounded for fear of further unsustainable losses.
Slava Ukraine! 🇺🇦
#StandWithUkraine