As Kyiv prepares for a long-term war under reduced political circumstances, a two-plane air force might prove useful
3 January 2024 •
Ukraine’s new F-16 fighters could arrive any day now.
But they’re only new to Ukraine. In fact, Kyiv’s first batch of 18 supersonic, single-engine F-16s is coming from Dutch air force stocks. The Dutch have begun retiring their F-16s after decades of hard use, freeing up money, crews and ramp space for a fleet of brand-new F-35 stealth fighters.
The ex-Dutch F-16s are representative of the new-old planes that Ukraine’s foreign allies have pledged to the war effort. The Netherlands, Denmark and Norway together are offering as many as 60 F-16s. All of the jets are around 40 years old.
Yes, the Lockheed Martin-made F-16s have been deeply upgraded. Yes, they represent a major boost in air-defense and ground-attack capability for the beleaguered Ukrainian air force. No, these particular jets are not a long-term solution to Ukraine’s aerial needs.
After a few hundred hours of hard flying that further stresses their aging airframes, the ex-Dutch jets might become unsafe for their pilots. The planes might rack up those hours in just a couple of years.
As Russia’s wider war in Ukraine grinds toward its third year, with no signs of slowing – to say nothing of ending – it’s time for planners in Kyiv to think long-term. What jets should the Ukrainian air force ask for, or buy, to succeed the weary F-16s?
The requirements are clear. Ukraine needs reliable fighters with good radars, robust electronic self-defense systems and broad compatibility with a wide array of sophisticated long-range munitions. And the country needs planes that can fly from austere airstrips.
One option is… more F-16s. Another is a bulk purchase, or donation, of Gripens from Swedish firm Saab. Both types have good radars and radar-jamming gear. Both cost $60 million or $70 million brand-new.
The F-16 boasts the best mix of modern weapons. It can use all of Ukraine’s American-made munitionsin all their best modes: AIM-120 air-to-air missiles, Joint Direct Attack Munition glide-bombs, AGM-88 anti-radar missiles and potentially even Harpoon anti-ship missiles.
Equally importantly, there are a lot of F-16s out there. European air forces are running out of surplus F-16s they can donate, but the US Air Force has hundreds of reasonably modern F-16s in storage – and hundreds more that it plans to retire in the next few years.
There’s no practical reason the United States couldn’t gift to Ukraine enough secondhand F-16s to re-equip all Ukrainian fighter brigades and buy Kyiv time to plan for the longer-term future of its air force. A future that could include the purchase of factory-fresh F-16s.
There are political reasons the United States might not be the answer to Ukraine’s warplane question, however. Pro-Russia Republicans in the US Congress have refused to vote on $61 billion in military aid to Ukraine for 2024.
While US president Joe Biden and his legislative allies may overcome the current Republican intransigence in the coming weeks, all bets are off if the Republicans increase their control – in Congress or the White House – in the November 2024 election.
In the worst case, Ukraine might not get a single additional American dollar – or a single American-made bullet, vehicle or warplane – after the November vote.
And that might be the best argument in favor of the main alternative to the F-16: the Swedish Gripen. Sweden might actually turn out to be amore reliable ally than the United States. There’s already a right-wing government in Stockholm, and it’s no less pro-Ukraine than the more centrist government it replaced.
The single-engine, supersonic Gripen carries many of the same weapons as the F-16. And it has one main technical advantage: its tough landing gear and side-mounted air-intakes, which allow the Swedish plane to operate from rough and dirty airstrips that might not accommodate a flimsier American plane with its debris-sucking, belly-mounted intake.
To dodge Russian air strikes, Ukrainian air force brigades scatter their jets across a vast network of remote, austere airstrips. With a little extra care, the F-16 can fly from these rough bases. But the Gripen can do it without the extra care.
The problem with the Gripen is one of supply. Lockheed Martin has built thousands of F-16s – and continues to build them at its factory in South Carolina. The company’s goal is to build 48 new F-16s a year by 2025.
Saab builds Gripens at a much slower rate. The Swedish air force plans to replace its 100 older Gripens with 60 newly-built, and upgraded, versions of the jet between 2025 and 2035. A factory in Brazil is also building a few dozen new Gripens for the Brazilian air force.
If Ukraine taps the Gripen for its future aerial needs, it might need to scoop up every single surplus jet in order to re-equip all its fighter brigades in the medium term, while awaiting new production to meet its longer-term needs. That might prove impractical.
Kyiv could choose both, of course. It could solicit F-16s and Gripens, and simply accept the logistical inefficiencies that come from operating a mixed fighter fleet. A mixed fleet might actually be the best choice, politically speaking.
In acquiring jets from two very different sources – one flush with airframes but politically fickle, the other politically more stable but lacking in airframes – Kyiv could hedge its bets, and ensure its air force always has access to at least one modern fighter type as it re-equips for a long war.
………
Comment from Phillip Mason:
“Aren’t these aircraft being toted as “game changers?” The same as all the other “game changers” that Ukraine has been gifted over the last 2 years. From looking at the current situation, I would guess the “game” has not changed one bit in Ukraine’s favour in fact quite the reverse. Russia seems to be holding all the cards as the war enters its 3 year.”
John Mohan:
“While a new shiny Mach 2 fighter may look nice, when Ukraine needs is a simple air defence and ground attack aircraft such as the Hawk.”
Martin Whappshot:
“It is just our spineless politicians that left the Ukrainians on their own when NATO could and should have provided air cover. Russia has no right to invade Ukraine. We should ignore the nuclear bluster. Putin would get no thanks from his countrymen if he pressed the trigger all for swapping his cities and citizens for a misguided expedition into a country that clearly isn’t nazi nor that will accept an invasion.”
John Mohan:
“I worked on the [EE/BAC] Lightning end of life fatigue testing. It lasted far longer that anyone expected so even with zero hours remaining on the airframe I expect a F-16 will outlast the war if not destroyed in combat.”
Geof King:
“Is this guy for real? He wrote :
“There’s no practical reason the United States couldn’t gift to Ukraine enough secondhand F-16s to re-equip all Ukrainian fighter brigades.”
This guy hasn’t got a clue about what goes on in an airforce and he should have spoken to some RAF techs before writing such waffle.
There is an entire eco system of trained personnel, tools and facility requirements which would be needed before Ukraine can even dream of handling the numbers of aircraft this tool thinks is all so easy to adopt. For reference how long did it take the RAF to roll out Eurofighter, get the techs trained and the contracts, equipment and tooling in place? It’s a complex thing to do in peacetime let alone when the airfields you are planning to operate them from are under regular attack.”
Charles Langley
Reply to Geof King:
“There is also the problem of the pilots. It takes a long time to learn to fight in one of these things–as distinct from just fly one–and not many Ukrainian pilots speak English well enough that they can be instructed using our language. Even fewer RAF or USAF instructors speak any Ukrainian or Russian. These are big problems that cannot be solved quickly.”
La Ha:
“If we can’t afford to give Ukraine some obsolete military kit to protect Eastern europe from Russian imperialist expansion… Then democracy is doomed.”
Stop Press:
“Maybe all the countries currently operating F35s could donate one each to Ukraine,the possibility that they could reach Russian cities without being detected would give them pause for thought before launching any more missile attacks on the Ukrainian ones.”
Australia has quite a few F/A-18F Super Hornet’s collecting dust.
A word from Washington would likely see them on their way to Ukraine.
Why Scandinavia and Australia? The ruskies and chinese do love it. Send US fighters to Ukraine instead of disarming our allies!
Commenter John Mohan has a good idea. The Hawk is a very reliable and robust aircraft that is relatively easy to train on. The RAF has very few of them unfortunately and most are used by the “Red Arrows” aerobatic team.
But the UK should buy back a squadron’s worth from our foreign purchasers and donate them to Ukraine.
With a real president in office, Ukraine could’ve been supplied with whatever it needed from our vast stockpile, starting two years ago already.
“…but the US Air Force has hundreds of reasonably modern F-16s in storage – and hundreds more that it plans to retire in the next few years…”
That and so much more we have sitting around in various depots. It’s been the same old story since the beginning of this war. We can thank Biden’s constant lethargy, fears, and cowardice that there isn’t a lot more in Ukraine already.
“Sweden might actually turn out to be a more reliable ally than the United States.”
I never thought in my lifetime to see this happening. We, as Americans, cannot be proud of this. We’ve helped so many countries that are trash and hate us, and now, we are in the process of letting this brave country that not only likes us but also respects and admires us, go to shits.
“The single-engine, supersonic Gripen carries many of the same weapons as the F-16. And it has one main technical advantage: its tough landing gear and side-mounted air-intakes, which allow the Swedish plane to operate from rough and dirty airstrips that might not accommodate a flimsier American plane with its debris-sucking, belly-mounted intake.”
This is a big point going for the Gripen.
In a more ideal world, one with more courage, foresight, and determination, Ukraine’s skies, at least, could be protected by NATO while the country’s pilots and maintenance crews get the training they need on modern Western aircraft, regardless of which ones they are.
But, this is not the world anymore, of Reagan and Thatcher. It’s a Biden, pro-mafia Republican, and Scholz world. A world in which adult diapers are called for, and not gauntlets.