The F-16 is a capable fighter, which is in service with 11 NATO air forces (Norway retired theirs this January). It's the fighter Ukraine will most likely receive from the US.
1/n
I explained why it will be the F-16 in a short 1 April thread.
I am all for giving Ukraine 80-90 F-16, as it is a far better fighter than the junk russia has.
However Ukrainian Su-27 or Mig-29 pilots can not master a F-16 in a few weeks.
First let's talk air bases: the moment Ukraine lands F-16 at its air bases, russia will hammer these bases with cruise and ballistic missiles.
So before a F-16 can fly to Ukraine, each air base needs a Patriot air defense battery to protect it from russian attacks.
3/n
These batteries need to include PAC-2/GEM+ missiles against aerial threats, and PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE missiles against missile threats.
So before any F-16 can arrive Ukrainian troops need to be trained to operate Patriot batteries... and that takes 30 weeks.
4/n
As for F-16 training: the basic course is 9 months and includes 62 flights. And the basic course comes AFTER 15 months of initial flight training with T-6 and T-38 (photo).
Ukrainian pilots can skip the initial training, but I doubt the intense basic course can be reduced.
5/n
After the basic course the month-long suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) course begins. So in the best case scenario Ukrainian pilots can take to the skies after 10 months of training in the US... but also 100s of maintainers and weapon technicians need to be trained.
6/n
I don't know how long ground crew training is, but it too will take many months, because you can't just mount missiles and bombs onto a F-16. First you need to mount racks and rails:
To use GBU-39/B bombs you have to mount the BRU-61/A bomb rack (photo under the right wing). 7/n
To attach two JSOW or JDAM bombs to a pylon you have to mount a BRU-57/A bomb rack (photo, and in the photo above mounted under the F-16's left wing).
A F-16 communicates with the racks and rails, which in turn communicate with the weapons.
8/n
Air-to-air missiles: want to use AIM-9X Sidewinder underwing (photo) - mount the LAU-129A/A rail launcher, unless you want to mount the Sidewinder on the wingtip, then you need the 16S210.
Want to use AIM-120D AMRAAM - LAU-129A/A again, even if you mount it on the wingtip.
9/n
The F-16 is an extremely complex combination of dozens of weapon systems and if pilots and ground crew don't receive months of training, they won't be able to properly use the many features of the F-16... worse they might damage the F-16 by improper use.
10/n
Let's look at SEAD missions to understand how complex the F-16 is and how many systems a pilot has to master before he can use it.
For a SEAD mission two F-16 will be loaded out with:
• 2x AGM-88E AARGM air-to-surface anti-radiation missiles
• 1x AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod
• 1x AN/ASQ-213 HTS to locate radar guided systems
• 1x AN/ALQ-184(V)9, which combines a ALQ-184 ECM electronic countermeasures pod with a AN/ALE-50 towed decoy system
12/n
This leaves two free pylons, where either fuel tanks or additional missiles and bombs can be mounted.
These two F-16 on a SEAD mission choose to two mount fuel tanks (and use the ALQ-184 ECM pod without AN/ALE-50).
These two pilots will fly along an enemy's air defense
13/n
zone and try to incite enemy air-defense sites to target them with their radars.
Once the AN/ASQ-213 detects an active enemy radar the pilots will fire a AGM-88E missile, which will autonomously attack and destroy the enemy radar.
The pilots will then use the AN/ALQ-184(V)9
14/n
to protect their planes from surface-to-air missiles the enemy air-defense site might fire at them.
If enemy fighters approach the F-16 will use their AIM-120D to attack the enemy planes. With their AN/AAQ-33 Sniper pods (photo) they can then fly over the enemy air-defense
15/n
site and check if their AGM-88E strike was successful.
If the F-16 carry GBU-39B/B bombs they could use these in combination with the Sniper's laser targeting to strike the remaining missile launchers and vehicles of the enemy air-defense site.
Photo: F-16 SEAD fighters 16/n
F-16 pilots need a month to master the basics of SEAD missions; and as Ukraine will have to fly SEAD missions before its F-16 can start bombing russian positions, there is no way this training can be skipped.
So the idea of Ukrainian pilots being able to fly F-16 after just
17/n
a few weeks of training is absurd. If pilots would get just a few weeks of training, then they would be shot down by russian air-defense systems and fighters within days of arriving in Ukraine... if the fighters would even survive the first night on air bases without Patriot
18/n
systems to protect them from missile strikes.
Yes, Ukraine needs and deserves to receive F-16 as soon as possible, but it will take 8-10 months before F-16 fly in Ukrainian skies.
That is why I tweeted on 1 April that the training of Ukrainian pilots needs to start ASAP.
19/n
And if Ukraine wants to make the most out of its F-16, then KC-46 Pegasus aerial tankers and E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft need to be delivered too.
To interdict russian aircraft Ukraine needs radars peeking into russia and Belarus.
20/n
Ground based radar is vulnerable to russian cruise missile strikes and the F-16C/D AN/APG-68(V)9 radar has a range of 300 km and arc of 120°, while the E-7A Wedgetail radar has a range of 600 km and arc of 360°.
Four E-7A Wedgetail will give Ukraine 24/7 airspace coverage. 21/n
To interdict russian fighters approaching Ukrainian positions F-16 need to be in the air 24/7, which means that they either need to mount fuel tanks (reducing speed & weapons loadout) or need to be refueled while on patrol.
So Ukraine should get four KC-46 Pegasus tankers. 22/n
But again: flying KC-46 Pegasus and refueling F-16 takes time to master, training for which has to begin now. Same as for operating E-7A Wedgetail.
The US can provide Ukraine with everything needed to rebuild Ukraine's Air Force, but training needs to start NOW.
23/n
I didn't serve in the air force and Italy operated F-16 only for a short time, so my F-16 knowledge is limited, but I know three things:
1) Ukraine needs F-16 2) it will take almost a year to get F-16 to Ukraine 3) and DC's dithering is wasting time Ukraine doesn't have
24/.
This complexity applies to everything - send Ukraine M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams tanks, then you also have to send M2A4 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles to protect the Abrams from russian infantry with anti-tank guided missiles. And to make the most of the Abrams Ukraine needs
PS 1/n
M88A2 Hercules armored recovery vehicles, M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicles, and M1074 Joint Assault Bridge System vehicles... and an 100s of fuel trucks and a whole lot of maintainers and technicans.
PS 2/n
Or give Ukraine MH-60R Seahawk helicopters to hunt and sink russian submarines, then Ukraine needs F-16 with AGM-84N Harpoon Block II+ anti-ship missiles to bottle up russian surface combatants in Sevastopol harbor, and F-16 with AIM-120D AMRAAM air-to-air missiles to
PS 3/n
defeat russian fighters trying to interdict the Seahawks, and Ukraine will need F-16 in the SEAD role to neutralize russian S-300/400 air defense systems in Crimea first.
The least complex and thus fastest way to help Ukraine is more M142 Himars (at least 48 in total),
PS 4/n
with all the low-rate-production ER-GMLRS rockets, 1000s of standard GMLRS rockets, and 100+ M57 and M57E1 ATACMS missiles.
Also a lot more self-propelled artillery. And we must force Israel into delivering IAI Harpy and IAI Harop drones, as well as Spike NLOS missiles.
PS 5/.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
To give you an idea, why European militaries prefer US-made weapons to European-made weapons:
Europe militaries urgently need a ground launched cruise missile capability... the US already had such a (nuclear) capability in 1983, then dismantled all of its BGM-109G Gryphon
1/10
ground launched cruise missiles after signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
russia of course broke this treaty after putin came to power and after 15 years of ignoring russia lying about it Trump finally ordered to withdraw from the treaty in August 2019.
2/n
Just 16 days after withdrawing from the treaty the US Army began to test launch Tomahawk cruise missiles form land (pic) and in June 2023 (less than 4 years later) the US Army formed the first battery equipped with the Typhon missile system.
And as Raytheon has a production 3/n
These are the 🇬🇧 UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carriers.
First, as you can see in this picture, only one actually carries aircraft. The UK barely had enough money to buy the F-35B for one. For the other the Blairites expected the US Marine Corps 1/9
to provide the required aircraft, because the two carriers were bought so the Royal Navy could fight alongside the US Navy against China in the Pacific.
But the US does NOT want the British carriers anywhere near its carrier strike groups, because the UK carriers would slow
2/9
down a US carrier strike groups, as the UK did not have the money for nuclear propulsion.
And as the UK doesn't have the money for the ships that make up a carrier strike group (destroyers, frigates, submarines) the UK expected the US Navy to detach some of its destroyers and 3/9
🇬🇧 decline: Only one SSN is operational, three are no longer fit for service and got no crews. One carrier has no air wing and has been sent to rust away. The other carrier only has an air wing when the RAF cedes a third of its fighters. Only 1 destroyer is operational. The
1/5
frigates are falling apart. New Type 31 frigates won't get Mark 41 VLS or bow Sonar. The RAF took 48 of its Eurofighters apart, because it got no money for spares. The army has just 14 155mm howitzers. The Ajax vehicle is injuring the troops it carries. The Warrior IFVs are
2/5
outdated and falling apart. They amphibious ships are not deployable / crewed for lack of funds. The UK has not anti-ballistic missile system (e.g.Patriot). There is only money for 12 F-35A, the smallest F-35A order on the planet. The tank force is at its smallest since 1938.
3/5
International Law is worthless paper if you cannot and will not back it up with military power.
Dictators do not care for international law. But they fear the US Air Force. The moment the US signaled it would no longer back "international law" putin annexed Crimea and Assad
1/10
gassed his people. International Law is what defence laggards hide behind to not have to spend for their own security (hoping the US will save them from their irresponsibility) .
European politicians like to grandstand about "international law" but NO European nation has the
2/n
the means (nor the will) to the enforce it. European politicians grandstanding about international law always do so in the belief that the US will enforce their balderdash.
So European politicians lecturing the US about "international law" now are utter morons, because they
3/n
All this "NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war in Ukraine" is ridiculous, because:
• of course NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war IN (!) Ukraine,
• because that is not how a NATO-russia war will be fought. NATO, even just European NATO,
1/4
fields: 244 F-35, 403 Eurofighter, 183 Rafale, 177 modern F-16, 3 Gripen E, and 896 older fighter types.
A total of 1,906+ fighters (without the US Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force; and with more new fighters entering European service every week).
russia, when counting
2/4
generously can't even put half that fighter strength into the field, and the 1,010 modern European NATO fighters would devastate russia's fighter force.
With NATO air supremacy comes absolute dominance of the battlefield. Every russian moving near the front would get bombed
3/4
Gripen fans keep hyping the Gripen with fake claims & as long as they do, I will counter them:
Scandinavian Air Force officer about the Gripen E: It can either be fully fueled or fully armed or flown from short runways. Never can 2 of these things be done at the same time.
1/25
The Gripen fans keep claiming that the Gripen has a better range than the F-35 and can fly from short runways... then admit that its max. range can only be achieved with external fuel tanks, which weigh so much that the Gripen E can no longer fly from short runways.
2/n
External fuel tanks also mean: the Gripen becomes slower, the radar cross section increases (making detection more likely), the fuel consumption increases,... and even with all 3 external fuel tanks the Gripen E carries 1,340 kg less fuel than the F-35A carries internally.
3/n