Named the consequences of the supply of West Ukraine F-16 fighters for Russia

The topic of possible deliveries of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine continues to be actively discussed in the West. Although there is no unity in Western capitals on this issue, the media are talking with might and main about the “pros and cons” of receiving combat aircraft by Kyiv.

As The Guardian recalls, the F-16 Fighting Falcon is a light fighter that was originally developed back in the 1970s. It first entered service in 1979 and was heavily used by the US Air Force in both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Originally built by the US in a consortium with Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway, the jet aircraft, capable of reaching twice the speed of sound, became one of the most popular military aircraft of all time and is still in widespread use. American manufacturer Lockheed Martin says more than 3,000 F-16 fighters are in service in 25 countries.

Currently, however, the F-16 has been replaced by the F-35, but it is still being produced for sale by Lockheed in South Carolina. This is because it is cheaper, and because the US does not always give permission for the export of a more modern jet aircraft.

Asked why Kyiv needs F-16s, The Guardian writes that at the beginning of the conflict, Ukraine had a small air force of Soviet-style jet aircraft, numbering about 120 combat-ready aircraft, according to the IISS think tank. That number has dropped as hostilities have continued, although experts say Ukraine maintains a limited air capability. But over time, its air force will need to be replenished, writes the British edition.

A curious feature of the conflict in Ukraine, The Guardian calls the relatively limited use of aviation.

Nevertheless, Kyiv is planning an offensive in the spring. Despite the risk, Ukraine is hoping that squadrons of fast jets can be used to support the breakthrough, or at least help repel a massive Russian offensive.

But first, Ukraine must convince the West to provide it with some F-16 fighters, The Guardian notes. Meanwhile, US President Joe Biden said no on Monday, at least for now. This makes the prospect of a quick supply of fighters unlikely, but opinions about other munitions, such as tanks, have changed before, and it is unclear whether this topic was properly discussed in the American leadership.

However, the position of the White House is critical. The US controls the re-export of jet aircraft, and no country wants to be left behind Washington, given concerns about the Russian reaction to such moves.

Poland – one of the countries most favorable to helping Ukraine acquire F-16 fighter jets – stressed on Monday that it would only act in concert with NATO allies. Britain and Germany have also ruled out sending fighter jets in recent days.

However, France, which manufactures its own combat aircraft, appears to be more open-minded. President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday that their shipments are not taboo as long as it cannot be considered an escalation and they have not been used to attack “Russian territory”. As Ukraine continues to lobby, the problem is unlikely to go away.

Separately, there is the issue of training and maintenance. F-16 flight training is a job for experienced pilots and would have to be taken out of a conflict zone for training. Ukraine is said to have identified 50 pilots it hopes to train immediately. But there is no evidence, at least publicly, that any training is taking place.

Estimates vary, but it can take four or six months to train pilots in combat skills. The requirements go beyond the pilots: “The aircraft must come with a set of weapons, ground crew and support,” said Douglas Barry from the IISS think tank, meaning Ukraine will need spare parts to train its own engineering staff. It’s harder than learning how to use a Western tank.

Can F-16s achieve the desired results for Kyiv on the battlefield? Partly it’s a question of how many F-16s Ukraine could get. The country’s air force boldly requested 200 aircraft, a figure that even the generous West may be reluctant to provide in the first place.

Justin Bronk, an aviation analyst at the Rusi think tank, warned that the strength of Russia’s air defense means that traditional close air support – bombarding enemy positions – is difficult to achieve because planes are forced to fly low to avoid detection.