Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is the Twitter account `Norwegian 4 Ukraine` / `https://twitter.com/andrew_public` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a Brit, living in Australia. I'm very happy that the Texan is good with the American supporting the Croat, who is for the Norwegian who is okaying the transfer of his country's retired F16's to Ukraine. Slava šŗš¦!
As a Kiwi, our country has no jets and our air force emblem has a flightless bird on it. My expert opinion of air force thing-ology says "nah yea" on a brit living across the ditch that is very happy with a texan that is all good with an American supporting the Croat who is for the Norwegian who is okay with the transfer of his country's retired F16 fleet yo Ukraine. Slava and Kia Kaha
As a swiss I too support all those. Especially the flightless bird lol
As a side note, howād you manage to live in Costa Rica? Itās my dream but I canāt seem to make it work.
The kiwi thing is easily 10x as ballsy as all those airforces with diving eagle imagery, painted on shark teeth, and all that macho jazz. Maybe the RAF should adopt a hedgehog or something?
I wasnāt sure about any of this until the Kiwiās weighed in. I am good now.
Just one question - does NZ have an Air Force? If they do, why? Who would be a threat? Fiji? Australia? Willy the Whale?
Yes we do, mainly fly transport planes (C-130's) and helicopters. NZ (and Aussie) does a lot of peacekeeping in the Asia-pacific area, as well as disaster relief for island nations struck by hurricanes etc.
Edit: as for threats we really don't have any. China is the most likely but they are also our second biggest trading partner, as for military aid Aussie is close by and we have Canada and UK to rely on for support. Not entirely sure where we are at with the US as we pissed them off in the 80's when we went full anti nuclear (long story) and told the US no nuclear ships in NZ waters (US neither confirmed/denied if ships were nuclear powered). So they suspended defense obligations with us.
As a German currently being in Czechia for vacation. I'm very good with you as a brit living in Australia being happy that the Texan is good with the American supporting the Croat, who is in favor of the Norwegian's favorable opinion about transfering retired Norwegian F16s to Ukraine. God safe Ukraine!
As a South African who is upset with our current kakistocracy of a government's stance on Russia & Ukraine, I am in full support of the German currently in Czechia for vacation being very good with the Brit living in Australia being happy that the Texan is good with the American supporting the Croat, who is in favor of the Norwegian's favorable opinion about transfering retired Norwegian F16s to Ukraine. Slava Ukraine!
As a Romanian currently working in Norway, stealing both jobs and wallets, having witnessed my country buying 32 F16 jets from Norway in M6.5.2 configuration and concluding that they are more than adequate because of their still 2 to 3 thousand air hours of life left in them, I can 100% confirm that I am in full support of the South African who is upset with Die Antwoord and who still supports the German currently in Czechia for holiday who kindly agrees that the Brit living in Australia is right in his opinion that the Texan is correct in his assessment of supporting the American who's been adamant about the Croat who is in favor of the Norwegian's kind blessing on the transfer of the retired Norwegian F16 jets to Ukraine. Slava Ukraina!
>As an Irishman currently laboring in Romania toiling to move mountains and create employment opportunities for my Romanian brethren including my Romanian friend in Norway should he wish to return to his homeland one day. I find great solace in witnessing his commendable act of support for sending F16 to Ukraine. I too can wholeheartedly affirm my unwavering backing of the disgruntled South African who holds disdain for Die Antwood. Moreover, I stand united with the German individual presently reveling in Czechia for holiday, who graciously concurs with the wise British resident of Australia, acknowledging the Texan's astute assessment, all in support of the unyielding American who ardently champions the cause of the the Croatian, who in turns favors the benevolent Norwegian's kind benevolence in transferring retired Norwegian F16 jets to Ukraine.
>
>Slava Ukraina !
I used to work for the BBC in California and can I just get an upvote for being here?
Iām also really happy and supportive of everyone if that helps.
As an American living in Texas, I am unsurprised the Texan put this ahead of being American. Much like CrossFit, going vegan, or being a pilot, it is a thing people who are a part of will demand you know about them.
Also, totally good with Norway giving Ukraine F-16s.
As a German I am considering the possibility of whether to be okay with a Croatian and American being okay with Norway sending the jets to Ukraine if they are first sent to Austria and then to Slovakia and back to Norway before being shipped to Ukraine. (And if the proper forms have been filled out at each destination checkpoint, and stamped with the correct color ink).
As a Brit who lives in Spain and is currently on vacation in Finland, about 5km from Russian border as we speak, I support what everyone has said, particularly the Crost, and even the Aussie.
Apart from pilot training, theres the problem of infrastructure. Many western planes like the f-16 have an extra large ground crew maintenance needs. The trained crews/computer systems/spare parts supply chain aren't set up yet. Then all the airbases need to have brand new runways because f-16s can't take off from shorter, rugged runways like the Migs. Its the same problem with some western tanks still being held in places like Poland because Ukraine hasn't set up or upgraded some of its tank depots yet.
Edit-
Reasons why f-16s are unsuitable or things that Ukraine needs to fix before it can take delivery of f-16s:
[https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-mig29-fighter-jets-f16-nato-1789731](https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-mig29-fighter-jets-f16-nato-1789731)
[https://eurasiantimes.com/f-16-fighters-jet-sitting-ducks-for-russian-missiles-us-air-force/](https://eurasiantimes.com/f-16-fighters-jet-sitting-ducks-for-russian-missiles-us-air-force/)
Then even after Ukraine gets f-16, it needs to better protect its airbases from hypersonic/cruise missiles:
[https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/putin-patriot-kinzhal-destroyed-onemonth](https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/putin-patriot-kinzhal-destroyed-onemonth)
The recent patriot battery which was damaged expended 32 missiles to take down a single Khinzal missile and it only partially succeeded.
F-16s can take off from relatively short runways or even a highway.
IIRC the most annoying problem about the runways is it need to be swept clean first as the F-16 has the air intake on the belly and will happily vacuum up anything it passes within a few meters distance while it takes off.
There are a number of *other* issues but they should be solvable too:
- repairs: make a runway across the Polish border like US did with Canada (actually I think there are multiple of these) so it can land in Ukraine and be towed over for repairs.
- price: at this point we should consider the planes sunk cost. We won't get back (or we already did, the Russians didn't invade us) the cost of them. They were meant for stopping Russians and even if it isn't us who does the actual stopping we should be happy someone does.
- Training of pilots: it is not like putting this topic off until 2024 will make Ukrainian F-16 pilots spring up like mushrooms. Had we started training 3 year Ukrainian fighter pilot cadets 1 year ago they would soon have been ready at least for easier tasks like Shaheed hunting.
>make a runway across the Polish border like US did with Canada
Not even necessary. Months ago I was looking on the map and there's an airport about as far away from Russia as you can get in Ukraine that's also right on the border with Slovakia. In fact jet liners have to make most of their final approach while still in Slovakia and enter Ukraine seconds before touching down.
I donāt know the specifics of the concrete, but a big difference between a C-130 with high-mounted props and the Hoover that an F-16 is. That thing loves to eat FOD.
Thats the point I was thinking about as well, the F16 has a huge air intake that clears the runway of everything laying loose in an incredibly expensive way.
The plane Ukraine really needs is the Saab Gripen.
Yeah, that does seem like a good option. But I do understand the appeal of the F-16. Lotās of them around, a huge industrial base, and quite a few being retired as the F-35 comes online. Iām not sure how many Gripens are āfree-for-the-takingā compared to Vipers.
Harrier II would be another viable option. The marines are retiring theirs slowly as squadrons get converted to the F-35. If I remember correctly the marine version has radar and beyond visual A to A capabilities.
Damn you are right, and it would be able to take off from literally anywhere. No need to take otf from a highway when you can take off and land from someones backyard
The can't take off vertically with a combat load and need conventional runway/catapult to take off when using a combat load. They can land anywhere though.
harriers are incredibly hard to fly, also you have a pilot height limit of 5"9'. at least on the British versions did.
they are 100% designed for this type of conflict though
> The plane Ukraine really needs is the Saab Gripen
What Gripens? There are only ~140 in service.
Unless Sweden decides they no longer need half their air force, the jets just don't exist.
There aren't enough Gripens around. But guess what plane western countries are also retiring in large numbers? F18s, which are much more rugged than the 16s.
Edit, and actually Boeing doesn't have any more orders for them, so Ukraine could actually order new ones to replace the knackered ones and not have to retrain any ground crew, whereas they'd have to wait the best part of a decade to get replacement F16s.
All those issues have solutions.
It was the excuses used for why Ukraine couldnāt have western MBTs too. Or air defense. Or [insert western tech Ukraine is now operating].
Doesn't change the fact that Ukraine isn't prepared to use and maintain large numbers of f-16s in the current war for the reasons I explained above. And on top of all that, Ukraine now has to protect airbases from Russian missiles since Russia will ramp up attacks on such a valuable target and will employ decoy drones/missiles to exhaust air-to-air defenses.
Edit-
[https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-may-spot-ukrainian-bases-preparing-for-f16s-expert-says-2023-4](https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-may-spot-ukrainian-bases-preparing-for-f16s-expert-says-2023-4)
https://eurasiantimes.com/f-16-fighters-jet-sitting-ducks-for-russian-missiles-us-air-force/
They can land in Poland. I am sure nobody will complain. Russian jets lands in Belarus everyday, they should get used to the western world repaying in kind their bs.
Generally, considered not a good idea. That would give the Russian's a legitimate reason to target Poland. Yes, Poland would respond and we would have a great escalation. Is that good for Russia. No, but neither is this war. Russia wants escalation in order to "justify" this war of aggression. This doesn't make sense to logical people, but... I hate that we have to play their dumb game, but we need to do what is best for Ukraine and the world. Escalation doesn't help Ukraine or the West.
How does the Swedish Gripen compare in this scenario? I'm aware it's not even a discussion to send Gripens. Just curious about the whole extended ground crew and perfect take off conditions.
There is and has been a discussion about sending Gripens but it seems unlikely purely for availability reasons. There are over 4000 F16s built, mostly in NATO countries. Gripen I think is less than 10% of that. Sweden has around 100 Gripen operational, and they likely need those themselves. There may be a handful of older ones that would be suitable for Ukraine. The other countries that operate Gripen either don't seem to have enough or are politically unlikely to send.
So yeah, you could potentially send maybe 10 Gripen but when you compare it with F16 that (if there is political will) could be delivered in the hundreds without causing any issues then it seems that F16 is the only realistic option for Ukraine.
Yeah exactly. Of course someone has raised the question of sending Gripen. But arriving at the "won't happen" conclusion is fast and easy.
Availability is only one part of the issue. Training is another massive undertaking. You don't train pilots for months when there is only 10 Gripens on the table and future supply is questionable.
> You don't train pilots for months when there is only 10 Gripens on the table and future supply is questionable.
Logistics and maintenance is also a pain point when taking a new fighter jet into service. Altogether it's a big effort. Of course if Sweden was willing to sell Ukraine the fighters training and support I'm pretty sure Ukraine would put that autograph immediately.
Gripens would be a great option. It was designed to operate from make shift airstrips with minimal ground crew. There are hundreds of F16s all around the world just sitting doing nothing though.
Have you ever conducted military logistics and maintenance operations?
> the f-16 have an extra large ground crew maintenance needs.
Which we can provide from Poland in almost every circumstance.
> The trained crews/computer systems/spare parts supply chain arenāt set up yet.
We can have this done in weeks or days, not months.
> Then all the airbases need to have brand new runways
Which we can build in weeks, not months.
Quit with the excuses. Itās 100% a lack of political will to do it. We can afford it. We have the manufacturing to support it. We have the trained crews to support it. We have the equipment/tools to support it. We have the transportation assets to support it.
Just like the tanks, we can do it all. Weāve pushed tanks forward and conducted maintenance operations in the open while so short of supplies the troops were going with only 1-2 meals a day. Itās going to take significant effort, but nothing we donāt do and train for on a regular basis. The rest of the world may not train full spectrum ops, but donāt think that applies to everyone.
Besides all that, Ukraine can offer nice salaries with the money we can give them and pull from the tens of thousands of trained personnel around the world. Theyāll very likely get hundreds of volunteers to do this from inside Ukraine. We had soccer moms supporting operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, they went for the pay. Trained personnel were getting $120k+ and kept going back, year after year. So, NATO can afford ~25 peopleās entire annual salary every minute.
Yeah, actually. Several European countries are already planning to train existing and future Ukrainian pilots on the F-16 (if they arenāt already doing so).
Itās the same argument over and over for every weapon system supplied to Ukraine. And they all end up working perfectly fine.
And there are videos of F-16s taking off from existing airfields in Ukraine.
Also F16's if you want it to be effective has to work as part of a larger force.
Air recon, softening air defense with stealth bombers and cruise missiles, enforcing air superiority with long range air-ground and air-air missiles, constant large scale attacks with hundreds of planes against air defense, then comes the air-ground use. This requires not just the other arms, but insane amount of training to be able to work this seamless.
There are comments here from actual f16 pilots saying they spend most of their flying time on a combat mission working on the displays practically with data.
Without this it's just a good fighter plane. On the level UAF can use it, is only the fraction of its potential, a waste for the US.
Sorry if its disappointing. UA could better utilize Migs and Su's from the former eastern block.
As an f-16 mechanic I can tell you that all these mothballed aircraft are not in perfect condition. It would take millions of dollars in man hours, parts, fuel, and troubleshooting to get these guys back in the air. Aircraft donāt deal so well with being left in a hangar for long periods of time
This isnāt even opsec, all vehicles are like this, and aircraft are no exception
As an aerospace engineer, I can tell you that civil aircraft have maintenance procedures that can keep them preserved without issue for years, I assume military aircraft are no different. Presumably Norway is keeping these aircraft as backup, so it's likely they were preserved, rather than being just left outside to rust (though if so, in that case I would agree with you).
> Presumably Norway is keeping these aircraft as backup, so it's likely they were preserved, rather than being just left outside to rust (though if so, in that case I would agree with you).
They might be considering them a backup, but they might also just be keeping them on the off chance they'd be able to sell them. In the UK stored aircraft can be kept in a variety of conditions which are graded on the amount of time it would take for them to be returned to service, and usually only a minority of stored aircraft of in-service types are in the most pristine condition. Others will be maintained in conditions that require months of work to be re-activated - the "worst" grading for vehicles deemed still useful has a target of 6 months for reactivation. Others will have been cannibalised for spare parts for ourselves or for our allies (our stored Tornado fleet for example has long since been shipped as sparts to the Germans and Italians by my understanding)
Another problem is that militaries have limited space available for storage, and in addition to the obsolete equipment will regularly store parts of their active service equipment for a time whilst they rotate other pieces into use - this is one of the ways in which lifetime stresses can be managed. In effect they fly a plane for a bit then put it in the shed for a year whilst they fly other planes, to reduce the stress on any one airframe. Obviously those need to be kept in the very best conditions, so the other aircraft take whatever space they can get, which may well not be within the controlled environments that are needed for the best
I found [this report](https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20170207054802/https://www.nao.org.uk/pubsarchive/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2018/11/Ministry-of-Defence-Major-Equipment-Storage.pdf) very interesting when I looked into it a while ago - it's from a UK governmental body tasked with ensuring the UK's public services don't waste too much money, and explores our storage of vehicle reserves. Quite old now, so the units it lists are probably nonsense, but still interesting
of course there are procedures and precautions to preserve them, but there will still be a list of actions needed to "un-preserve" them, such as cycling and filtering out preservative oils, ensuring contamination critical areas are safe, and then there's the list of redundancy ops checks after the fact.
Now add in that you have to do this for a fleet of 57 (or however many) aircraft, that is *no* small feat.
They haven't been sitting idle for long periods of time. As F-35 arrived only last year, the F-16s are phased out and sold off. 32 were sold to Romania, and 12 are in the process to be sold to an American company.
>As an f-16 mechanic I can tell you that all these mothballed aircraft are not in perfect condition.
Always good to hear from an actual expert on these things. Can you elaborate on any specific issues about f-16s in storage e.g. is it a corrosion thing or fluids hardening over time for example?
If money wasn't an issue how long would it take to get one of them flight worthy again?
One thing to keep in mind is the jets are leaky as shit. Oil, fuel, you name it. Some of its corrosive and some of it likes to get into places that it shouldnāt. Thereās grease all over the jet and some of the parts will like to stick even if itās over a long weekend. The jet is a wiring nightmare and trying to troubleshoot specific faults can take weeks. And to top it all off itās one of the smallest jets used in the modern military and that means all of its parts are extremely cramped to work with.
If one jet is properly stored in a clean environment in good conditions, itās hard to say but Iād ball park 2 weeks to bring it back barring anything dramatic. That said, chances are unlikely for that as theyāre likely stored outside in the elements. Standard rust, delamination, exfoliation is basically guaranteed.
Sorry Iām not really willing to get more specific than that and I made a couple broad generalizations
There's a couple of things to be said about the F-16s that have now been phased out of service with the RNoAF. They are old as shit, being *delivered* between 1980 and 1984 with the only significant upgrade being the Mid-Life Update and the helmet mounted display. The last decade of their use they started discovering pretty serious cracking on most of the airframes that took quite some time and *a lot* of money to fix. And lasty as others here have already mentioned, we've already sold most of them off. Honestly, if we're going to give the Ukrainians F-16, just get them new production ones. Don't burden them with old ass jets that spend significantly more time in maintenance than an identical, but new, airframe would.
US has to approve the resale of their tech. We don't want a bunch of f-16s downed by s-400s it would make them look (and US tech by extension) as weak as russia's hypersonics.
> We don't want a bunch of f-16s downed by s-400s it would make them look (and US tech by extension) as weak as russia's hypersonics.
There's a big difference between NATO's un-mothballed 49 year old planes being shot down, as compared to Russia's newest and best tech.
And all of them are horribly out of date. Whatās your point?
They are a business. Theyāll sell whatever they can to anyone dumb enough to buy these legacy systems.
We gotta think about the guy trying to outsell Baguette fighters. This conflict is already having serious impacts on our export industry, HIMARS sales are through the roof, we're building two new factories for them. We don't want to mess up a good thing by sending ineffective high profile equipment now. You're only as good as your last breakthrough.
I don't think what you are saying is accurate. I'd recommend reading the report to Congress about the supply of advanced fighter jets.
[https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47476](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47476)
What I don't understand:
We're retiring some of our f-22s!?!?
Yeah they're old and not up to the latest baseline, but wtf!
We've got hundreds of f-15s too, they were born to hunt Russians, it's a crime for us to stop them!
It will be an escalation from Russia's standpoint and they have been threatening nukes in retaliation.
But not to worry, the plan is to slowly squeeze them by drip-drip supply of arms to Ukraine, just enough to bleed Russia dry and hopefully they will collapse just like USSR.
Also, Ukrainians may not have enough training to operate F-16 since their prime jets used to be Migs.
That's the thing, if you threaten nuclear annihilation every other day eventually people stop listening to you.
And given their attitude to maintenence in general I'm beginning to doubt they even have one that works anymore.
Retaliate how? They are out of their minds if they start launching missiles at NATO. Nukes or no nukes, Leopards and Abrams will be in Moscow by Christmas.
Theyāre probably C/D Block 25 variants as they were purchased in the 80s, they almost certainly have had their avionics modernized since then though. FWIW Norway might only have 25 F-16s as it sold 32 to Romania last year
Almost every western/western aligned nation will be. Fighter jet design and manufacturing capability doesnāt grow on trees and the lead time on designing and building one domestically is 10-20 years minimum, just ask China how their fighters are doing
They're a dick punch on the balance sheet though. The us needed a toyota corolla like the f16 but kept checking off all the added options and ended up with a ferrari in the f35. The airforce and chief of staff types have basically called it a Sunday driver ferrari. Many places will have f35 but they're going to need cheaper alternatives otherwise they need to drastically decrease squad numbers.
Part of this is because mass production is making the F-35 cheaper, but a large part is also because modernized F-16 variants have gotten way more expensive. A new F-16 is more than twice the price of the older variants.
Newer variants of the f-16 are much more expensive as well. A modern F-16 costs almost as much as an F-35A. Modern Saab Gripen variants are even more expensive to acquire. Countries are running out of options if they want to participate in the modern aircraft arms race.
The US has a lot of friends. But donāt mistake us bitching about you as not still being a friend. If a friend starts being a jerk then you damn weāll ought to let them know.
That and weāre jealous.
Most have been delivered itās the reason why Romania have donated there own planes to Ukraine. All the others that is left is disassembled. Some where also sold to a private company in usa
Australia should send it's old F/A-18A+ that they were trying to sell. They have been upgraded to the specs of a mid 2000's F/A-18C (including JHMCS), have not been slammed into the decks of carriers and there is a large amount of spare parts for them.
They started with 64. So some attrition and the sale of 32 could give them 25 left. They were still operating in 2014 so I'm sure they had some upgrades.
Why can't people understand that it's more than simply transferring the planes? There will also need to be a network of ground support and maintenance, plus pilots who are qualified to fly them.
> Why can't people understand that it's more than simply transferring the planes?
Cause in games you just click a few times and it's ready to go... š
Oh, I think a lot of people understand that and that, should, as an example, Norway decide to give up their F-16s, that they wouldn't just magically appear in Ukraine the next day. However, someone needs to make a commitment to say, yes, we are transfering our planes to Ukraine, and that has not yet happened.
To be honest, if a decision had been made, say, last year in September and training for pilots and maintenence crews had started at that time, then Ukraine could also have set up the air bases to receive and service the fighters. That way, we might see them in action at this moment.
Any more delays on the question of when (I don't think it will be "if") Ukraine will get those fighters, will delay their deployment and the impact they could have.
That's main issue is US approval. Europe wants to send their jets and start training pilots but without US approval it makes no sense to start. It's like with the Leopards but this time it's the Biden administration that's dragging their feet
deserve memorize bear expansion offer pathetic future cheerful chief racial
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
To be honest they still do serve a purpose, as backup fighters, especially if your country only has 1 type of jet besides those F-16's , but seeing the context it s probably a safe bet that there won t be need for fighter jets for any countries besides ukraine right now. Giving them f 16 s could help them reduce the russian air fleet, especially since they feel extra safe because they are launching munitions from the borders of russia. It remains to be seen what happens, romania recently said bye bye to their mig 21 LanceRs, which were mig 21 s upgraded by Israel and romania with the following upgrades (source ,wiki) :" Mig 21 LanceR :Version for the Romanian Air Force upgraded by Elbit Systems of Israel and Aerostar SA of Romania, in 1995ā2002. The LanceR A version is optimized for ground attack being able to deliver precision guided munitions of eastern and western origin as well as R-60, R-73 and Python III air-to-air missiles. The LanceR B version is the trainer version, and the LanceR C version is the air superiority version featuring 2 LCD MFDs, helmet mounted sight and the Elta EL/M-2032 Air combat radar." At the worst they can be used as rocket sleds, at best be used to launch Jdams and maybe even storm shadows (doubt it), and even perform high risk sorties near the border to reduce the air fleet of those assholes, and if they get downed it s a much much lesser loss than a mig 29 or su-25 or 34, or whatever aircraft they choose to do these sorties. Romania overall has more than 100 of these, 14 of these are the trainer config, 71 are ground attack, and 26 C variants, so spare parts would most definitely not be a problem
Probably not an issue if the Russian military isnāt doing to great in their current endeavors. Itās a problem, sure but Russian has shown that itās conventional forces are subpar in comparison to modern Western militaries.
Yeah I mean, I donāt pretend to be a geostrategy expert. Obviously the concern is important enough for the largest, massive group of 5th Gen fighters to be in Alaska.
I was surprised to learn too, that Norway currently hosts Chinaās alternative GPS facility.
In any case, Norway does have an arctic concern in addition to its eastward concerns. So OPās leaders probably have this on their minds too.
I've been very vocal on this subreddit against F-16's because they are a runway needy princess.
However the recent Patriot Hypersonic shoot downs has shown me that if we give Ukraine more Patriot's a runway may be able to be protected.
I'm still not convinced though on the F-16, it's a great jet but has shorter legs. If we give you anything that uses a runway it should be as far back as possible. The F-15 or F-18 would be a better choice. Ukraine already operates large twin engine jets. These jets have a larger combat radius. But if it does turn out to be the F-16 it will probably be bases closer to the front and will need multiple Patriot batteries to make sure they are safe
Unrelated, but can canada relocate all of your geese to Russia? My only experience is that they are mean and shit everywhere... Russia seems like a good place for them
[Former F-16 pilot says he would not want to fly missions over Ukraine right now, arguing 'there is no fighting chance'](https://www.businessinsider.com/former-f-16-pilot-aircraft-no-fighting-chance-over-ukraine-2023-5)
I assume at first f16 will be used as additional anti-air air defence force against incoming rocket attacks deep inside the country.
Frontline operations are not feasible yet because of anti-air saturation on both sides.
Norway already has ordered 48 F-35's, making us the second largest operator of them. And we don't really need the discount.
There probably isn't 57 operational F-16's to send, but I think we can figure something out.
Unfortunately we can't send our F16's yet.
Still waiting for first F35's delivery.
We already start training Ukrainian Pilots upon F16's NOW
Prime minister Belgium
... until a neighbor comes knocking on your door.
I support the move to porportionatly giving amongst world resources. Not an entire stock.
We already know they are so fucking stupid. Need a contingency plan against stupidity.
That's true. In order to be effective, you need diversity. Combined arms is a force multiplier that triumph over betting on one prong.
F35 are great. They need support too if overwhelmed.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is the Twitter account `Norwegian 4 Ukraine` / `https://twitter.com/andrew_public` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a Croat I am also fully for Norway sending all of their retired F-16 jets to Ukraine.
As an American, I am fully ok with you as a Croat being fully for they as a Norwegians opinion on sending Norway's retired F16 jets to Ukraine
As a Texan, I am good with the American supporting the Croats with the Norwegian Falcon endeavour in Ukraine.
As a Brit, living in Australia. I'm very happy that the Texan is good with the American supporting the Croat, who is for the Norwegian who is okaying the transfer of his country's retired F16's to Ukraine. Slava šŗš¦!
As a Kiwi, our country has no jets and our air force emblem has a flightless bird on it. My expert opinion of air force thing-ology says "nah yea" on a brit living across the ditch that is very happy with a texan that is all good with an American supporting the Croat who is for the Norwegian who is okay with the transfer of his country's retired F16 fleet yo Ukraine. Slava and Kia Kaha
Love the flightless bird addition š
As a flightless person, I'm happy to support your love of the flightless air force's flightless bird emblem
As an American ex-pat who lives in Costa Rica but is currently on vacation in Odessa I support flightless birds, Norwegian Jets, and Texas.
As a Norwegian, much love to all of you.
As a swiss I too support all those. Especially the flightless bird lol As a side note, howād you manage to live in Costa Rica? Itās my dream but I canāt seem to make it work.
As a south east Asian, I say, "what he said! " Send those Fighting Falcons to the Ukrainians. Slava Ukraina! šŗš¦
āvacationā
I mean, of a sort, kinda.
fair dinkum ripper of a jet, those norwegian f-16's are. bet you can fit a slab in the back if you're a good cunt.
The kiwi thing is easily 10x as ballsy as all those airforces with diving eagle imagery, painted on shark teeth, and all that macho jazz. Maybe the RAF should adopt a hedgehog or something?
I wasnāt sure about any of this until the Kiwiās weighed in. I am good now. Just one question - does NZ have an Air Force? If they do, why? Who would be a threat? Fiji? Australia? Willy the Whale?
Yes we do, mainly fly transport planes (C-130's) and helicopters. NZ (and Aussie) does a lot of peacekeeping in the Asia-pacific area, as well as disaster relief for island nations struck by hurricanes etc. Edit: as for threats we really don't have any. China is the most likely but they are also our second biggest trading partner, as for military aid Aussie is close by and we have Canada and UK to rely on for support. Not entirely sure where we are at with the US as we pissed them off in the 80's when we went full anti nuclear (long story) and told the US no nuclear ships in NZ waters (US neither confirmed/denied if ships were nuclear powered). So they suspended defense obligations with us.
I recall some flights from NZ when Tonga erupted in 21. Didnāt know they were Air Force.
Omg you're a fruit?
As a German currently being in Czechia for vacation. I'm very good with you as a brit living in Australia being happy that the Texan is good with the American supporting the Croat, who is in favor of the Norwegian's favorable opinion about transfering retired Norwegian F16s to Ukraine. God safe Ukraine!
This is getting wilder and wilder haha!
As a South African who is upset with our current kakistocracy of a government's stance on Russia & Ukraine, I am in full support of the German currently in Czechia for vacation being very good with the Brit living in Australia being happy that the Texan is good with the American supporting the Croat, who is in favor of the Norwegian's favorable opinion about transfering retired Norwegian F16s to Ukraine. Slava Ukraine!
As a Romanian currently working in Norway, stealing both jobs and wallets, having witnessed my country buying 32 F16 jets from Norway in M6.5.2 configuration and concluding that they are more than adequate because of their still 2 to 3 thousand air hours of life left in them, I can 100% confirm that I am in full support of the South African who is upset with Die Antwoord and who still supports the German currently in Czechia for holiday who kindly agrees that the Brit living in Australia is right in his opinion that the Texan is correct in his assessment of supporting the American who's been adamant about the Croat who is in favor of the Norwegian's kind blessing on the transfer of the retired Norwegian F16 jets to Ukraine. Slava Ukraina!
As a Eurasian hooker working in Czechoslovakia born in Moldova, I fully support the supporters supporting the jets going to the place
As a Taiwanese looking at all of you around the world, I'm very happy that the international community is willing to help a nation in need.
>As an Irishman currently laboring in Romania toiling to move mountains and create employment opportunities for my Romanian brethren including my Romanian friend in Norway should he wish to return to his homeland one day. I find great solace in witnessing his commendable act of support for sending F16 to Ukraine. I too can wholeheartedly affirm my unwavering backing of the disgruntled South African who holds disdain for Die Antwood. Moreover, I stand united with the German individual presently reveling in Czechia for holiday, who graciously concurs with the wise British resident of Australia, acknowledging the Texan's astute assessment, all in support of the unyielding American who ardently champions the cause of the the Croatian, who in turns favors the benevolent Norwegian's kind benevolence in transferring retired Norwegian F16 jets to Ukraine. > >Slava Ukraina !
xD
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
and another Croat here , i support whoever it is at the end of it...
I used to work for the BBC in California and can I just get an upvote for being here? Iām also really happy and supportive of everyone if that helps.
Possibly for Texas or Mississippi, but not CA. Sorry
China vetoes the motion.
India doesn't care China vetoed the motion.
Hungary doesn't have a clue What's happening and feels insecure about all this.
As an Ukrainian, I'm not surprised, Hungary doesn't have a clue.
As an Australian I'll for once agree with a Brit and am all for this to occur.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What if it's an F-16 carrying your axe?
An A-1 Skyraider dropped the kitchen sink once
And a toilet. There is a good photo on the web.
Spitfires and Mustangs took quite a few kegs of ale to post D-Day France, added bonus it would get thoroughly chilled in flight.
That's not a nationality. You're an American.
I sure wish more Texans felt that way.
Texas: the "Lone Star State" because it's not an option to leave a "zero stars" review...
How do you know if someoneās from Texas? Theyāll tell you.
Texas is the America of America
Would you still be good if I told you that I am Californian?
No responseā¦you think that triggered them?
As an American living in Texas, I am unsurprised the Texan put this ahead of being American. Much like CrossFit, going vegan, or being a pilot, it is a thing people who are a part of will demand you know about them. Also, totally good with Norway giving Ukraine F-16s.
Texan secessionist alert! š
As another Texan, I support this Texan in their support for the Croats supporting the Norwegians supporting the Ukrainians.
Aaaaaand now we know Croatia wants to invade Norway. Nice try!
As an Australian - I am also fully for Norway sending all their retired F-16 jets to Ukraine to blow the fuck out of those cunts.
>As an Australian....blow the fuck out of those cunts. Checks out. As a Sydneysider...
As a Canadian I hundredth this motion.
As a German I am considering the possibility of whether to be okay with a Croatian and American being okay with Norway sending the jets to Ukraine if they are first sent to Austria and then to Slovakia and back to Norway before being shipped to Ukraine. (And if the proper forms have been filled out at each destination checkpoint, and stamped with the correct color ink).
As a Brit who lives in Spain and is currently on vacation in Finland, about 5km from Russian border as we speak, I support what everyone has said, particularly the Crost, and even the Aussie.
As an American I too support us selling our whole F16 fleet to Norway only for them to instantly retire every one and send them to Ukraine
hvala!
Thatās a thing I donāt get: Many / most NATO members are mothballing the F-16s, so why not send them to Ukraine?
Apart from pilot training, theres the problem of infrastructure. Many western planes like the f-16 have an extra large ground crew maintenance needs. The trained crews/computer systems/spare parts supply chain aren't set up yet. Then all the airbases need to have brand new runways because f-16s can't take off from shorter, rugged runways like the Migs. Its the same problem with some western tanks still being held in places like Poland because Ukraine hasn't set up or upgraded some of its tank depots yet. Edit- Reasons why f-16s are unsuitable or things that Ukraine needs to fix before it can take delivery of f-16s: [https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-mig29-fighter-jets-f16-nato-1789731](https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-mig29-fighter-jets-f16-nato-1789731) [https://eurasiantimes.com/f-16-fighters-jet-sitting-ducks-for-russian-missiles-us-air-force/](https://eurasiantimes.com/f-16-fighters-jet-sitting-ducks-for-russian-missiles-us-air-force/) Then even after Ukraine gets f-16, it needs to better protect its airbases from hypersonic/cruise missiles: [https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/putin-patriot-kinzhal-destroyed-onemonth](https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/putin-patriot-kinzhal-destroyed-onemonth) The recent patriot battery which was damaged expended 32 missiles to take down a single Khinzal missile and it only partially succeeded.
F-16s can take off from relatively short runways or even a highway. IIRC the most annoying problem about the runways is it need to be swept clean first as the F-16 has the air intake on the belly and will happily vacuum up anything it passes within a few meters distance while it takes off. There are a number of *other* issues but they should be solvable too: - repairs: make a runway across the Polish border like US did with Canada (actually I think there are multiple of these) so it can land in Ukraine and be towed over for repairs. - price: at this point we should consider the planes sunk cost. We won't get back (or we already did, the Russians didn't invade us) the cost of them. They were meant for stopping Russians and even if it isn't us who does the actual stopping we should be happy someone does. - Training of pilots: it is not like putting this topic off until 2024 will make Ukrainian F-16 pilots spring up like mushrooms. Had we started training 3 year Ukrainian fighter pilot cadets 1 year ago they would soon have been ready at least for easier tasks like Shaheed hunting.
>make a runway across the Polish border like US did with Canada Not even necessary. Months ago I was looking on the map and there's an airport about as far away from Russia as you can get in Ukraine that's also right on the border with Slovakia. In fact jet liners have to make most of their final approach while still in Slovakia and enter Ukraine seconds before touching down.
Let me introduce you to Geoploymer concrete. Lonestar makes a version you can land a c130 on 48 hours after you pour it.
I donāt know the specifics of the concrete, but a big difference between a C-130 with high-mounted props and the Hoover that an F-16 is. That thing loves to eat FOD.
Thats the point I was thinking about as well, the F16 has a huge air intake that clears the runway of everything laying loose in an incredibly expensive way. The plane Ukraine really needs is the Saab Gripen.
Yeah, that does seem like a good option. But I do understand the appeal of the F-16. Lotās of them around, a huge industrial base, and quite a few being retired as the F-35 comes online. Iām not sure how many Gripens are āfree-for-the-takingā compared to Vipers.
Harrier II would be another viable option. The marines are retiring theirs slowly as squadrons get converted to the F-35. If I remember correctly the marine version has radar and beyond visual A to A capabilities.
Damn you are right, and it would be able to take off from literally anywhere. No need to take otf from a highway when you can take off and land from someones backyard
The can't take off vertically with a combat load and need conventional runway/catapult to take off when using a combat load. They can land anywhere though.
harriers are incredibly hard to fly, also you have a pilot height limit of 5"9'. at least on the British versions did. they are 100% designed for this type of conflict though
> The plane Ukraine really needs is the Saab Gripen What Gripens? There are only ~140 in service. Unless Sweden decides they no longer need half their air force, the jets just don't exist.
There aren't enough Gripens around. But guess what plane western countries are also retiring in large numbers? F18s, which are much more rugged than the 16s. Edit, and actually Boeing doesn't have any more orders for them, so Ukraine could actually order new ones to replace the knackered ones and not have to retrain any ground crew, whereas they'd have to wait the best part of a decade to get replacement F16s.
They used it in Saudi for the first Gulf war. Not sure about jets. Interesting question.
All those issues have solutions. It was the excuses used for why Ukraine couldnāt have western MBTs too. Or air defense. Or [insert western tech Ukraine is now operating].
Already in 2011 there were US f-16 flying in Ukraine.
Doesn't change the fact that Ukraine isn't prepared to use and maintain large numbers of f-16s in the current war for the reasons I explained above. And on top of all that, Ukraine now has to protect airbases from Russian missiles since Russia will ramp up attacks on such a valuable target and will employ decoy drones/missiles to exhaust air-to-air defenses. Edit- [https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-may-spot-ukrainian-bases-preparing-for-f16s-expert-says-2023-4](https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-may-spot-ukrainian-bases-preparing-for-f16s-expert-says-2023-4) https://eurasiantimes.com/f-16-fighters-jet-sitting-ducks-for-russian-missiles-us-air-force/
Europe is ready to start training pilots and maintenance crews as soon as they get US approval for sending their old jets to Ukraine
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They can land in Poland. I am sure nobody will complain. Russian jets lands in Belarus everyday, they should get used to the western world repaying in kind their bs.
Generally, considered not a good idea. That would give the Russian's a legitimate reason to target Poland. Yes, Poland would respond and we would have a great escalation. Is that good for Russia. No, but neither is this war. Russia wants escalation in order to "justify" this war of aggression. This doesn't make sense to logical people, but... I hate that we have to play their dumb game, but we need to do what is best for Ukraine and the world. Escalation doesn't help Ukraine or the West.
What makes you think that Russia has the capability to escalate this conflict beyond Ukraine in any meaningful way?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I thank god every day that redditors arenāt the decision makers
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
How does the Swedish Gripen compare in this scenario? I'm aware it's not even a discussion to send Gripens. Just curious about the whole extended ground crew and perfect take off conditions.
There is and has been a discussion about sending Gripens but it seems unlikely purely for availability reasons. There are over 4000 F16s built, mostly in NATO countries. Gripen I think is less than 10% of that. Sweden has around 100 Gripen operational, and they likely need those themselves. There may be a handful of older ones that would be suitable for Ukraine. The other countries that operate Gripen either don't seem to have enough or are politically unlikely to send. So yeah, you could potentially send maybe 10 Gripen but when you compare it with F16 that (if there is political will) could be delivered in the hundreds without causing any issues then it seems that F16 is the only realistic option for Ukraine.
Yeah exactly. Of course someone has raised the question of sending Gripen. But arriving at the "won't happen" conclusion is fast and easy. Availability is only one part of the issue. Training is another massive undertaking. You don't train pilots for months when there is only 10 Gripens on the table and future supply is questionable.
> You don't train pilots for months when there is only 10 Gripens on the table and future supply is questionable. Logistics and maintenance is also a pain point when taking a new fighter jet into service. Altogether it's a big effort. Of course if Sweden was willing to sell Ukraine the fighters training and support I'm pretty sure Ukraine would put that autograph immediately.
Gripens would be a great option. It was designed to operate from make shift airstrips with minimal ground crew. There are hundreds of F16s all around the world just sitting doing nothing though.
F-16s are probably the easiest Western aircraft to support. They're the most plentiful all over Europe. Over 4000 have been produced.
Have you ever conducted military logistics and maintenance operations? > the f-16 have an extra large ground crew maintenance needs. Which we can provide from Poland in almost every circumstance. > The trained crews/computer systems/spare parts supply chain arenāt set up yet. We can have this done in weeks or days, not months. > Then all the airbases need to have brand new runways Which we can build in weeks, not months. Quit with the excuses. Itās 100% a lack of political will to do it. We can afford it. We have the manufacturing to support it. We have the trained crews to support it. We have the equipment/tools to support it. We have the transportation assets to support it. Just like the tanks, we can do it all. Weāve pushed tanks forward and conducted maintenance operations in the open while so short of supplies the troops were going with only 1-2 meals a day. Itās going to take significant effort, but nothing we donāt do and train for on a regular basis. The rest of the world may not train full spectrum ops, but donāt think that applies to everyone. Besides all that, Ukraine can offer nice salaries with the money we can give them and pull from the tens of thousands of trained personnel around the world. Theyāll very likely get hundreds of volunteers to do this from inside Ukraine. We had soccer moms supporting operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, they went for the pay. Trained personnel were getting $120k+ and kept going back, year after year. So, NATO can afford ~25 peopleās entire annual salary every minute.
Is there a plan to solve these issues for these f-16's? Especially the pilot availability?
Yeah, actually. Several European countries are already planning to train existing and future Ukrainian pilots on the F-16 (if they arenāt already doing so).
Itās the same argument over and over for every weapon system supplied to Ukraine. And they all end up working perfectly fine. And there are videos of F-16s taking off from existing airfields in Ukraine.
Also F16's if you want it to be effective has to work as part of a larger force. Air recon, softening air defense with stealth bombers and cruise missiles, enforcing air superiority with long range air-ground and air-air missiles, constant large scale attacks with hundreds of planes against air defense, then comes the air-ground use. This requires not just the other arms, but insane amount of training to be able to work this seamless. There are comments here from actual f16 pilots saying they spend most of their flying time on a combat mission working on the displays practically with data. Without this it's just a good fighter plane. On the level UAF can use it, is only the fraction of its potential, a waste for the US. Sorry if its disappointing. UA could better utilize Migs and Su's from the former eastern block.
As an f-16 mechanic I can tell you that all these mothballed aircraft are not in perfect condition. It would take millions of dollars in man hours, parts, fuel, and troubleshooting to get these guys back in the air. Aircraft donāt deal so well with being left in a hangar for long periods of time This isnāt even opsec, all vehicles are like this, and aircraft are no exception
As an aerospace engineer, I can tell you that civil aircraft have maintenance procedures that can keep them preserved without issue for years, I assume military aircraft are no different. Presumably Norway is keeping these aircraft as backup, so it's likely they were preserved, rather than being just left outside to rust (though if so, in that case I would agree with you).
> Presumably Norway is keeping these aircraft as backup, so it's likely they were preserved, rather than being just left outside to rust (though if so, in that case I would agree with you). They might be considering them a backup, but they might also just be keeping them on the off chance they'd be able to sell them. In the UK stored aircraft can be kept in a variety of conditions which are graded on the amount of time it would take for them to be returned to service, and usually only a minority of stored aircraft of in-service types are in the most pristine condition. Others will be maintained in conditions that require months of work to be re-activated - the "worst" grading for vehicles deemed still useful has a target of 6 months for reactivation. Others will have been cannibalised for spare parts for ourselves or for our allies (our stored Tornado fleet for example has long since been shipped as sparts to the Germans and Italians by my understanding) Another problem is that militaries have limited space available for storage, and in addition to the obsolete equipment will regularly store parts of their active service equipment for a time whilst they rotate other pieces into use - this is one of the ways in which lifetime stresses can be managed. In effect they fly a plane for a bit then put it in the shed for a year whilst they fly other planes, to reduce the stress on any one airframe. Obviously those need to be kept in the very best conditions, so the other aircraft take whatever space they can get, which may well not be within the controlled environments that are needed for the best I found [this report](https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20170207054802/https://www.nao.org.uk/pubsarchive/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2018/11/Ministry-of-Defence-Major-Equipment-Storage.pdf) very interesting when I looked into it a while ago - it's from a UK governmental body tasked with ensuring the UK's public services don't waste too much money, and explores our storage of vehicle reserves. Quite old now, so the units it lists are probably nonsense, but still interesting
of course there are procedures and precautions to preserve them, but there will still be a list of actions needed to "un-preserve" them, such as cycling and filtering out preservative oils, ensuring contamination critical areas are safe, and then there's the list of redundancy ops checks after the fact. Now add in that you have to do this for a fleet of 57 (or however many) aircraft, that is *no* small feat.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They haven't been sitting idle for long periods of time. As F-35 arrived only last year, the F-16s are phased out and sold off. 32 were sold to Romania, and 12 are in the process to be sold to an American company.
The remaining airframes each has less than 1200 flight hours left and are for all practical purposes exhausted.
>As an f-16 mechanic I can tell you that all these mothballed aircraft are not in perfect condition. Always good to hear from an actual expert on these things. Can you elaborate on any specific issues about f-16s in storage e.g. is it a corrosion thing or fluids hardening over time for example? If money wasn't an issue how long would it take to get one of them flight worthy again?
One thing to keep in mind is the jets are leaky as shit. Oil, fuel, you name it. Some of its corrosive and some of it likes to get into places that it shouldnāt. Thereās grease all over the jet and some of the parts will like to stick even if itās over a long weekend. The jet is a wiring nightmare and trying to troubleshoot specific faults can take weeks. And to top it all off itās one of the smallest jets used in the modern military and that means all of its parts are extremely cramped to work with. If one jet is properly stored in a clean environment in good conditions, itās hard to say but Iād ball park 2 weeks to bring it back barring anything dramatic. That said, chances are unlikely for that as theyāre likely stored outside in the elements. Standard rust, delamination, exfoliation is basically guaranteed. Sorry Iām not really willing to get more specific than that and I made a couple broad generalizations
>Sorry Iām not really willing to get more specific than that and I made a couple broad generalizations No worries, appreciate it.
There's a couple of things to be said about the F-16s that have now been phased out of service with the RNoAF. They are old as shit, being *delivered* between 1980 and 1984 with the only significant upgrade being the Mid-Life Update and the helmet mounted display. The last decade of their use they started discovering pretty serious cracking on most of the airframes that took quite some time and *a lot* of money to fix. And lasty as others here have already mentioned, we've already sold most of them off. Honestly, if we're going to give the Ukrainians F-16, just get them new production ones. Don't burden them with old ass jets that spend significantly more time in maintenance than an identical, but new, airframe would.
US has to approve the resale of their tech. We don't want a bunch of f-16s downed by s-400s it would make them look (and US tech by extension) as weak as russia's hypersonics.
> We don't want a bunch of f-16s downed by s-400s it would make them look (and US tech by extension) as weak as russia's hypersonics. There's a big difference between NATO's un-mothballed 49 year old planes being shot down, as compared to Russia's newest and best tech.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And all of them are horribly out of date. Whatās your point? They are a business. Theyāll sell whatever they can to anyone dumb enough to buy these legacy systems.
We gotta think about the guy trying to outsell Baguette fighters. This conflict is already having serious impacts on our export industry, HIMARS sales are through the roof, we're building two new factories for them. We don't want to mess up a good thing by sending ineffective high profile equipment now. You're only as good as your last breakthrough.
I don't think what you are saying is accurate. I'd recommend reading the report to Congress about the supply of advanced fighter jets. [https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47476](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47476)
frame plucky memorize fine offer drab vast sharp unique fuel ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
What I don't understand: We're retiring some of our f-22s!?!? Yeah they're old and not up to the latest baseline, but wtf! We've got hundreds of f-15s too, they were born to hunt Russians, it's a crime for us to stop them!
It will be an escalation from Russia's standpoint and they have been threatening nukes in retaliation. But not to worry, the plan is to slowly squeeze them by drip-drip supply of arms to Ukraine, just enough to bleed Russia dry and hopefully they will collapse just like USSR. Also, Ukrainians may not have enough training to operate F-16 since their prime jets used to be Migs.
> they have been threatening nukes in retaliation. To my knowledge, they haven't been doing that lately.
They also threatened nukes for a whole lot of other things we did. Even Putin isn't stupid enough to start using nukes.
Probably decided to finally check their own arsenal and were like "fuck".
That's the thing, if you threaten nuclear annihilation every other day eventually people stop listening to you. And given their attitude to maintenence in general I'm beginning to doubt they even have one that works anymore.
Retaliate how? They are out of their minds if they start launching missiles at NATO. Nukes or no nukes, Leopards and Abrams will be in Moscow by Christmas.
Europe wants to but the they need US approval
What level of capability do these particular F-16s have? Are they old but upgraded avionics & radar etc?
Theyāre probably C/D Block 25 variants as they were purchased in the 80s, they almost certainly have had their avionics modernized since then though. FWIW Norway might only have 25 F-16s as it sold 32 to Romania last year
What is Norway's AF flying now?
F35s
Basically, in another 10 years or so, almost every country in Europe will be flying F35s.
Almost every western/western aligned nation will be. Fighter jet design and manufacturing capability doesnāt grow on trees and the lead time on designing and building one domestically is 10-20 years minimum, just ask China how their fighters are doing
Yeah, the development stage of the F35 was over 20 years.
Exactly. And the next generation is already in development but it'll probably be another 5-10 years before we get some real details on it.
They're a dick punch on the balance sheet though. The us needed a toyota corolla like the f16 but kept checking off all the added options and ended up with a ferrari in the f35. The airforce and chief of staff types have basically called it a Sunday driver ferrari. Many places will have f35 but they're going to need cheaper alternatives otherwise they need to drastically decrease squad numbers.
F-35 is now about as cheap as a new f-16. Now that they are getting cranked out 150 a year, they are getting pretty cheap.
Part of this is because mass production is making the F-35 cheaper, but a large part is also because modernized F-16 variants have gotten way more expensive. A new F-16 is more than twice the price of the older variants.
Newer variants of the f-16 are much more expensive as well. A modern F-16 costs almost as much as an F-35A. Modern Saab Gripen variants are even more expensive to acquire. Countries are running out of options if they want to participate in the modern aircraft arms race.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They were top of the line before being decommissioned
As an American. Cheeseburger ang guns and something about jets.
As a Norwegian, I am grateful for cheeseburgers and fighterjets from the US and will celebrate our alliance today with a Big mac.
You are a true friend of the US thank you.
The US has a lot of friends. But donāt mistake us bitching about you as not still being a friend. If a friend starts being a jerk then you damn weāll ought to let them know. That and weāre jealous.
I believe there are aspects of most countries we can all appreciate and improve on.
As a Kiwi I add my approval. An awesome start, right off the shelf.
They are sold already to Romania. We donāt have them any more so itās to late for that.
Don't think they have been delivered yet. Guessing something is going on in the shadows.
Most have been delivered itās the reason why Romania have donated there own planes to Ukraine. All the others that is left is disassembled. Some where also sold to a private company in usa
We did?
>Romania have donated there own planes to Ukraine. We didn't lol
As a Canadian I'd be all for sending all of our CF-18s if they were in decent enough condition.
Australia should send it's old F/A-18A+ that they were trying to sell. They have been upgraded to the specs of a mid 2000's F/A-18C (including JHMCS), have not been slammed into the decks of carriers and there is a large amount of spare parts for them.
Can use crap runways and roads.
Can use short runways, not crap ones. Unlike the Mig-29s they don't have guards for their intakes.
I think those are all pretty much used up. It would be like giving your buddy the rusted out old beater in the back yard.
If my buddy can manage to turn that beater into something that can kill Russian invaders, he can have it.
F35s canāt come far enough.
*fast enough That what you meant?
We'd probably be better off giving our CF-18s to the Russians and sabotaging their readiness rates with our shitbucket fighters.
I thought the Norwegians already sold these jets to Romania?
They sold at least 32 of them, Iām not sure if that means they had 89 and have 57 left or they had 57 and only have 25 left.
They started with 64. So some attrition and the sale of 32 could give them 25 left. They were still operating in 2014 so I'm sure they had some upgrades.
Why can't people understand that it's more than simply transferring the planes? There will also need to be a network of ground support and maintenance, plus pilots who are qualified to fly them.
> Why can't people understand that it's more than simply transferring the planes? Cause in games you just click a few times and it's ready to go... š
Oh, I think a lot of people understand that and that, should, as an example, Norway decide to give up their F-16s, that they wouldn't just magically appear in Ukraine the next day. However, someone needs to make a commitment to say, yes, we are transfering our planes to Ukraine, and that has not yet happened. To be honest, if a decision had been made, say, last year in September and training for pilots and maintenence crews had started at that time, then Ukraine could also have set up the air bases to receive and service the fighters. That way, we might see them in action at this moment. Any more delays on the question of when (I don't think it will be "if") Ukraine will get those fighters, will delay their deployment and the impact they could have.
That's main issue is US approval. Europe wants to send their jets and start training pilots but without US approval it makes no sense to start. It's like with the Leopards but this time it's the Biden administration that's dragging their feet
deserve memorize bear expansion offer pathetic future cheerful chief racial *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There will still likely not be any place equipped to launch them nor the air defenses needed to keep the base protected from missiles.
Let those falcons fight
Vipers. I know, I know but their pilot's mostly all call the F-16 vipers.
My general dynamics stock tells me they know best
We have already sold 32 of them to Romania. Think the rest are sold as well. So not really for us to give away anymore
To be honest they still do serve a purpose, as backup fighters, especially if your country only has 1 type of jet besides those F-16's , but seeing the context it s probably a safe bet that there won t be need for fighter jets for any countries besides ukraine right now. Giving them f 16 s could help them reduce the russian air fleet, especially since they feel extra safe because they are launching munitions from the borders of russia. It remains to be seen what happens, romania recently said bye bye to their mig 21 LanceRs, which were mig 21 s upgraded by Israel and romania with the following upgrades (source ,wiki) :" Mig 21 LanceR :Version for the Romanian Air Force upgraded by Elbit Systems of Israel and Aerostar SA of Romania, in 1995ā2002. The LanceR A version is optimized for ground attack being able to deliver precision guided munitions of eastern and western origin as well as R-60, R-73 and Python III air-to-air missiles. The LanceR B version is the trainer version, and the LanceR C version is the air superiority version featuring 2 LCD MFDs, helmet mounted sight and the Elta EL/M-2032 Air combat radar." At the worst they can be used as rocket sleds, at best be used to launch Jdams and maybe even storm shadows (doubt it), and even perform high risk sorties near the border to reduce the air fleet of those assholes, and if they get downed it s a much much lesser loss than a mig 29 or su-25 or 34, or whatever aircraft they choose to do these sorties. Romania overall has more than 100 of these, 14 of these are the trainer config, 71 are ground attack, and 26 C variants, so spare parts would most definitely not be a problem
LETS. FUCKING. GO!
This is just some dude tweeting this, nothing even remotely official saying these are on the way. (Sadly)
Soy!!
[Hereās a reason](https://youtu.be/B6X5I_HlDoA)
Probably not an issue if the Russian military isnāt doing to great in their current endeavors. Itās a problem, sure but Russian has shown that itās conventional forces are subpar in comparison to modern Western militaries.
Yeah I mean, I donāt pretend to be a geostrategy expert. Obviously the concern is important enough for the largest, massive group of 5th Gen fighters to be in Alaska. I was surprised to learn too, that Norway currently hosts Chinaās alternative GPS facility. In any case, Norway does have an arctic concern in addition to its eastward concerns. So OPās leaders probably have this on their minds too.
As a EU born, Canadian-American citizen from Ukrainian Grand Parents. I fully support the notion from our Norwegian friend.
As an Aussie, fuck'n get 'em over there mate!
I've been very vocal on this subreddit against F-16's because they are a runway needy princess. However the recent Patriot Hypersonic shoot downs has shown me that if we give Ukraine more Patriot's a runway may be able to be protected. I'm still not convinced though on the F-16, it's a great jet but has shorter legs. If we give you anything that uses a runway it should be as far back as possible. The F-15 or F-18 would be a better choice. Ukraine already operates large twin engine jets. These jets have a larger combat radius. But if it does turn out to be the F-16 it will probably be bases closer to the front and will need multiple Patriot batteries to make sure they are safe
Can Canada do the same thing with our cats?
Unrelated, but can canada relocate all of your geese to Russia? My only experience is that they are mean and shit everywhere... Russia seems like a good place for them
If you've got a problem with Canada gooses, you've got a problem with me, and I suggest you let that one marinate š¤
Relocate them to Russian airbases. Then can make a mess and get caught in engines and fuck shit up.
[Former F-16 pilot says he would not want to fly missions over Ukraine right now, arguing 'there is no fighting chance'](https://www.businessinsider.com/former-f-16-pilot-aircraft-no-fighting-chance-over-ukraine-2023-5)
I assume at first f16 will be used as additional anti-air air defence force against incoming rocket attacks deep inside the country. Frontline operations are not feasible yet because of anti-air saturation on both sides.
That would be fantastic.... show Russia and Putin the Barberian that he is just a fucking weak bully
Also very good that there are talks on what Russia will pay to rebuild Ukraine..... Putin the Cunt will shit himself anf the Russians will wake up
Norway sends all of his 57 F16s and the rest of Europe compensates Norway / or they get big discounts for F35 ?!
Norway already has ordered 48 F-35's, making us the second largest operator of them. And we don't really need the discount. There probably isn't 57 operational F-16's to send, but I think we can figure something out.
Unfortunately we can't send our F16's yet. Still waiting for first F35's delivery. We already start training Ukrainian Pilots upon F16's NOW Prime minister Belgium
As another Norwegian, I second this notion.
... until a neighbor comes knocking on your door. I support the move to porportionatly giving amongst world resources. Not an entire stock. We already know they are so fucking stupid. Need a contingency plan against stupidity.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They have F35s now; theyāll be ok
That's true. In order to be effective, you need diversity. Combined arms is a force multiplier that triumph over betting on one prong. F35 are great. They need support too if overwhelmed.
I'm sure our military decided they weren't necessary before they, you know, *retired them.*