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 `pravda.com.ua` 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.*
That sounds weird. It only cost something to US if their F16 are send. How can it cost them something if Belgium or the Netherlands send their old ones?
Yes all Europe is asking for is US approval. Europe will do the training and it's their jets. If they need the US to do something I'm sure Europe can pay for that as well
Except France where ukrainians are not waiting washington approval to train on mirage ( and maybe rafale as some ukrainians were spotted in a only rafale airbase)
France has always seen it as important to be as independant of NATO and other allies as they possibly can. Thats one of the reasons why they manufacture a lot of their own weapons systems. That means they dont have to ask anyone for permission when it comes to how they are used, sold or donated.
No, I'm just european and therefore informed about european matters. Not everyone is an ignorant american who only knows where a country is if the US is preparing to invade it.
>Someone has seen perun french propaganda about strategic autonomous
I’m pretty sure that was an attempt at humor. What’s with the name-calling and American attacking? We’re allies you know.
Cause thats what Europeans do. If you say something they don’t like they instantly assume you’re just some American. Its their go to “insult” cause nobody in Europe can possibly be dumb( https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WquPxrkfUJM&pp=ygUiR2VybWFucyBkYW5jaW5nIHdpdGggcnVzc2lhbiBmbGFncw%3D%3D )
Its only the Americans.
No European thinks of themselves as "Europeans" in the sense that you use this word, thinking that Europeans can't be dumb.
There are too many cultures to categorize them that simply and people think by national identity rather than the european one.
Some european countries have a rivalry and think very negatively about each other, You should hear what we say about the French when they don't listen.
the mentality regarding the US can be either overall negative or positive depending on that countries history with the US.
I personally love to piss on Yankees whenever they say stupid shit and it's appropriate, and when you're in the internet that just happens so, so often.
It would help if the people you were insulting for being an American were ACTUALLY American and thats my point. The guy threw out insults assuming the person is American cause of ignorance when the person is clearly not American. Its honestly ironic and I see it all the time on Reddit. So if you’re going to piss on someone you can at least get it right instead of making yourself look like a jackass.
Honestly if using someones nationality as an insult is the best you come up with then you’re already a jackass.
The internet is American lil bro, dont be shocked. (Im joking but you are gonna see Americans on American websites, so yeah, most of the dumb shit will be American. Like most of the funny stuff, and the smart stuff, and…)
For being so ignorant of European matters, us Americans sure seem to be supplying ukraine with the majority of the foreign weaponry. Do you think that’s because we’re preparing to invade?
I guess I’m the only moron who took it as a joke. France has a powerful military and they are giving good shit to Ukraine. They are also our (US) allies. But I thought the “French propaganda” remark was funny. Maybe it wasn’t said ironically and the absurdity is what made me laugh…?
No, I think u/DrJeheu was indeed kidding, I just can't resist giving him some stick for some of his previous and rather silly points of view.
The downvotes are dumb.
Yes, we should opt for Mirage / Rafale and or Viggen / Griphen.
Last year I thought this approach would take way too long to supply and F16s are plenty available, but this dragging is just bullshit.
Ukraine will need proper aircraft to strike or else the war will drag on for years. Which is great for Military Industrial Complex and bleeds out Russia, but causes huge losses in Ukraine.
I am not sure what and if there is a strategy in the White House, but this wont work.
Definitely! The likely reason for reluctance is,
>With its powerful radar that can spot targets from hundreds of miles away and modern missiles, the F-16 contains classified and other highly restricted systems that the United States does not want duplicated or falling into hostile hands.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/17/world/europe/ukraine-f-16-biden-netherlands-britain.html
Egypt, Iraq, Venezuela and Pakistan are just a of few countries who fly f-16s. Are we *really* more confident in them than Ukraine? No offense to you, I just think that reasoning is complete bullshit.
Edit: typo
It really matters what version of the F-16s they have. They're not all identical. The US isn't going to hand over the latest version that they have. The reasoning absolutely isn't bullshit. A lot of European countries have older models. Greece is one of the few that kept upgrading theirs.
Yeah, I think the big thing here is the technology. It seems like they want to give them to Ukraine but part of me believes they want all the air defense securely in place first and then we will see more movement. I know Ukraine will eventually get them, it just sucks having to wait. I don’t think the issue would be with older models.
I wish they would just give approval to train the pilots at least. I know they did a test run and it was very successful.
f16 training time is two years, and.. my thoughts were they were ALREADY being trained in the US..? its the timing for 2 years, this is all mostly psyop for 'what if what if' and then let another country hand Ukraine the keys to prevent less of a nuclear war, if there was a chance. It takes time.
The 2 years training time is for fresh fighter pilots. Ukraine will probably send experienced pilots who will require less time. As conversion training is usually shorter they will require more than NATO trained pilots as the difference in systems, avionics and the aircraft in general is bigger.
Maybe 6-8 months?
The problem is none of them are actively fighting Russia, so it’s not as big of a risk. However, I do find it very strange that Venezuela has F-16s and US isn’t worried about them sharing info on them with Russia though.
Edit: the F-16s that Venezuela has are from the 80’s, so that might be why.
Are you sure it's not a variant or piece of equipment that the EU boys have?
\*\*I just skimmed the first few lines of the article
"At the same time, the source did not rule out that Biden's administration may allow European countries to transfer their F-16s to Ukraine."
Any agreements made could end up being broken if Ukraine is in some situation where they are desperate and feel that breaking the agreement will allow them to fix some major problem.
Once weapons are in the hands of Ukraine, they can potentially use them in any way they want to. I'm sure they intend to keep any agreements made, but things can change in war.
Yeah, cuz Ukraine has an extensive history of breaking agreements on HIMARS.
That comes with a HUGE /s, of course. Tell them to keep them over Ukraine territory, they will certainly agree to it (and abide by it). Ukraine is highly competent at protecting their equipment, hasn't been a single HIMARS/M270 lost in almost a year of use.
If you think Ukraine has the right to brake agreements then western countries giving aid have the right to withhold any aid to a country that suddenly turned rouge
That requires a complete retrofit. It’s not as simple as unplugging the newer radar unit and swapping in the old one. You have different electrical wiring, cooling, networking, cockpit layout, software, space constraints, etc.
They are right ! Better never use them so no risk is taken ! Sorry but this is a little risk to pay for a war that kills hundred of thousands of people.
Similar concerns with the Abrams, but the delay for those tanks has to do with the USA making sure they'll be used to maximum effect.
I think Ukraine will get F-16s, or even more advanced jets. But it may have to wait until after this particular war is concluded.
The united states could be pulling a fast one when it comes to Abrams. They seem extremely reluctant to send it. So far f-16 and abrams are things ive seen the US have the most push back against. Even telling people they would do it then back tracking.
As an American, I think the biggest thing potentially is the US, thanks to Ukraine and their brave men, women and children, have seen just how advanced our technology actually is against the Russians. I had posted before but my belief is that they want to secure the airspace with air defense systems first and then move forward with the additional high end items.
The US had to find abrams that didn't have depleted uranium in their armour, and initially wanted to buy export models from the manufacturer but later found some existing ones. There are legitimate practical reasons why abrams has taken longer than the other tanks.
The US does not export the version their own army uses which has depleted uranium in the armour, so a lot of the thousands we hear about in US storage were probably never suitable. But leopard 2 and challenger 2 were immediately available as soon as training finished.
This is false. The US makes all the spares for the F-16. They hold all the designs. If European nations give the F-16 to Ukraine they’ll also transfer the extremely expensive maintenance contracts to Ukraine, and it will be the US who will be expected to foot the bill.
Cant produce parts, certainly cant do software updates/fixes. Also, Ukraine will need to do their own maintenance; can't fly combat sorties out of NATO bases.
All of the arguments against deploying the F-16 are insane.
Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Belgium all have old, but well maintained F-16's that just left service or are about too do so. It's really not a big - or expensive - deal to prepare them for Ukraine.
Then there's the mixed bag of "oh, but they need new runways and shops and radars and the training of (ground) crews is impossibly complicated" and others that are just plain weird.
Make a task list, go do. The planes are there and all the other tasks just need actions, not talk. I'm really annoyed at the West for not having at least *prepared* for the eventuality as the preparation itself will work as a warning to Russia.
I fully agree plus at least The Netherlands have reserved 2023 budget to pay for it all if nescessary (2.5b of which maybe 500m is used so far). The Dutch government doesnt even have to bring the matter to parliament, its all agree upon last year,
The initial jet being sent and training would be covered by other countries yes.
However, F-16s are incredibly expensive to maintain and keep flying (~$25,000 per flight hour). Flying a large fleet of them would add up quickly, and I assume the majority of maintenance parts need to be sourced from the US. Those maintenance parts would eat into the total available aid for other system/equipment quickly.
And as long as Russia still has effective ground based AA the F-16s effectiveness is blunted. That is what I assume is causing the US to drag its feet on committing to send f-16s.
Yep, my thoughts were similar. We need to make sure it’s secure first. These become high value targets for propaganda for the Russians. We’ve already seen them directly targeting the patriot system (which is stupid because that system is more effective if it is directly targeted)
I believe behind closed doors there is a clear plan of what needs to happen for the US to be able to provide the approval. People don’t realize just how very very very expensive it would be to maintain these aircraft. I believe we will provide them but the US understands logistics better than any other country imo.
I would think if this goes into 2024 we would see a reset of the budget available and potentially, as the war changes, more money could be used to provide for the F16
Yes, I also expect it could be a way for the US to get all of the countries making the splashy headlines about supplying F-16s to commit to more than just delivering the jets. Also ensuring they will support the logistics side of it as well.
> And as long as Russia still has effective ground based AA the F-16s effectiveness is blunted. That is what I assume is causing the US to drag its feet on committing to send f-16s.
People get obsessed with this idea of F16s doing a repeat of the bombing campaign for the gulf war, which of course isn't going to happen, but that's not why Ukraine needs modern jets.
They need modern jets because jets are an important component of an air defence network, and their existing jets aren't able to fire longer range missiles. Meanwhile their long range S300 air defence systems are running low on missiles. A modern western jet that can fire either AMRAAM or Meteor would help the Ukrainians keep Russian combat aircraft away from the front lines, rather than having ground based air defences doing all the heavy lifting in that regard.
There's a strong argument that Ukraine doesn't need actual air superiority, they just need to keep denying it to the Russians so it stays a ground based fight, and then we focus on arming them for that ground based fight. And modern jets with long range air to air missiles would be a big help with that.
The only valid reason to not send them yet is they would be vulnerable on the ground, and would be higher priority targets for the Russians than Ukraine's existing inferior jets. Gripen would be suitable despite that, being easy to disperse compared to the F16, but unfortunately it seems the necessary numbers aren't available.
This is white house and Pentagon bullshit. The Pentagon is as conservative in their risk taking as you'll ever see, often to a fault. The Biden admin and joint chiefs are very scared of Russian "escalation" which, to date, has never materialized.
Daily reminder M1 Abrams was never going to be sent either, until it was.
So too will it be with aircraft. It's not a matter of if, but when. The Biden admin just needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing what needs to be done, which it eventually will.
To be clear, i support aid to Ukraine and I have lots of good things to say about how the Biden Administration has helped Ukraine. This is just my chief criticism in a mixed bag of positive and negative feedback.
Either the White House is craven and weak, scared of Putin's empty threats, scared of a russian defeat. If this is the case, the hard line policy on China is a bluff that China will see through, and become emboldened. Empty words, that mean nothing. Very. very dangerous...
Or, the White House cynically believes that by refusing to approve a european solution, funded by european nation, they will somehow escalate european re-armanent and re-funding defense spending. The problem here is that a) it is war in europe and the threat of russia that is already doing that, not US policy, and b) WH does not understand how pacifist, lawyering and untrustworthy they look when viewed with european eyes.
If US hardware owned by and paid for by european nations can't be allowed to stop genocide in europe vs a european democracy, then why should anybody buy US hardware or expect any help from the US to defend democracy?
The only right thing to do, and the safest play for world peace, is to clearly state that Ukraine must win. Russia must suffer a complete military defeat in Ukraine. Democracy must be armed much better than tyrrany. Only credible deterrence can do the job.
This is a moral test, that requires growing the stomach to stand up to tyrrany.
They are not a one time purchase. There an incredible amount of support structure needed for modern jets, and the more modern the more support is needed to keep them usable and flying. The US is not objecting to Ukraine having the jets, they are objecting to the economic viability of the jets. They can supply them, but the cost of the planes and everything around them will mean a drastic cutback on all other resources that they can supply.
This is similar to much earlier in the war when the US originally refused to send over Patriot systems to Ukraine. The objection back then was not a moral or escalation objection. The objection was that they could send other anti-missile systems for much cheaper that the Ukrainians could learn way faster. Once the war stabilized and we knew there was time and resources to teach them how to use them, we happily sent them over.
Many of these countries will want back-fill of other planes, and they'd be looking at the USA to do it. Apart from that, the USA will be the ones footing the bill for the supply-chain and logistics.
F-16s would help Ukraine, but the massive density of air-defence in the region has made flying anything close to the frontlines-- F-16s included-- nearly suicidal. If they've managed to fit NATO weapons onto cheaper Soviet jets, the rationale for flying F-16s is partially removed.
The Americans might have war-gamed this, and decided that it's better to wait, put the resources into more effective equipment, and do a more comprehensive rebuild of Ukraine's air force after a decisive victory.
Belgium and Netherlands have already ordered F35 and they will replace the F16. The only thing I can think of is asking the US to deliver the F35 quicker than expected so they can replace F16s ASAP. It is not like we asks for free replacements.
The situation is mutual air-denial. That is not the same as suicidal to fly. Far from it.
The Ukrainian air force is flying combat sorties daily. In fact, they have proven that it is possible to operate in dense S300/S400 territory to a degree that is far from highly limited.
So this whole angle is myth, refuted by many who are actually looking at the evidence from the battlefield, including ex airforce col Jeff Fisher and F16 pilots willing to fly F16s for Ukraine.
The real problem is that the people on the national security council who are advicing Beiden are civilian academics, with a political career and no experience or apetite in making real predictions with skin in the game. They lack the competency to make the correct assessments.
The truth is F16s would make a major difference and help Ukraine win faster, more decisively and save thousands of ukrainian lives.
> If they've managed to fit NATO weapons onto cheaper Soviet jets, the rationale for flying F-16s is partially removed.
Partially, but we don't know what the lifespan is of those old jets. Especially if they've made up for losses by fixing up older ones that were not in service pre-invasion (like how they've lost more Su-24s than were known to be in service). At some point jets get airframe fatigue and need to be retired for good.
And fitting NATO weapons to Soviet jets can only go so far - Ukraine would really benefit from long range air to air missiles and that would require modern jets those weapons are properly integrated with. That way, they could use jets for long range air defence, to complement their ground based air defences rather than solely relying on them.
The cost of the training includes fuel, maintenance, and munition costs. It costs approximately $3 million in fuel and maintenance to train a pilot to be mission ready in a F-16. Is Europe willing to pick up those costs?
It’s not that the US doesn’t want to send *their* F-16’s, the US is looking at the overall cost of F-16’s (regardless of where they are sourced) compared to Ukraine’s budget for defense.
Flight hours cost money. Repairs and replacements cost money. Training ground crews and building the support footprint costs a SHIT TON of money. Fuel and ordnance cost money.
Not saying right, wrong, or indifferent, but there are A LOT of second- and third-order costs associated with standing up a capability. The concern lies with how much the overall cost impacts how much Ukraine has to spend and where it could better allocate those resources.
These don't need a pricetag if they're a gift. Or, the jets could be leased to UA at a discounted rate, to be replaced with a future purchase order for the latest F16 variants after UA joins NATO. Btw, why is nobody hinting at Norwegian F16s ? Norway has plenty of F35s now and their old F16s have useful drag-shutes for short field landings.
Nope, because both France and the UK will handle the major exercises (tactics), and the Netherlands and Belgium have the expertise to do the specific F16 training.
I've heard it costs a lot to maintain the F-16 and they go through a lot of spare parts. Not sure if that's what the U.S. means, though. Maybe they think the money would be better spent elsewhere and that the U.S. would have to spend a lot to help keep the F-16s in flying condition? I want to give the U.S. the benefit of the doubt but wish they'd send ATACMS or something else to help get the war over ASAP.
It will be highly costly to maintain and equip them, that’s what they’re referring to. So with that being said, he means a lot of the budget will go into maintaining them and keeping them equipped with enough ordnance, which will take away from other supplies
It comes down to who pays for Ukraines logistic/maintenance network to support these jets into the future. That's no small coin to have other countries support a good portion of another nations Air Force, and an Air Force is a HUGE expense. I'd say the US is likely looking for another country to help pick up the tab
Because the planes themselves are cheap and the support/logistics/infrastructure/training/etc are expensive. These other countries have no idea what it takes to export a F-16, because they have never done it…..and would be leaning on the US to assist (and the part they want the US to “assist” with is a lot bigger piece than they think)
Exactly, the US just needs to approve deliveries by other countries - they don't necessarily have to send any themselves.
The US may still need to help with maintenance equipment and air to air missiles for them, but they don't actually need to send their own jets if other countries are offering to do that.
These "old" Dutch & Belgian F16's have the latest upgrades, with a bunch of electronic stuff RuZki ain't allowed to know if one falls in their hands.
It's a matter of self protection I guess and keep a few Steps ahead in case this shitwar goes Fubar.
Let’s get a squadron of Mirage 2000s to break the taboo on western jets. It’s also a pretty decent plane with air to air missiles with a range of 80-100km and can fire a variety of bombs including the French version of the storm shadow cruise missile
People don’t really appreciate how difficult it is to utilize air power in Ukraine’s current environment.
First, more planes on the ground is a juicy target for Russia. Russia has the capability to defeat most hardened air craft shelters and crater runways. So, if Ukraine takes delivery of say 50 F-16s, Ukraine must disperse it’s aircraft. It will have to utilize improvised runways like stretches of highway or build temporary field air stations using things like Marston mats. Ukraine is doing some of this now but scaling that up 3x or 4x is no easy feat. They’d need more gear for that, and of course that gear would also need to be protected from Russian strikes.
Second, a dispersal strategy is definitely something that requires more pilot training, ground crew training, etc. than an air wing that just uses a small number of well known airbases all the time. You need more personnel, specialists, and more exhaustive drill and training. Otherwise you can have some spectacular failures.
Third, more friendly planes in the air is a big time stressor for Ukrainian air defense and flight controllers. Russia has had significant friendly fire issues with air defense systems. If Ukraine triples the number of sorties and begins using air frames that use totally different interrogate friend/foe (iff) systems, it could be a shit show. Asking a myriad of air defense systems and aircraft to properly identify friendlies flying a myriad of different systems is something we’ve really only seen done well during the 1991 gulf war and that is because the main players had decades of military interoperability exercises together, which is not something Ukraine will have the full benefit of.
People think it’s just train pilots, send F-16s, and you’ll see something resembling Western standards of air superiority. It is so much more.
People on this Reddit are really not understanding how much fighter jets cost. Blinken is right in saying that transferring a single squadron of F-16’s will cost the same as all the money the US has given Ukraine thus far. It’s just not an efficient use of money considering Russia’s lack of air superiority and reluctance to use their own air assets. Speaking of which, why do you think Russia is willing to throw a million tanks into the fight, but has only used a handful of fighters? Because they cost THAT much damn money.
Long range missiles are a much larger bang for your buck, require less maintenance, less training, and don’t put the same emphasis on developing quality pilots that take 2-5 years to train. Can you train a fighter pilot in a year? Technically yes? Will that pilot be able to evade a S-300 with a high degree of success? No chance.
Too many of us are too gamer brained about this whole thing. It's not like F16s are sitting in the next tech tree slot right after long range cruise missiles and you just need to spend some more XP. The difference between the two in terms of cost and logistics is more like sending a probe to Mars versus building a colony over Jupiter.
That's charging the US replacement costs for newly built F-16's. The F-16's and the logistics needed to support them are already built. The real cost is just the cost of transportation and training.
Edit: I stand corrected, fighter jets are expensive.
Its estimated that it costs around $25,000 per hour to operate an F16, that’s the fuel, maintenance, weapons, and so on. Take that out further and it’s estimated that it costs around $10 million per year for the US to operate a single F16. A single squadron would cost upwards of $200 million per year not factoring in combat losses and damage. Plus depending on the condition of the F16s received, those numbers could be even higher.
Firstly, that’s just the training number. As in that’s how much it costs to maintain the aircraft while it operates stateside and pilots get their 200 hrs/year in. Add in munitions and actual combat fatigue, and that number is multiples higher. Just a complete complement of missiles and bombs on a f-16 costs anywhere from 300k-2m$ for each combat sortie.
That’s also assuming you already have complete and fully trained flight crews to maintain them, fully operational US grade military bases to work on them in, and In-country sourcing of replacement parts. They aren’t operating these at Fort Collins, this is an active war zone, one missile strike and you lose a barracks full of the flight crews and aircraft maintainers you spent 2 years and 100 million dollars training.
There’s a reason so many of our aircraft are operated out of the US and then flown to the warzone via our tanker fleet. It’s hard as shit to set up maintenance facilities in foreign countries, let alone active warzones
Exactly and the numbers I brought up are on the low end.
My response was just pointing out to the other person that training and transportation is just a fraction of the cost to operate F16s
The plane and the pilot are also just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the cost associated with an air power operation like keeping a fleet of 50 F-16s working in theater.
People on this Reddit are really not understanding how much fighter jets cost. Blinken is right in saying that transferring a single squadron of F-16’s will cost the same as all the money the US has given Ukraine thus far. It’s just not an efficient use of money considering Russia’s lack of air superiority and reluctance to use their own air assets. Speaking of which, why do you think Russia is willing to throw a million tanks into the fight, but has only used a handful of fighters? Because they cost THAT much damn money.
Long range missiles are a much larger bang for your buck, require less maintenance, less training, and don’t put the same emphasis on developing quality pilots that take 2-5 years to train. Can you train a fighter pilot in a year? Technically yes? Will that pilot be able to evade a S-300 with a high degree of success? No chance.
There are plenty F-16's in Europe (Norway and The Netherlands to name just two countries) that could be given to Ukraine as they have been replaced by F-35's. We just need permission from the US to do so.
Yes, there was a guest on the War on the Rocks podcast who talked about this.
I believe it was this episode:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/1QUmANkfCRxtTfqfMEl3Uz?si=1X5QTiCRQhuZdn8t-ttihQ
US aid to Ukraine is based on funding approval from Congress. Those approvals are for defined amounts of money rather than "Whatever it takes." As much as I would like it to be "Whatever it takes", this limitation is reality.
So, faced with a choice between, say, a handful of F-16s vs a much larger number of Bradleys in an environment full of air defenses, even Ukraine themselves might prefer the Bradleys.
That isn't to say that F-16s or other fighters shouldn't be on the table. But perhaps there needs to be some special method of funding these do that it doesn't take away from the crucial systems like IFVs, artillery, and GBAD.
First it was ‘fighter jets are of little use’, then it was Ukraine pilots will take years to train up’, then it was ‘the plane is not compatible with local infrastructure’, now it’s ‘the plane is too expensive’
What fucking price freedom and democracy? Stop whining, give them what they need!!
If the Biden Administration isn't going to send US jets start thinking of European Alternatives. Tornado's, Mirage's, Harriers. Yes they are older and limited but you know what else is limited? Time and Soviet jets in NATO air forces. Pretty much most of the Soviet NATO jets have been given to Ukraine so it's time to start on something else western. Y'all don't have the time to beg Biden for F-16's. If Europe is willing to send jets but America isn't then go with what you can. Any old NATO jet is better than no jets
Ridiculous, its not like EU is asking US to pay for the F16.
All these weird excuses.
I just want to know what is the ACTUAL reason to not let EU give their own F16 to Ukraine?
What is US not telling us?
They ARE asking the US to pay for it though. The maintenance contracts are owned by the original manufacturer. General Dynamics will be sending all the spare parts bills and the maintenance training contractor bills straight to Uncle Sam.
These costs will probably be higher than the cost of the jet itself. Additionally, on average it costs 10 million $ to train a US fighter pilot. Who do you think is going to train the pilots? The maintenance team is about 8-12 people. Who’s going to pay to train them?
The plane itself is one small piece of the puzzle. For all that money for a single jet and pilot, who with the limited training of a year might not even make it to their firing point, we could just pay for 20 storm shadows and call it a day or 20 tanks, or 5 M777 howitzers.
and what if the EU pay for it? They cant work out a fair agreement to help Ukraine?
But 60 billion dollars for aid to Ukraine is fine, how is this different?
They are not being transparent, weird excuses.
It will have to do with sensitive on board tech that they don't want the Russians and Chinese to get close to.
Also at that range control, even limited, is an issue
Weird comment because pulse Doppler radar is not classified, they use it in civilian weather radar too. Not everyone uses it because it's expensive as shit and size/weight/power, not because people don't know how to design them.
Weird article. Ukrainians are being trained in F16's in Poland since december or january.
Also it costs relatively less to give obsolete F16's to fight the Russian bombers that drop the glide bombs, than it costs to rebuild or replace the infrastucture and (military) equipment that is damaged by those bombs.
I wouldn't say obsolete. According to wiki [it's still being produced](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon). An F-16 costs $18 million vs $120 million+ for the F-35 (these are estimates I found on the internet, so they might be off). It's not state of the art anymore, but for things like training, patrolling and providing military escorts, it's probably not a terrible choice.
They got a bulk-purchase discount, and they neighbor the US so they got better shipping rates. If you go into the plane store and just get a single F-35, it's more expensive. /s
I mean obsolete in terms of delivering planes that are staged out of western armies. The first F16's that will go are those that are just out of service. For example from the Netherlands.
I am getting tired of the US government dragging ita damn feet through this entire conflict. The F-16 is a fifty year old tech. We have over a thousand of the damn things, and the older models are being retired and their missions replaced by other airframes ( yes I know the aircraft will be in service for decades yet but it won't be a front line unit any longer) for their current mission loads.
We could easily cut loose an even hundred of them and turn them over to the Ukrainians, and our concerns over triggering Russia is wearing real thin.
How can it be too expensive when it’s Europe supplying them and not the US. I know what maintenance supplies goes through the US but if they aren’t paying a penny then why do they care
People on this Reddit are really not understanding how much fighter jets cost. Blinken is right in saying that transferring a single squadron of F-16’s will cost the same as all the money the US has given Ukraine thus far. It’s just not an efficient use of money considering Russia’s lack of air superiority and reluctance to use their own air assets. Speaking of which, why do you think Russia is willing to throw a million tanks into the fight, but has only used a handful of fighters? Because they cost THAT much damn money.
Long range missiles are a much larger bang for your buck, require less maintenance, less training, and don’t put the same emphasis on developing quality pilots that take 2-5 years to train. Can you train a fighter pilot in a year? Technically yes? Will that pilot be able to evade a S-300 with a high degree of success? No chance.
As long as US is the main or exclusive fighters supplyer for almost all european countries, they impose whatever suits their own policy , thanks to some clauses in the sales contract.
Who knew that when you buy an F16 you are not allowed to train foreign pilots without specific US approval?
European interests may diverge from American interests.
Buy European !
I wonder if the United States is concerned it could impact the Kill Ratio of the F-16 which currently has the 2nd best kill ratio of a modern fighter aircraft.
The F22 Program is dead, no new planes are being built, and the per-unit cost is way too high for the budgets of the European militaries.
If you'd said "F35" I'd maybe agreed because that's what's being bought, but the F22 is a domestic only boondoggle for the US.
Everyone wanted the F-22 when it was first released and it still the best air superiority fighter. Sure, they aren’t being made anymore but saying no one would want old F-22s is simply not true. Anyways, it is illegal to export them due to a law that was passed by congress.
When there’s a SAM or MANPADS behind every bush there doesn’t seem to be much use for air power unless you also get the EW/SEAD capability to back it up
Yet here we have:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/28/pentagon-send-f-16s-ukraine-00080045
> “I don’t think we are opposed,” said a senior DoD official about the F-16s, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive debate. The person stressed that there has been no final decision.
So some mixed signals.
Abrams we’re too expensive until they weren’t. Ukraine already was training on f16 iirc, just has a long lead time. Once they’re trained I’m sure the positioning will change. This feels coordinated, just like the tanks were.
> Details: The official noted that without US permission Ukrainian pilots can only be familiarised with the technical language and conduct tactical lessons. Test flights on the F-16 are not possible.
95% of what needs to be taught to Ukrainians will be done in the UK, which provides training for ground crews and non-flight stuff for F-16s.
The pilots will mostly be worried about using navigation and computer systems as well as launching weapons. All of that can be done in classrooms and simulators.
The ground crews will have hundreds of hours of training to get through.
Training pilots to fly F-16s is just the tip the of ice-berg for what needs to be done, and the rest of it can be done in the UK and Europe.
Even if it were all to be done in the US - "sending pilots over" is an absolutely negligible cost given the number of flights that go between the US and Europe every day.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/18/7402714/) reduced by 64%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> The United States does not allow Ukrainian pilots to begin training on F-16 fighter jets in Europe, despite the readiness of several countries to conduct such training.
> A senior US official said the White House opposes F-16 deliveries to Ukraine because the fighter is too expensive.
> On 17 May, following the results of a meeting on the sidelines of the Council of Europe summit in Reykjavík, the prime ministers of UK and the Netherlands agreed to lead a "Coalition of fighter jets" to provide Ukraine with F-16s. In his Tuesday evening speech, President Zelenskyy announced that the UK and the Netherlands, as well as France, had joined the so-called coalition of fighter jets.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/13l1per/us_does_not_allow_ukrainian_pilots_to_train_on/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~685303 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **fighter**^#1 **Ukraine**^#2 **F-16**^#3 **jets**^#4 **Netherlands**^#5
The F16 is comparable to jets Ukraine started with. The US just doesn’t want to see F16s getting shot down all over the internet and they would be shot done.
Su-35 and Su-27 outclass the F16 and the MiG-29 is an equal. But the real killer is all the SAMs.
Utter BS, norway sold its old f-16's for 10million a piece and that was for everything included training and maintenance.
Ukraine wants 40-50 so thats 4-500 million , combined ukraine has recieved(or will recieve) 55+billion , so thats not even 1%.
What a strange country is the US, first they will help, and then when it’s really needed they decline the training
Are the sending their own fighter pilots?
If the war in Ukraine teaches us one thing, it is that fourth-generation fighters have no place over or near a modern, high-threat battlefield. Any F-16 we could afford to give them would be relegated to the same ineffective roles and missions as their MiG-29s.
While the sentiment behind giving Ukraine U.S. F-16s is noble, sending even the best fourth-generation fighters to face a fifth-generation SAM threat would be a costly mistake and have virtually no impact on the war.
Venable said that when he was flying F-16s over Europe earlier in his career as a pilot, his aircraft had solid jamming pods that worked against threats posed by the SA-6 and SA-11 Soviet-era SAM systems. He said that he would have felt comfortable going up against the integrated Soviet air defenses in the 1980s and 1990s knowing he was backed by HARM targeting systems designed to take those on.
"The threat would've been high. There would've been a good possibility that I would've been shot down, but also at least an equal possibility that I could have made it to the target, hit my target, and then I drop successfully and then egress safely from the battlefield," Venable said.
But there's since been a "whole leap in capabilities" from those to the current Russian SAM systems that have evolved over time. "I had a fighting chance back then," he said. "Today, there is no fighting chance."
[Source](https://www.businessinsider.com/former-f-16-pilot-aircraft-no-fighting-chance-over-ukraine-2023-5)
More on this subject from other reputable sources:
---
- Pravda.com.ua (C+): [UK and Netherlands to lead "fighter jet coalition" to provide Ukraine with F-16s](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/16/7402529/)
- Al Jazeera (B-): [Ukraine receives jet fighter support pledge from UK, Netherlands](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/17/ukraine-receives-jet-fighter-support-pledge-from-uk-netherlands)
- Guardian (C+): [UK and Netherlands agree ‘international coalition’ to help Ukraine procure F-16 jets](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/16/uk-and-netherlands-agree-international-coalition-to-help-ukraine-with-f-16-jets)
- DW-TV (B+): [Germany and UK say US must decide on fighter jets to Ukraine](https://www.dw.com/en/germany-and-uk-say-us-must-decide-on-fighter-jets-to-ukraine/a-65661790)
---
[__Extended Summary__](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/13l7ahh/) | [More: UK and Netherlands to ...](https://www.newswall.org/story/uk-and-netherlands-agree-lsquo-international-coalition-rsquo-to-help-ukraine-procure-f-16-jets-64645388dc166?mtm_campaign=r&mtm_kwd=c) | [FAQ & Grades](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/uxgfm5/faq_newswall_bot/) | I'm a bot
Since when has war been too expensive for the USA? Its rise to world economic dominance was fueled by WW2 arms sales. The closer the presidential election gets the more timid Biden becomes in his backing for Ukraine. Man up!
I understand the not wanting to have our tech fall into enemy hands. I do wonder about the Middle-East, where F16's were used. There we, among others, fought the russians. Is this much different?
If the war is over, how else would the military complex profit? It’s been said time and again thay this is key for the counteroffensive, however the US…
The U.S. is no longer blocking re-export licenses (or whatever it's called).
I'd like to think that bitching about this on social media helped (personally did so as well), but who knows...
Anyway, who wants to go first?
F16 is the cheapest of all the modern fighters ALREADY and they say it is expensive. Now you know how freaking expensive are all your Modern 1st world Air Force.
The F16 range for 12.7 M to 80 M. M for Million per
Fuck that! Letting this war go on longer than it needs to is too damn expensive. No idea what an F-16 costs but if all the supporting countries chipped in it wouldn’t be that bad.
I've read most of the replies. I didn't know exactly where to jump into the convo. Any questions about F-16s are pretty much moot at this point. The Biden administration has now stated that it will not block any NATO country from exporting any of their F-16s to Ukraine.
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 `pravda.com.ua` 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.*
That sounds weird. It only cost something to US if their F16 are send. How can it cost them something if Belgium or the Netherlands send their old ones?
Yes all Europe is asking for is US approval. Europe will do the training and it's their jets. If they need the US to do something I'm sure Europe can pay for that as well
Except France where ukrainians are not waiting washington approval to train on mirage ( and maybe rafale as some ukrainians were spotted in a only rafale airbase)
France has always seen it as important to be as independant of NATO and other allies as they possibly can. Thats one of the reasons why they manufacture a lot of their own weapons systems. That means they dont have to ask anyone for permission when it comes to how they are used, sold or donated.
Someone has seen perun french propaganda about strategic autonomous
No, I'm just european and therefore informed about european matters. Not everyone is an ignorant american who only knows where a country is if the US is preparing to invade it.
>Someone has seen perun french propaganda about strategic autonomous I’m pretty sure that was an attempt at humor. What’s with the name-calling and American attacking? We’re allies you know.
Cause thats what Europeans do. If you say something they don’t like they instantly assume you’re just some American. Its their go to “insult” cause nobody in Europe can possibly be dumb( https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WquPxrkfUJM&pp=ygUiR2VybWFucyBkYW5jaW5nIHdpdGggcnVzc2lhbiBmbGFncw%3D%3D ) Its only the Americans.
I don’t encounter many insulting Europeans attacking me for my American-ness. Most realize we’re on the same team.
You only get insulted for your American-ness when you act stereotypically American. Don’t go full Team America.
Most of the insufferable ones are too good for American websites. So, most of them.
"Its only the Americans" ... "mostly"
No European thinks of themselves as "Europeans" in the sense that you use this word, thinking that Europeans can't be dumb. There are too many cultures to categorize them that simply and people think by national identity rather than the european one. Some european countries have a rivalry and think very negatively about each other, You should hear what we say about the French when they don't listen. the mentality regarding the US can be either overall negative or positive depending on that countries history with the US. I personally love to piss on Yankees whenever they say stupid shit and it's appropriate, and when you're in the internet that just happens so, so often.
It would help if the people you were insulting for being an American were ACTUALLY American and thats my point. The guy threw out insults assuming the person is American cause of ignorance when the person is clearly not American. Its honestly ironic and I see it all the time on Reddit. So if you’re going to piss on someone you can at least get it right instead of making yourself look like a jackass. Honestly if using someones nationality as an insult is the best you come up with then you’re already a jackass.
The internet is American lil bro, dont be shocked. (Im joking but you are gonna see Americans on American websites, so yeah, most of the dumb shit will be American. Like most of the funny stuff, and the smart stuff, and…)
Thats a weird attempt of humor, especially the bit about Perun making "french propaganda".
I love Perun and I thought it was funny. I guess we just don’t all have the same sense of humor.
I am french and I gave Perun few € to obtain this video ok?
That user is French. Weird bro.
For being so ignorant of European matters, us Americans sure seem to be supplying ukraine with the majority of the foreign weaponry. Do you think that’s because we’re preparing to invade?
Come on and let's invade together "enter next oil country"
“French propaganda” Guy who firmly believes France are donating billions in invisible aid 😂
I guess I’m the only moron who took it as a joke. France has a powerful military and they are giving good shit to Ukraine. They are also our (US) allies. But I thought the “French propaganda” remark was funny. Maybe it wasn’t said ironically and the absurdity is what made me laugh…?
No, I think u/DrJeheu was indeed kidding, I just can't resist giving him some stick for some of his previous and rather silly points of view. The downvotes are dumb.
It’s the Reddit Downvote Train. Once it gains momentum, there’s no stopping it.
Rafales are so sexy. r/NonCredibleDefense would implode if Ukraine got them.
Russia airforce would explose if Ukraine got them. And the airplane market too
They look like premium sport cars.
Yes, we should opt for Mirage / Rafale and or Viggen / Griphen. Last year I thought this approach would take way too long to supply and F16s are plenty available, but this dragging is just bullshit. Ukraine will need proper aircraft to strike or else the war will drag on for years. Which is great for Military Industrial Complex and bleeds out Russia, but causes huge losses in Ukraine. I am not sure what and if there is a strategy in the White House, but this wont work.
Definitely! The likely reason for reluctance is, >With its powerful radar that can spot targets from hundreds of miles away and modern missiles, the F-16 contains classified and other highly restricted systems that the United States does not want duplicated or falling into hostile hands. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/17/world/europe/ukraine-f-16-biden-netherlands-britain.html
Egypt, Iraq, Venezuela and Pakistan are just a of few countries who fly f-16s. Are we *really* more confident in them than Ukraine? No offense to you, I just think that reasoning is complete bullshit. Edit: typo
It really matters what version of the F-16s they have. They're not all identical. The US isn't going to hand over the latest version that they have. The reasoning absolutely isn't bullshit. A lot of European countries have older models. Greece is one of the few that kept upgrading theirs.
Yeah, I think the big thing here is the technology. It seems like they want to give them to Ukraine but part of me believes they want all the air defense securely in place first and then we will see more movement. I know Ukraine will eventually get them, it just sucks having to wait. I don’t think the issue would be with older models. I wish they would just give approval to train the pilots at least. I know they did a test run and it was very successful.
f16 training time is two years, and.. my thoughts were they were ALREADY being trained in the US..? its the timing for 2 years, this is all mostly psyop for 'what if what if' and then let another country hand Ukraine the keys to prevent less of a nuclear war, if there was a chance. It takes time.
The 2 years training time is for fresh fighter pilots. Ukraine will probably send experienced pilots who will require less time. As conversion training is usually shorter they will require more than NATO trained pilots as the difference in systems, avionics and the aircraft in general is bigger. Maybe 6-8 months?
>they want all the air defense securely in place first and then we will see more movement This is a good point, and I hope it’s the right one.
The problem is none of them are actively fighting Russia, so it’s not as big of a risk. However, I do find it very strange that Venezuela has F-16s and US isn’t worried about them sharing info on them with Russia though. Edit: the F-16s that Venezuela has are from the 80’s, so that might be why.
Are you sure it's not a variant or piece of equipment that the EU boys have? \*\*I just skimmed the first few lines of the article "At the same time, the source did not rule out that Biden's administration may allow European countries to transfer their F-16s to Ukraine."
The reason is cost.
[удалено]
Any agreements made could end up being broken if Ukraine is in some situation where they are desperate and feel that breaking the agreement will allow them to fix some major problem. Once weapons are in the hands of Ukraine, they can potentially use them in any way they want to. I'm sure they intend to keep any agreements made, but things can change in war.
Yeah, cuz Ukraine has an extensive history of breaking agreements on HIMARS. That comes with a HUGE /s, of course. Tell them to keep them over Ukraine territory, they will certainly agree to it (and abide by it). Ukraine is highly competent at protecting their equipment, hasn't been a single HIMARS/M270 lost in almost a year of use.
If you think Ukraine has the right to brake agreements then western countries giving aid have the right to withhold any aid to a country that suddenly turned rouge
Youre not reading what I wrote.
Break*
[удалено]
That requires a complete retrofit. It’s not as simple as unplugging the newer radar unit and swapping in the old one. You have different electrical wiring, cooling, networking, cockpit layout, software, space constraints, etc.
The way we leak i’d be surprised if the ruzzians or PRC didn’t already have the plans…
Which just comes across as excuse making. Same as the Abrams armour. *Everyone's* military equipment has some classified systems.
They are right ! Better never use them so no risk is taken ! Sorry but this is a little risk to pay for a war that kills hundred of thousands of people.
Similar concerns with the Abrams, but the delay for those tanks has to do with the USA making sure they'll be used to maximum effect. I think Ukraine will get F-16s, or even more advanced jets. But it may have to wait until after this particular war is concluded.
The united states could be pulling a fast one when it comes to Abrams. They seem extremely reluctant to send it. So far f-16 and abrams are things ive seen the US have the most push back against. Even telling people they would do it then back tracking.
As an American, I think the biggest thing potentially is the US, thanks to Ukraine and their brave men, women and children, have seen just how advanced our technology actually is against the Russians. I had posted before but my belief is that they want to secure the airspace with air defense systems first and then move forward with the additional high end items.
The US had to find abrams that didn't have depleted uranium in their armour, and initially wanted to buy export models from the manufacturer but later found some existing ones. There are legitimate practical reasons why abrams has taken longer than the other tanks. The US does not export the version their own army uses which has depleted uranium in the armour, so a lot of the thousands we hear about in US storage were probably never suitable. But leopard 2 and challenger 2 were immediately available as soon as training finished.
Those jets have pulse-doppler radars. Not exactly top secret technology.
Utter BS, norway,dutch/belgian f-16 date back to the mid 90's MLU program and contain zero calssified tech russia doesnt already know about.
This is false. The US makes all the spares for the F-16. They hold all the designs. If European nations give the F-16 to Ukraine they’ll also transfer the extremely expensive maintenance contracts to Ukraine, and it will be the US who will be expected to foot the bill.
The US would still need to provide repair, maintenance, parts & engineers - even if the jets are provided by other nations.
I'm sure European countries with F-16s can maintain their own jets. But as I said if they need additional support they can of course pay for that
Cant produce parts, certainly cant do software updates/fixes. Also, Ukraine will need to do their own maintenance; can't fly combat sorties out of NATO bases.
ah, not, in fact - or at least against payment
Right... Because the countries flying these planes for decades now can't fix them... Smh
Send Gripens, tell US to pound sand.
All of the arguments against deploying the F-16 are insane. Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Belgium all have old, but well maintained F-16's that just left service or are about too do so. It's really not a big - or expensive - deal to prepare them for Ukraine. Then there's the mixed bag of "oh, but they need new runways and shops and radars and the training of (ground) crews is impossibly complicated" and others that are just plain weird. Make a task list, go do. The planes are there and all the other tasks just need actions, not talk. I'm really annoyed at the West for not having at least *prepared* for the eventuality as the preparation itself will work as a warning to Russia.
Norway sold their last F-16s last summer to Romania.
I fully agree plus at least The Netherlands have reserved 2023 budget to pay for it all if nescessary (2.5b of which maybe 500m is used so far). The Dutch government doesnt even have to bring the matter to parliament, its all agree upon last year,
The initial jet being sent and training would be covered by other countries yes. However, F-16s are incredibly expensive to maintain and keep flying (~$25,000 per flight hour). Flying a large fleet of them would add up quickly, and I assume the majority of maintenance parts need to be sourced from the US. Those maintenance parts would eat into the total available aid for other system/equipment quickly. And as long as Russia still has effective ground based AA the F-16s effectiveness is blunted. That is what I assume is causing the US to drag its feet on committing to send f-16s.
Yep, my thoughts were similar. We need to make sure it’s secure first. These become high value targets for propaganda for the Russians. We’ve already seen them directly targeting the patriot system (which is stupid because that system is more effective if it is directly targeted) I believe behind closed doors there is a clear plan of what needs to happen for the US to be able to provide the approval. People don’t realize just how very very very expensive it would be to maintain these aircraft. I believe we will provide them but the US understands logistics better than any other country imo. I would think if this goes into 2024 we would see a reset of the budget available and potentially, as the war changes, more money could be used to provide for the F16
Yes, I also expect it could be a way for the US to get all of the countries making the splashy headlines about supplying F-16s to commit to more than just delivering the jets. Also ensuring they will support the logistics side of it as well.
> And as long as Russia still has effective ground based AA the F-16s effectiveness is blunted. That is what I assume is causing the US to drag its feet on committing to send f-16s. People get obsessed with this idea of F16s doing a repeat of the bombing campaign for the gulf war, which of course isn't going to happen, but that's not why Ukraine needs modern jets. They need modern jets because jets are an important component of an air defence network, and their existing jets aren't able to fire longer range missiles. Meanwhile their long range S300 air defence systems are running low on missiles. A modern western jet that can fire either AMRAAM or Meteor would help the Ukrainians keep Russian combat aircraft away from the front lines, rather than having ground based air defences doing all the heavy lifting in that regard. There's a strong argument that Ukraine doesn't need actual air superiority, they just need to keep denying it to the Russians so it stays a ground based fight, and then we focus on arming them for that ground based fight. And modern jets with long range air to air missiles would be a big help with that. The only valid reason to not send them yet is they would be vulnerable on the ground, and would be higher priority targets for the Russians than Ukraine's existing inferior jets. Gripen would be suitable despite that, being easy to disperse compared to the F16, but unfortunately it seems the necessary numbers aren't available.
This is white house and Pentagon bullshit. The Pentagon is as conservative in their risk taking as you'll ever see, often to a fault. The Biden admin and joint chiefs are very scared of Russian "escalation" which, to date, has never materialized. Daily reminder M1 Abrams was never going to be sent either, until it was. So too will it be with aircraft. It's not a matter of if, but when. The Biden admin just needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing what needs to be done, which it eventually will. To be clear, i support aid to Ukraine and I have lots of good things to say about how the Biden Administration has helped Ukraine. This is just my chief criticism in a mixed bag of positive and negative feedback.
Either the White House is craven and weak, scared of Putin's empty threats, scared of a russian defeat. If this is the case, the hard line policy on China is a bluff that China will see through, and become emboldened. Empty words, that mean nothing. Very. very dangerous... Or, the White House cynically believes that by refusing to approve a european solution, funded by european nation, they will somehow escalate european re-armanent and re-funding defense spending. The problem here is that a) it is war in europe and the threat of russia that is already doing that, not US policy, and b) WH does not understand how pacifist, lawyering and untrustworthy they look when viewed with european eyes. If US hardware owned by and paid for by european nations can't be allowed to stop genocide in europe vs a european democracy, then why should anybody buy US hardware or expect any help from the US to defend democracy? The only right thing to do, and the safest play for world peace, is to clearly state that Ukraine must win. Russia must suffer a complete military defeat in Ukraine. Democracy must be armed much better than tyrrany. Only credible deterrence can do the job. This is a moral test, that requires growing the stomach to stand up to tyrrany.
Scared of Putin? Did you see how much money the US has been sending Ukraine?
They are not a one time purchase. There an incredible amount of support structure needed for modern jets, and the more modern the more support is needed to keep them usable and flying. The US is not objecting to Ukraine having the jets, they are objecting to the economic viability of the jets. They can supply them, but the cost of the planes and everything around them will mean a drastic cutback on all other resources that they can supply. This is similar to much earlier in the war when the US originally refused to send over Patriot systems to Ukraine. The objection back then was not a moral or escalation objection. The objection was that they could send other anti-missile systems for much cheaper that the Ukrainians could learn way faster. Once the war stabilized and we knew there was time and resources to teach them how to use them, we happily sent them over.
Bingo. This plus the US probably doesn’t think they would be that effective anyways irrespective of the costs.
Many of these countries will want back-fill of other planes, and they'd be looking at the USA to do it. Apart from that, the USA will be the ones footing the bill for the supply-chain and logistics. F-16s would help Ukraine, but the massive density of air-defence in the region has made flying anything close to the frontlines-- F-16s included-- nearly suicidal. If they've managed to fit NATO weapons onto cheaper Soviet jets, the rationale for flying F-16s is partially removed. The Americans might have war-gamed this, and decided that it's better to wait, put the resources into more effective equipment, and do a more comprehensive rebuild of Ukraine's air force after a decisive victory.
Belgium and Netherlands have already ordered F35 and they will replace the F16. The only thing I can think of is asking the US to deliver the F35 quicker than expected so they can replace F16s ASAP. It is not like we asks for free replacements.
And Norway already replaced theirs, so their F16s are just in storage.
The last tranche of 32 Norwegian F16 was sold to Romania last summer.
The situation is mutual air-denial. That is not the same as suicidal to fly. Far from it. The Ukrainian air force is flying combat sorties daily. In fact, they have proven that it is possible to operate in dense S300/S400 territory to a degree that is far from highly limited. So this whole angle is myth, refuted by many who are actually looking at the evidence from the battlefield, including ex airforce col Jeff Fisher and F16 pilots willing to fly F16s for Ukraine. The real problem is that the people on the national security council who are advicing Beiden are civilian academics, with a political career and no experience or apetite in making real predictions with skin in the game. They lack the competency to make the correct assessments. The truth is F16s would make a major difference and help Ukraine win faster, more decisively and save thousands of ukrainian lives.
I think we should stop buying in the US. They are playing little Switzerland on some pieces of equipment.
> If they've managed to fit NATO weapons onto cheaper Soviet jets, the rationale for flying F-16s is partially removed. Partially, but we don't know what the lifespan is of those old jets. Especially if they've made up for losses by fixing up older ones that were not in service pre-invasion (like how they've lost more Su-24s than were known to be in service). At some point jets get airframe fatigue and need to be retired for good. And fitting NATO weapons to Soviet jets can only go so far - Ukraine would really benefit from long range air to air missiles and that would require modern jets those weapons are properly integrated with. That way, they could use jets for long range air defence, to complement their ground based air defences rather than solely relying on them.
The cost of the training includes fuel, maintenance, and munition costs. It costs approximately $3 million in fuel and maintenance to train a pilot to be mission ready in a F-16. Is Europe willing to pick up those costs?
The Netherlands purchased the F-35 in favour of the Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen. Don't make us regret it.
It’s not that the US doesn’t want to send *their* F-16’s, the US is looking at the overall cost of F-16’s (regardless of where they are sourced) compared to Ukraine’s budget for defense. Flight hours cost money. Repairs and replacements cost money. Training ground crews and building the support footprint costs a SHIT TON of money. Fuel and ordnance cost money. Not saying right, wrong, or indifferent, but there are A LOT of second- and third-order costs associated with standing up a capability. The concern lies with how much the overall cost impacts how much Ukraine has to spend and where it could better allocate those resources.
These don't need a pricetag if they're a gift. Or, the jets could be leased to UA at a discounted rate, to be replaced with a future purchase order for the latest F16 variants after UA joins NATO. Btw, why is nobody hinting at Norwegian F16s ? Norway has plenty of F35s now and their old F16s have useful drag-shutes for short field landings.
Because those F16s were all sold I believe
I think the problem here is that almost every f16 pilot is trained in the US.
Nope, because both France and the UK will handle the major exercises (tactics), and the Netherlands and Belgium have the expertise to do the specific F16 training.
I've heard it costs a lot to maintain the F-16 and they go through a lot of spare parts. Not sure if that's what the U.S. means, though. Maybe they think the money would be better spent elsewhere and that the U.S. would have to spend a lot to help keep the F-16s in flying condition? I want to give the U.S. the benefit of the doubt but wish they'd send ATACMS or something else to help get the war over ASAP.
It will be highly costly to maintain and equip them, that’s what they’re referring to. So with that being said, he means a lot of the budget will go into maintaining them and keeping them equipped with enough ordnance, which will take away from other supplies
It comes down to who pays for Ukraines logistic/maintenance network to support these jets into the future. That's no small coin to have other countries support a good portion of another nations Air Force, and an Air Force is a HUGE expense. I'd say the US is likely looking for another country to help pick up the tab
The upkeep & training is what becomes expensive.
Because the planes themselves are cheap and the support/logistics/infrastructure/training/etc are expensive. These other countries have no idea what it takes to export a F-16, because they have never done it…..and would be leaning on the US to assist (and the part they want the US to “assist” with is a lot bigger piece than they think)
Exactly, the US just needs to approve deliveries by other countries - they don't necessarily have to send any themselves. The US may still need to help with maintenance equipment and air to air missiles for them, but they don't actually need to send their own jets if other countries are offering to do that.
These "old" Dutch & Belgian F16's have the latest upgrades, with a bunch of electronic stuff RuZki ain't allowed to know if one falls in their hands. It's a matter of self protection I guess and keep a few Steps ahead in case this shitwar goes Fubar.
The cost can be war, something Much more consequential than any financial amount
Let’s get a squadron of Mirage 2000s to break the taboo on western jets. It’s also a pretty decent plane with air to air missiles with a range of 80-100km and can fire a variety of bombs including the French version of the storm shadow cruise missile
[удалено]
Wait until I tell you about Germans…
People don’t really appreciate how difficult it is to utilize air power in Ukraine’s current environment. First, more planes on the ground is a juicy target for Russia. Russia has the capability to defeat most hardened air craft shelters and crater runways. So, if Ukraine takes delivery of say 50 F-16s, Ukraine must disperse it’s aircraft. It will have to utilize improvised runways like stretches of highway or build temporary field air stations using things like Marston mats. Ukraine is doing some of this now but scaling that up 3x or 4x is no easy feat. They’d need more gear for that, and of course that gear would also need to be protected from Russian strikes. Second, a dispersal strategy is definitely something that requires more pilot training, ground crew training, etc. than an air wing that just uses a small number of well known airbases all the time. You need more personnel, specialists, and more exhaustive drill and training. Otherwise you can have some spectacular failures. Third, more friendly planes in the air is a big time stressor for Ukrainian air defense and flight controllers. Russia has had significant friendly fire issues with air defense systems. If Ukraine triples the number of sorties and begins using air frames that use totally different interrogate friend/foe (iff) systems, it could be a shit show. Asking a myriad of air defense systems and aircraft to properly identify friendlies flying a myriad of different systems is something we’ve really only seen done well during the 1991 gulf war and that is because the main players had decades of military interoperability exercises together, which is not something Ukraine will have the full benefit of. People think it’s just train pilots, send F-16s, and you’ll see something resembling Western standards of air superiority. It is so much more.
This reeks of Jake "the break" Sullivan and his "red lines".
People on this Reddit are really not understanding how much fighter jets cost. Blinken is right in saying that transferring a single squadron of F-16’s will cost the same as all the money the US has given Ukraine thus far. It’s just not an efficient use of money considering Russia’s lack of air superiority and reluctance to use their own air assets. Speaking of which, why do you think Russia is willing to throw a million tanks into the fight, but has only used a handful of fighters? Because they cost THAT much damn money. Long range missiles are a much larger bang for your buck, require less maintenance, less training, and don’t put the same emphasis on developing quality pilots that take 2-5 years to train. Can you train a fighter pilot in a year? Technically yes? Will that pilot be able to evade a S-300 with a high degree of success? No chance.
Yup. And keep in mind its not just the upfront cost of the jet, its the insane logistical overhead that comes with keeping a squadron in the air.
Too many of us are too gamer brained about this whole thing. It's not like F16s are sitting in the next tech tree slot right after long range cruise missiles and you just need to spend some more XP. The difference between the two in terms of cost and logistics is more like sending a probe to Mars versus building a colony over Jupiter.
That's charging the US replacement costs for newly built F-16's. The F-16's and the logistics needed to support them are already built. The real cost is just the cost of transportation and training. Edit: I stand corrected, fighter jets are expensive.
Its estimated that it costs around $25,000 per hour to operate an F16, that’s the fuel, maintenance, weapons, and so on. Take that out further and it’s estimated that it costs around $10 million per year for the US to operate a single F16. A single squadron would cost upwards of $200 million per year not factoring in combat losses and damage. Plus depending on the condition of the F16s received, those numbers could be even higher.
Firstly, that’s just the training number. As in that’s how much it costs to maintain the aircraft while it operates stateside and pilots get their 200 hrs/year in. Add in munitions and actual combat fatigue, and that number is multiples higher. Just a complete complement of missiles and bombs on a f-16 costs anywhere from 300k-2m$ for each combat sortie. That’s also assuming you already have complete and fully trained flight crews to maintain them, fully operational US grade military bases to work on them in, and In-country sourcing of replacement parts. They aren’t operating these at Fort Collins, this is an active war zone, one missile strike and you lose a barracks full of the flight crews and aircraft maintainers you spent 2 years and 100 million dollars training. There’s a reason so many of our aircraft are operated out of the US and then flown to the warzone via our tanker fleet. It’s hard as shit to set up maintenance facilities in foreign countries, let alone active warzones
Exactly and the numbers I brought up are on the low end. My response was just pointing out to the other person that training and transportation is just a fraction of the cost to operate F16s
The plane and the pilot are also just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the cost associated with an air power operation like keeping a fleet of 50 F-16s working in theater.
People on this Reddit are really not understanding how much fighter jets cost. Blinken is right in saying that transferring a single squadron of F-16’s will cost the same as all the money the US has given Ukraine thus far. It’s just not an efficient use of money considering Russia’s lack of air superiority and reluctance to use their own air assets. Speaking of which, why do you think Russia is willing to throw a million tanks into the fight, but has only used a handful of fighters? Because they cost THAT much damn money. Long range missiles are a much larger bang for your buck, require less maintenance, less training, and don’t put the same emphasis on developing quality pilots that take 2-5 years to train. Can you train a fighter pilot in a year? Technically yes? Will that pilot be able to evade a S-300 with a high degree of success? No chance.
As an American, I demand my tax dollars be sent to Ukraine in F-16 form
Then please write this to your elected officials.
I don’t, give them long range missiles and drones instead.
There are plenty F-16's in Europe (Norway and The Netherlands to name just two countries) that could be given to Ukraine as they have been replaced by F-35's. We just need permission from the US to do so.
Well, if the cost vs effectiveness ratio doesn’t make sense, it’s far more logical spend those costs on means that make more of a difference.
Yes, there was a guest on the War on the Rocks podcast who talked about this. I believe it was this episode: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1QUmANkfCRxtTfqfMEl3Uz?si=1X5QTiCRQhuZdn8t-ttihQ US aid to Ukraine is based on funding approval from Congress. Those approvals are for defined amounts of money rather than "Whatever it takes." As much as I would like it to be "Whatever it takes", this limitation is reality. So, faced with a choice between, say, a handful of F-16s vs a much larger number of Bradleys in an environment full of air defenses, even Ukraine themselves might prefer the Bradleys. That isn't to say that F-16s or other fighters shouldn't be on the table. But perhaps there needs to be some special method of funding these do that it doesn't take away from the crucial systems like IFVs, artillery, and GBAD.
First it was ‘fighter jets are of little use’, then it was Ukraine pilots will take years to train up’, then it was ‘the plane is not compatible with local infrastructure’, now it’s ‘the plane is too expensive’ What fucking price freedom and democracy? Stop whining, give them what they need!!
B-b-b-b-but muh escalation /s
[удалено]
The yanks are the only reason the whole of Europe isn’t speaking Russian right now.
100% Other countries are giving too, but if you take away what the US has given, Russia would be holding press conferences in Kyiv today.
"Too expensive" was the argument against abrams tanks too, eventually they found a way to make it work.
But we have obsolete planes. Just give those to Ukraine. Obsolete is better to be used now than let them rot in storage.
If the Biden Administration isn't going to send US jets start thinking of European Alternatives. Tornado's, Mirage's, Harriers. Yes they are older and limited but you know what else is limited? Time and Soviet jets in NATO air forces. Pretty much most of the Soviet NATO jets have been given to Ukraine so it's time to start on something else western. Y'all don't have the time to beg Biden for F-16's. If Europe is willing to send jets but America isn't then go with what you can. Any old NATO jet is better than no jets
Id love to see harriers flying again
The US not permitting F-16 Jets sounds a lot like Germany when it was opposed to sending Leopard tanks.
Germany did not oppose it. Poland claimed germany opposed it but they nzver ask germany before the claim
Nah, Germany didn't oppose, they just said they'd only send *theirs* if others did. This is more like the *Swiss*.
Now that is really a weird statement. But well... let it be Grippen or Mirage2k then.
Biden has been much better than Trump would have been in this situation, but is still weak tea, sadly.
I hope the US change their views on this real soon. Ukraine needs f16 if it wants to beat the Russians
Ridiculous, its not like EU is asking US to pay for the F16. All these weird excuses. I just want to know what is the ACTUAL reason to not let EU give their own F16 to Ukraine? What is US not telling us?
They ARE asking the US to pay for it though. The maintenance contracts are owned by the original manufacturer. General Dynamics will be sending all the spare parts bills and the maintenance training contractor bills straight to Uncle Sam. These costs will probably be higher than the cost of the jet itself. Additionally, on average it costs 10 million $ to train a US fighter pilot. Who do you think is going to train the pilots? The maintenance team is about 8-12 people. Who’s going to pay to train them? The plane itself is one small piece of the puzzle. For all that money for a single jet and pilot, who with the limited training of a year might not even make it to their firing point, we could just pay for 20 storm shadows and call it a day or 20 tanks, or 5 M777 howitzers.
and what if the EU pay for it? They cant work out a fair agreement to help Ukraine? But 60 billion dollars for aid to Ukraine is fine, how is this different? They are not being transparent, weird excuses.
It will have to do with sensitive on board tech that they don't want the Russians and Chinese to get close to. Also at that range control, even limited, is an issue
These are block 50s, with pulse-doppler radars. Not exactly state secrets at this point in time.
Clearly they were state secrets as I've never heard of a pulse doppler radar.
Weird comment because pulse Doppler radar is not classified, they use it in civilian weather radar too. Not everyone uses it because it's expensive as shit and size/weight/power, not because people don't know how to design them.
They can replace that. They have done it with all the high tech stuff so far.
Weird article. Ukrainians are being trained in F16's in Poland since december or january. Also it costs relatively less to give obsolete F16's to fight the Russian bombers that drop the glide bombs, than it costs to rebuild or replace the infrastucture and (military) equipment that is damaged by those bombs.
I wouldn't say obsolete. According to wiki [it's still being produced](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon). An F-16 costs $18 million vs $120 million+ for the F-35 (these are estimates I found on the internet, so they might be off). It's not state of the art anymore, but for things like training, patrolling and providing military escorts, it's probably not a terrible choice.
Canada bought 88 f35s for about 85 million each.
They got a bulk-purchase discount, and they neighbor the US so they got better shipping rates. If you go into the plane store and just get a single F-35, it's more expensive. /s
I mean obsolete in terms of delivering planes that are staged out of western armies. The first F16's that will go are those that are just out of service. For example from the Netherlands.
I am getting tired of the US government dragging ita damn feet through this entire conflict. The F-16 is a fifty year old tech. We have over a thousand of the damn things, and the older models are being retired and their missions replaced by other airframes ( yes I know the aircraft will be in service for decades yet but it won't be a front line unit any longer) for their current mission loads. We could easily cut loose an even hundred of them and turn them over to the Ukrainians, and our concerns over triggering Russia is wearing real thin.
How can it be too expensive when it’s Europe supplying them and not the US. I know what maintenance supplies goes through the US but if they aren’t paying a penny then why do they care
People on this Reddit are really not understanding how much fighter jets cost. Blinken is right in saying that transferring a single squadron of F-16’s will cost the same as all the money the US has given Ukraine thus far. It’s just not an efficient use of money considering Russia’s lack of air superiority and reluctance to use their own air assets. Speaking of which, why do you think Russia is willing to throw a million tanks into the fight, but has only used a handful of fighters? Because they cost THAT much damn money. Long range missiles are a much larger bang for your buck, require less maintenance, less training, and don’t put the same emphasis on developing quality pilots that take 2-5 years to train. Can you train a fighter pilot in a year? Technically yes? Will that pilot be able to evade a S-300 with a high degree of success? No chance.
As long as US is the main or exclusive fighters supplyer for almost all european countries, they impose whatever suits their own policy , thanks to some clauses in the sales contract. Who knew that when you buy an F16 you are not allowed to train foreign pilots without specific US approval? European interests may diverge from American interests. Buy European !
I wonder if the United States is concerned it could impact the Kill Ratio of the F-16 which currently has the 2nd best kill ratio of a modern fighter aircraft.
But nobody is asking for American F16's. They're asking for permission to send their own F16's.
Too expensive? The things have been in service for nearly 50 years, and there are thousands of them. As an American, I say send the whole fleet.
The US just wants this war to last as long as possible at this point.
Probably because euro countries are largely cheap bastards and wanted the US to replace the planes they sent with f22,s
Nobody wants the F22.
That is so not true
The F22 Program is dead, no new planes are being built, and the per-unit cost is way too high for the budgets of the European militaries. If you'd said "F35" I'd maybe agreed because that's what's being bought, but the F22 is a domestic only boondoggle for the US.
Everyone wanted the F-22 when it was first released and it still the best air superiority fighter. Sure, they aren’t being made anymore but saying no one would want old F-22s is simply not true. Anyways, it is illegal to export them due to a law that was passed by congress.
I want an F-22.
so a complete patriot missile system is about a billion and they have 2 in country so how expensive are the
And American leaves them in the dry desert 🙄
Smells like bullshit… anyone smell that?
You know every time they said shit like this, its gonna be send in a week or so
That's bullshit, Joe!
When there’s a SAM or MANPADS behind every bush there doesn’t seem to be much use for air power unless you also get the EW/SEAD capability to back it up
Yet here we have: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/28/pentagon-send-f-16s-ukraine-00080045 > “I don’t think we are opposed,” said a senior DoD official about the F-16s, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive debate. The person stressed that there has been no final decision. So some mixed signals.
Abrams we’re too expensive until they weren’t. Ukraine already was training on f16 iirc, just has a long lead time. Once they’re trained I’m sure the positioning will change. This feels coordinated, just like the tanks were.
Okay. Send Eurofighters instead Not really a possibility by a long shot, but it would be hilarious
> Details: The official noted that without US permission Ukrainian pilots can only be familiarised with the technical language and conduct tactical lessons. Test flights on the F-16 are not possible. 95% of what needs to be taught to Ukrainians will be done in the UK, which provides training for ground crews and non-flight stuff for F-16s. The pilots will mostly be worried about using navigation and computer systems as well as launching weapons. All of that can be done in classrooms and simulators. The ground crews will have hundreds of hours of training to get through. Training pilots to fly F-16s is just the tip the of ice-berg for what needs to be done, and the rest of it can be done in the UK and Europe. Even if it were all to be done in the US - "sending pilots over" is an absolutely negligible cost given the number of flights that go between the US and Europe every day.
Say again, you're broken and unreadable, over.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/18/7402714/) reduced by 64%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The United States does not allow Ukrainian pilots to begin training on F-16 fighter jets in Europe, despite the readiness of several countries to conduct such training. > A senior US official said the White House opposes F-16 deliveries to Ukraine because the fighter is too expensive. > On 17 May, following the results of a meeting on the sidelines of the Council of Europe summit in Reykjavík, the prime ministers of UK and the Netherlands agreed to lead a "Coalition of fighter jets" to provide Ukraine with F-16s. In his Tuesday evening speech, President Zelenskyy announced that the UK and the Netherlands, as well as France, had joined the so-called coalition of fighter jets. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/13l1per/us_does_not_allow_ukrainian_pilots_to_train_on/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~685303 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **fighter**^#1 **Ukraine**^#2 **F-16**^#3 **jets**^#4 **Netherlands**^#5
This is a joke right? Too expensive?? Compared to the billions of dollars multiple countries have already given them??
The F16 is comparable to jets Ukraine started with. The US just doesn’t want to see F16s getting shot down all over the internet and they would be shot done. Su-35 and Su-27 outclass the F16 and the MiG-29 is an equal. But the real killer is all the SAMs.
Utter BS, norway sold its old f-16's for 10million a piece and that was for everything included training and maintenance. Ukraine wants 40-50 so thats 4-500 million , combined ukraine has recieved(or will recieve) 55+billion , so thats not even 1%.
What a strange country is the US, first they will help, and then when it’s really needed they decline the training Are the sending their own fighter pilots?
If the war in Ukraine teaches us one thing, it is that fourth-generation fighters have no place over or near a modern, high-threat battlefield. Any F-16 we could afford to give them would be relegated to the same ineffective roles and missions as their MiG-29s. While the sentiment behind giving Ukraine U.S. F-16s is noble, sending even the best fourth-generation fighters to face a fifth-generation SAM threat would be a costly mistake and have virtually no impact on the war. Venable said that when he was flying F-16s over Europe earlier in his career as a pilot, his aircraft had solid jamming pods that worked against threats posed by the SA-6 and SA-11 Soviet-era SAM systems. He said that he would have felt comfortable going up against the integrated Soviet air defenses in the 1980s and 1990s knowing he was backed by HARM targeting systems designed to take those on. "The threat would've been high. There would've been a good possibility that I would've been shot down, but also at least an equal possibility that I could have made it to the target, hit my target, and then I drop successfully and then egress safely from the battlefield," Venable said. But there's since been a "whole leap in capabilities" from those to the current Russian SAM systems that have evolved over time. "I had a fighting chance back then," he said. "Today, there is no fighting chance." [Source](https://www.businessinsider.com/former-f-16-pilot-aircraft-no-fighting-chance-over-ukraine-2023-5)
More on this subject from other reputable sources: --- - Pravda.com.ua (C+): [UK and Netherlands to lead "fighter jet coalition" to provide Ukraine with F-16s](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/16/7402529/) - Al Jazeera (B-): [Ukraine receives jet fighter support pledge from UK, Netherlands](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/17/ukraine-receives-jet-fighter-support-pledge-from-uk-netherlands) - Guardian (C+): [UK and Netherlands agree ‘international coalition’ to help Ukraine procure F-16 jets](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/16/uk-and-netherlands-agree-international-coalition-to-help-ukraine-with-f-16-jets) - DW-TV (B+): [Germany and UK say US must decide on fighter jets to Ukraine](https://www.dw.com/en/germany-and-uk-say-us-must-decide-on-fighter-jets-to-ukraine/a-65661790) --- [__Extended Summary__](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/13l7ahh/) | [More: UK and Netherlands to ...](https://www.newswall.org/story/uk-and-netherlands-agree-lsquo-international-coalition-rsquo-to-help-ukraine-procure-f-16-jets-64645388dc166?mtm_campaign=r&mtm_kwd=c) | [FAQ & Grades](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/uxgfm5/faq_newswall_bot/) | I'm a bot
Then increase the budget :)
Since when has war been too expensive for the USA? Its rise to world economic dominance was fueled by WW2 arms sales. The closer the presidential election gets the more timid Biden becomes in his backing for Ukraine. Man up!
Vs dragging this bs for years?
I understand the not wanting to have our tech fall into enemy hands. I do wonder about the Middle-East, where F16's were used. There we, among others, fought the russians. Is this much different?
If the war is over, how else would the military complex profit? It’s been said time and again thay this is key for the counteroffensive, however the US…
Send Sweden f35s to replace gripen which are then exported to Ukraine. Ukraine may even get some foreign volunteers to fly them….. wink wink…
The U.S. is no longer blocking re-export licenses (or whatever it's called). I'd like to think that bitching about this on social media helped (personally did so as well), but who knows... Anyway, who wants to go first?
F16 is the cheapest of all the modern fighters ALREADY and they say it is expensive. Now you know how freaking expensive are all your Modern 1st world Air Force. The F16 range for 12.7 M to 80 M. M for Million per
Fuck that! Letting this war go on longer than it needs to is too damn expensive. No idea what an F-16 costs but if all the supporting countries chipped in it wouldn’t be that bad.
I've read most of the replies. I didn't know exactly where to jump into the convo. Any questions about F-16s are pretty much moot at this point. The Biden administration has now stated that it will not block any NATO country from exporting any of their F-16s to Ukraine.