@Magnus (or any of the wise contributors on here) you mentioned the other day that Denmark would consider donatings F16’s to Ukraine,considering the fact that the Ukraine Airforce mainly had Migs how long would it take for them to be trained up to fly the F16?
Best guess would be fine.
The F-16 is not complicated. Pilots would need some time to familiarize themselves with three elements
i) Interface - heads-up display and overall controls will be different, but frankly significantly easier. An enormous amount of work has been done in the US to put critical information right in front of the pilot. At the same time, NATO gear puts a ton of information in front of the pilot, more than the Soviet tradition ever did. Ground-air coordination is stunningly sophisticated (which has led to some spectacular failures, to be clear), and to the extent that Ukrainian training still heavily derives from Soviet, that is a significant challenge. We now know that NATO forces coordinate air-ground to the squad level, the Russians struggle to coordinate at all.
ii) Target acquisition - I genuinely have no idea how the Soviet/Russian gear works, but the F-16 has seen remarkable change over 30 years. Somewhat connected to Item i), but also the conceptual framework might need some rethinking. In NATO circles there is a growing suspicion that the capability of Russian equipment has been overstated - with target acquisition being the salient point. NATO pilots are trained to paint their target in intervals of 2-5 seconds. It is not now clear that the Russian targeting systems work anywhere close to that quickly, especially when it comes to engaging multiple targets. But using that capability to its fullest takes a high level of familiarity.
iii) Flight characteristics - probably the least important. The F-16 is a good plane, the Soviet system produced incredible pilots. In terms of doctrine and tactics, maybe not great, but for fundamental aviation skills, the Soviet system produced incredible pilots. Ukrainian pilots trained in that tradition probably would be comfortable with the airframe inside 30 minutes.
Big picture, it would depend on the mission. For air superiority, weeks, with some of them ready to be good enough to be in the air figuring the rest out in just days. Some of those pilots could be ready in days. For close air support, somewhat longer - 2-3 months to reach NATO performance standards, with the huge caveat that the guys on the ground have to be part of that.
That’s an overly optimistic appraisal. The F-16 may not be more complicated compared to 4.5 and 5 generation fighters such as the Typhoon, Rafale, F-35 and F-22 but they are still significantly more advanced than the Migs the Ukrainians have been flying. The latter blocks even more so. Even an abbreviated and intense training programme would take 6 to 9 months but realistically it could last as long as a year depending on their performance.
From an airmanship point of view, their biggest challenge would be to get used to a fighter that doesn’t offer as much physical feedback as the Mig designs thanks to its FBW system. From then on, the process of getting accustomed to its sensors and electronics and of its weapons and tactics is going to be much harder.
However, the biggest challenge might be the completely different doctrine under which NATO fighters operate. The fact that presumably most, if not all of the pilots will have been operating Migs is in itself a further disadvantage compared to those pilots who start fresh and haven’t been already indoctrinated. This is a pretty good article about the Ukrainian transition to the F-16 and the Romanian experience which apparently will be used as the model: Romania Is a Model for Training Ukraine's Pilots to Fly F-16s | Air & Space Forces Magazine
Well, I think there’s a fairly good argument he is from the start in the weakest position of any chancellor since the Weimar Republic, by nature of strength of his own party, support within in his own party and the rather complicated 3 party coalition. Add to this the lesson he’s learned from Merkel and Kohl’s leadership style, which has been sit out and wait, let everyone else fight it out between them and then see which way the wind is blowing and in the end go where the majority in the country is. The difference is that both of his predecessors at least had enough guts to change that approach in extreme crisis or historically significant moments, where decisive action was needed. Scholz clearly can’t handle that and neither can the SPD as a whole at this moment. Sad to see a party with such a grand historical tradition (imo) being on the wrong side of the historical moment.
Don’t disagree with that - both the physical feedback and the real challenge being the doctrine. That 2nd aspect was my point about the mission. Western air forces have a lot of respect for the quality of Ukrainian pilots, but they have a lot of learning to do before they could integrate into NATO forces. But that isn’t really the problem set. They could contribute by operating F-16s under their existing doctrine and tactics. That would not fully utilize the potential advantages of the platform, granted, nonetheless it would improve what is a somewhat desperate situation. My thinking was how long an individual pilot might take to be capable of flying an F-16 over Ukrainian airspace and be doing something useful. Once you get into tactical training, even at the level of 2-3 aircraft, that timeline will stretch out significantly. It might conceivably be achievable by units in service.
Once you get into close air support and similar missions, the line between doctrine and equipment is rather different and more embedded in the design - and the air-ground cooperation is actually very hard to envisage developing without taking units out of the lines.
As a side note, Romanian pilots don’t seem to be as well thought of as Ukrainian, who are seen as more connected to a much longer Russian tradition.
It was the Dutch.
As for how difficult it is, I have read one expert (can’t find the source) who was of the opinion that it shouldn’t take that many months for decent pilots and that they could absolutely be used with Ukrainian doctrine in transition. But I know too little myself of the technicalities so I can’t have an opinion. I don’t like writing about things I don’t know enough about tbh.
Thanks @Arminius @RedArmada @Magnus
Hopefully they get the opportunity to use the F16’s and other equipment they need to make their Country safe.
more politicking
this is a BIG one though
I find this quote a bit surprising to be honest. Zelensky may have the feeling that the world doesn’t react fast enough, but I for one have been totally shocked by the speed and unity of the NATO allies regarding support for Ukraine. I’d have expected at least half of NATO countries to faff around without doing anything serious, watching Ukraine being taken apart by the Russian army. That’s probably what Putin expected too. Instead of this, Ukraine has been provided with a steady and increasing flow of weapons, and the economic sanctions, coupled with Russia’s need to transform its economy towards one able to support a long-term war, must hurt the latter without a doubt.
Sure, it’s the Ukrainians who have to fight with their lives, but the political, economic and material support has been astonishingly good until now imo, from an overwhelming majority of countries. The question is whether it will be maintained in the medium and long term.
But the EU for instance has rarely been as united as it is now on such a key issue (well apart from Germany dragging its feet a bit), and there is no sign for the time being of serious cracks appearing yet. Also, the fact that Finland and Sweden are now willing to join NATO (surely a result of the new-found resolve and unity displayed when facing this new situation) constitutes a momentous boost for this alliance, and surely a geopolitical hammer-blow for Russia.
That is a very Europe-centred view though. Look at the entire membership of the UN, and it is clear Russia has a lot of de facto support. Some of it overt like China and North Korea, some of it more passive like India and many African countries.
Yeah, that might be. So you mean he speaks towards the countries who haven’t yet engaged themselves in support of Ukraine but who still could be swayed? That makes sense.
I’d also add that the support of most European countries is still key for Ukraine though, besides the one of the US. After all, that peculiar war happens in Europe.
if you look at the EU votes on major issues regarding Russia, I was surprised at the number of countries which either abstained or voted no.
It’s beginning to look like a question of when and not if now.
Russia adopts the Israeli playbook when it comes to whipping votes at the UN.
i.e. bribery , blackmail and corruption
I am starting to hope Scholz inadvertently may have started something good. A significant number Abrams. That must mean logistics support which has been the curicial reason why it was hard with Abrams. Interesting. And then a coalition now forms to give Leopards and Germany wants to rubber stamp it. Then Germany pledges Leopards after the Americans pledge officially to donate Abrams and we start maybe getting some much needed numbers of Leopards.