For some time, a discussion has raged on what aircraft should be send to Ukraine by western
countries. Many options have been brought up, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon…well,
perhaps not Typhoon. Many would like to see Ukraine get more modern fighter platforms,
to defeat the Russian forces in Ukraine and the invasion. In recent months,
the debate started to narrow down to two aircraft, the American F-16, and Sweden’s JAS 39 Gripen.
Both aircraft are formidable but very different. The F-16, starting its life
as a light, air-to-air centric machine that went multirole as soon as it left the drawing room,
has operated in nearly every environment. With upgrades and extensive use around the globe,
the F-16 continues to serve as a competitive aircraft. But while light and simple for American
standards, it is also maintenance intensive, tricky on landings, and tends to be supported
by a massive logistical infrastructure – especially if compared to Sweden’s Gripen.
Gripen, optimized for austere, decentralized conditions, comes with a low-price tag on flight
hours and can boast of turnaround times in about 10mins, provided by a small groundcrew of 3-5
conscripts under the supervision of one crew chief. Though with a lighter weapons load and
limited use outside of Sweden, Gripen has risen to become a favorite among many who would wish to see
it adopted in the Ukrainian air force. The question is,
is the F-16 or Gripen a realistic option right now. This is not a discussion about whether they
should be send. Ukraine certainly should get the weapons it needs to defend itself. But rather the
question is whether they can be send right now. While in recent moves both F-16 and Gripen pilot
training for Ukraine has been announced, there are still significant hurdles to overcome for
these planes to make their way to Ukraine. So in this video I first want to talk about the F-16
and Gripen and discuss these hurdles. Of course, do please share your insights and takes on this
developing situation in the comments as well – because these are important questions to discuss.
This video is sponsored by my Patreon and Channel Membership supporters. The support
provided by you, my Patreons and Channel Members, allows me to focus on producing
content outside of considerations for YT’s ever changing algorithm and also directly
funds various projects like the Inside The Cockpit series. As Patreons and Channel Members,
you receive early access to videos, sneakpeaks of upcoming projects, have access to our Discord
server and you receive a free sign-up gift. You can have a look at the various support
options in more detail in the description below. And now, let’s talk about the F-16.
largest platform fleet on the planet, with close to 2200 aircraft . The US maintains a sizable
fleet of over 700 aircraft, meaning it has a larger support infrastructure but critically,
the main overhaul and maintenance sites for Europe are, or where situated locally
in Belgium and then in Poland . It is also flown by European countries such as Belgium, Denmark,
the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania and until recently Norway meaning there is not just
local support infrastructure but also experience in the handling of these machines from flying
to maintenance. Likewise, many F-16 users are now transitioning to the F-35
meaning airframes free up – eventually - though for example in Norway’s case,
these are already earmarked for other users. So that sounds feasible but Ukraine has made
demands for up to 200 machines and long term plans to field 48 modern fighters across four squadrons.
48 aircraft, nevermind 200, are a reasonably large fleet compared to many western countries.
If we subtract any non-Western country from those 2200 airframes, we get to an F-16 fleet
size of about 150 F-16A and 1100 F-16C . We can already see that F-16A supply does
not cover Ukraine’s 200 aircraft demand, although some of the countries that fly it like Belgium
-44 operational machines , the Netherlands – 24 machiens, and Denmark 33 F-16s - could transfer
some of their stock, as they also hold a smaller number of F-16s in reserve. While
their A models have been improved, they are not fully up to the more recent F-16C Block
50 specs and have some differences between them. The countries in NATO that fly F-16C are...the US,
Poland, Greece, and Turkey. I am going to jump over Turkey, because who knows, the US said it is
ok with countries supplying F-16 and providing training. It said nothing beyond that about
supplying US operated F-16s – in fact it is mainly the US that warns that supplying these jets will
not magically live up to the hype. Greece is currently undergoing a full modernization program.
And Poland, Poland have like 36 Block 50/52 which is one of the most modern F-16 variants,
I am not sure if these would be exported. It’s hard to get exact confirmation on what version
would be greenlit or not. Even then, as much as Poland always push to send aircraft, since they
already send MiG-29s, the current burden on the F-16 fleet is quite high which makes it unlikely.
So we return to F-16A…or AM/BM with the mid-life upgrade it received. Belgium,
Netherlands and Denmark are among the countries that are discussed about sending aircraft but
right now the preparations are for training only, with non-F-16 operating countries like
the UK indicating a willingness to facilitate training. It is unlikely that any country will
move ahead unilaterally pledging to send their fleet – as a coalition they might, but we are
still looking at a reasonably long timeline. These countries are transitioning to F-35,
Belgium is to receive the first at the end of the year , the Dutch have pilots training
and in fact many of their F-35 still being in the US. Belgium’s fleet is old,
some of their aircraft are being retired out of necessity due to flight hours, and the
Netherlands does have a stock of about one dozen that by Dutch reports are currently only used to
spread out flight hours – so it’s a potentially the most realistic option . But long story short,
the transition of F-35 is not yet complete, it is only just starting, and the number of
airframes that can be given is minimal. However, in the long run, if a concerted plan is drawn up,
this is a realistic starting point to introduce the F-16 into the Ukrainian Air Force.
What we are seeing here is a legacy of the force structures of many European air forces in that
they were trimmed for efficiency, a clear number of aircraft used on a set budget,
with no overshoot. You may remember, we spoke about this in a recent interview.
That made political and budgetary sense in the pre-2022 world, well, pre-2014 world,
but right now limits countries by essentially limiting their flexible
stock to a minimum – with very little flex beyond the necessary aircraft.
Training projections are continuously discussed. On paper, itself takes about a year, though we
can cut off days there. The full basics course, so the B-Course on F-16 is about 9 months for a fresh
pilot out of pilot training. That can certainly be reduced by synthetic training, so running
simulators etc. – you’ll see this across the board, talk with the instructors, the companies
that provide these services – I recently got an introduction of this at Saab, and they all say the
same: simulator training has advanced to a point where it can really help pilots absorb a machine
to the point where synthetic flight hours differ little to actual flight hours. So we are getting
closer to half a year, though some estimates go towards 2-3 months of training . Question is then,
are airframes available after that time? And do you use train fresh pilots or do you convert
existing MiG or Suhkoi pilots, which is not that easy due to having to unlearn another
machine and by reducing front line strength. So fresh pilots is probably the best best,
but then we run into the question of what do you teach them. While there are standardized courses,
generally speaking these curriculums are adapted to client wishes. If you want to police air space,
you focus on air-to-air, want to drop bombs, do air-to-ground, want a mix,
that’s possible too though you may need more time. What level of proficiency do you want,
how many pilots are in the pipeline, how many are to graduate. All of these are practical questions
not only on getting training done but also in conceptualizing what your force is meant to do.
And that last part, what are they used for links to that central question that you don’t
see discussed that often, what are these jets used for once they are in Ukraine. Will it be
primarily a use vs the VKS, the Russian air force, or air to ground, or both. In the West we are used
to always think in terms of flexible multirole, we take it for granted even though only the US
is able to pull it off consistently. But this is very different to the more specialized air force
platform centricity that Russia and, because of the aircraft models and that military legacy,
to a point Ukraine has as well. I am going to pick that up in a future video so make sure to
do the Youtube mumbo combo thing with subscribing and hitting the bell. Let me turn to Gripen now.
So what about Gripen, is it off the table? Short answer: Yes - Long answer: No.
Last week the Swedish Minister of Defense Pål Jonson appeared at the London Defense Conference
and made it quite clear that right now, Sweden cannot send Gripens. He was very clear on that in
the current situation, Sweden needs these Gripens. Between us, he said a lot of interesting things
– so many that I put one typo after the other in the rush of tweeting it out there as I sat in the
audience, but you can catch it up on my Twitter. The minister’s wording was interesting,
it was both broad and specific – it boils down to, right now Swedish Gripens can’t
be send but the way it was phased leaves that door open should the situation change,
whether that is short or long-term. And low and behold, the Minister one day later
makes the announcement that Sweden would give Ukrainian pilots a familiarization prgramme on
Gripen – that’ doesn’t mean that Gripens are sent, it just means that one of the hurdles for perhaps
a Gripen introduction in the future is overcome. Sweden is definitely open to it – and there is
some expectation that the NATO summit at Vilnius in July 2023 will provide an agreement within
NATO – specifically Turkey – that leads to Sweden’s ascendancy into the Alliance. At that
point, perhaps, the current considerations may be less restrictive to Sweden – with the caveat that
Sweden punches above its weight in comparative capabilities to other NATO countries already, so
we will see. Right now, Sweden has
a force of 70 Gripen C and 26 Gripen D trainers. Worldwide, we can add another 17 South African,
7 Thai, 12 Czech and 12 Hungarian Gripen C. That’s not a big pool of aircraft,
and they are needed to cover the air requirements for each of these states – and if we compare it to
Ukraine’s long term stated requirement for 48 modern fighters across four squadrons,
we run into a numbers issue – not just in terms of fielding Gripen but also sustaining it.
Of course, we have 60 Gripen Es on order for Sweden and about 80ish for Brazil but those
only started to slowly appear in November 2021 . Now forget the E-model for Ukraine, Sweden will
transition their fleet to E and therefore need all of them and Brazil is half a world away,
is building up their own fleet and if Luna’s non-reaction to Zelensky at the G7 summit is
anything to go by, let’s just say Brazil seems to have different priorities. Also,
this doesn’t even touch on the question of transferring highly sensitive tech to
Ukraine in the shape of Gripen E – which is one of the most modern fighter jets out
there - that’s simply not realistic. Of course the same applies to the most modern F-16C variants.
This means that the only Gripens that can go are C-models that are slowly phased out in Sweden but
this phasing out comes in batches. I don’t have a timeline but I doubt that Sweden has enough free
Gripen Cs to field even one squadron for Ukraine right now. In the future, Gripen Cs will free up,
geopolitical situations may shift and pending approval of other states – like
the US – Sweden can transfer them. The approval of other countries is needed because Sweden
uses a lot of foreign tech, like an American engine, in their otherwise indigenous design.
Now I admit that these political, logistical and operational considerations aren’t sexy
discussion points in today’s news, but they are the main elements that decide whether a platform
is sent to Ukraine, when it is transferred, and with what systems it is delivered. There
is understandable excitement about the prospect of sending fighter jets, but at the same time
it serves to remember that this is no silver bullet. Ukraine will require a continuous input
of western material to maintain this fight, from general supplies, over to hardware such as APCs,
tanks, artillery, air defense and ammunition, lots and lots of ammunition.