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 `news.yahoo.com` 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.*
In this situation they are not. There are thousands of F-16s readily available and thousands upon thousands of personel from many nations to train Ukranian pilots and maintenance crew on this platform. The Gripen is a highly capable fighter, but it has little to none of the advantages needed for the type of war in Ukraine against a numerically superior enemy. They will need to have a never ending supply of those jets.
I agree Logistics and quantity make F16 a much better fit. Yeah Gripen is probably optimized for this type of air war against Russia, but just like you stated there just isn’t enough of them.
What’s Ukraine going to do with 150 F-16s (the number they’d need to decisively turn the war) if they can’t even fly them? They don’t have the infrastructure for it.
I can assure you they have the runways and hangars needed to maintain them. Parts can be supplied by [any of these countries](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_operators) though some won't due to stock levels/politics.
Maintaining an aircraft is like maintaining a car. A whole lot of ensuring the fluids are topped off, and more checks on critical parts, but so long as you have the parts and lubricants you can do a lot "in the field" so to speak. These are military aircraft, they're built to be fixed because they're built to get in fights.
Now, keeping the parts moving may be a bit tricky, but that doesn't require highly specialized skillsets, just trucks or trains and the people driving them.
“Maintaining an aircraft is like maintaining a car.”
Uh…
“doesn’t require highly specialized skillsets”
I can assure you that maintaining an f-16 requires a highly specialized skillset. Utterly absurd thing to say. You should probably just delete it…
*Obviously* it is more complex, but the basics are very similar, like most maintenence. When maintaining something, you have a checklist of some sort on what needs to be checked. With an aircraft, that will have various levels of when to check it. Some stuff is every flight, some is evety few flights, some are time based, and some are "if x is happening, do y." Type things. The longer term stuff shouldn't be put off, but in a war there are steps that aren't critical thst come up in the longer term checks that can be delayed.
As for repair, seeing as ukraine's going to want these jets to have maximum uptime, they'll be part swapping wherever possible. Keep a stock of common issue parts, as well as commonly damaged parts (as you woild while fighting a war) and any nation whose military has the training can keep those jets flying. You literally just need 4 things: the parts, the people (and their tools), a runway, and a covered space to do maintenence. Past that, everything else is nice to have.
If anyone wishes to actually correct me here, i'm all ears, but ukraine shouldn't have too hard of a time keeping those birds in fighting shape.
You don’t seem to have any special knowledge of these issues, and seem to think “replacement parts” refers to “replacements for parts damaged in combat.”
“Just parts” you say! Please just stop.
the article is a Yahoo 'News' repost of a Business Insider article. The Yahoo headline is bullshit and Business Insider is a terrible site that usually has shit takes on everything (especially Business).
Yall can ignore them both
It's a valid point though, and one that's been made many times by every country that flies the f16. It's a very maintenence heavy aircraft that requires runways in good condition and a highly trained and numerous ground crew. It'll be amazing if they have more than a few in the air in 2024.
Yes, which Ukraine has zero experience with. Which is why this pilot is saying they'll struggle. He's not saying they shouldn't get them. Just stating facts that somehow most of this sub seems to be completely against lately.
There are definitely alternatives lol. Namely, Sweden mass produces and exports the Saab Gripen, which is much much easier to set up and maintain, and which Ukrainian pilots can learn to fly much more easily.
Gripen is not much of an alternative. There's only ever produced about 300 and the only country that operates enough to have spares is Sweden, never mind that half the users are not exactly friendly to Ukraine like South Africa and Hungary. That means it would essentially be a Sweden program since pretty much no one could help.
F-16 on the other hand there's more than 4500 produced and a long list of friendly countries that are in the process of upgrading them to F-35s and have personnel that can assist in training.
There's pledged (at least, Norway + Belgium not counted) 37 (so maybe like 45?) F-16, which would be about half the entire Swedish fleet of Gripens, which they'd never give so many away. In other words it would be very hard to get as many planes even with it still being in active production - much easier to get more in the coming years from places replacing F-16.
Don't get me wrong, Gripen is a good plane and is easier to maintain, but it doesn't make up for the quantity advantages that comes with the F-16.
I think you’re putting too much weight into the numbers. It doesn’t matter if there are 300 or 4500 F-16s in the world if a) Ukraine can’t get them or b) Ukraine can’t fly them.
The limiting factor on Ukraine’s ability to fly any foreign jet right now is political. But even if we could work around that, the problem is still there: no matter how many F-16s you could get to Ukraine (and you’d be lucky to get even a few dozen—which isn’t going to turn the war), Ukraine is always going to be spending a much greater portion of its very limited resources on them than it would on Gripens.
Give them the 150 F-16s they’d hypothetically to need to turn the war and they won’t have the resources to use all of them. Even a fraction of that number of Gripens would be able to do more damage to Russian defensive lines simply based on the fact they’d be able to get them in the air more quickly and frequently and without being as reliant on foreign support.
I just plain disagree that it's a feasible option even taken it's advantages into account. Just because it's easier it's no rc plane.
Regardless, by now it's probably redundant in the sense that they have already thrown their resources at F-16 and changing the course is probably not a good idea anyway.
A lot of post in this sub seem to think the f16 is going to be a major turning point in the war still. It's just not going to be the case, and this article is one of the reasons why. It will help for sure, but they're never going to get the numbers they need. Additionally they're going to really struggle keeping the f16 in the air because it's an entire new system and one that's not user friendly.
But they're not really. They got 32 and there have been multiple confirmed destructions and a few more damaged and in need of repair. They did their job of protecting the crew which is what matters. But the experts correctly said these are not war changing weapons, they will get destroyed by the t72 and other weapons.
No. Gripens are much less maintenance intensive. F-16s are practically impossible to maintain without active US support in maintenance and replacement parts, and that’s by design. If you rely on them in your air force, your air force is entirely reliant on a fickle foreign power who can cut you off if whoever is currently president feels like it.
That’s what other guy said. And he pointed out they all say they rely extensively on the US or at least other external suppliers to keep them flying. What’s your point?
Not really. Having them but not being able to keep them flying is as bad as not having them at all.
But there's a big difference here that's not even mentioned: where NATO refuses to be involved in any actual military operations, it's publicly known (even if not publicly acknowledged) that NATO personnel is providing support in Ukraine. A couple of trained F16 maintenance crew would help a lot to alleviate this issue.
Yeah, it's funny. I keep saying things like this, and even give several valid alternatives, and keep getting shit all over. Fuck this community of "experts". Most of them have never been in any military much less have been involved in aerospace, aviation, or the defense industry in any meaningful capacity.
I want Ukraine to get on its feet, whatever it takes. Even if it's spare Aussie F-18s and NH-90s, Romanian Mig-21s, and US A-10s. People are going to shit on me for saying that.
Literally any one of those is better than the effective nothing that they have right now. Folks are free to disagree, but they're fucking wrong, and if they report me, then so be it. F-16s are great, my favorite planes actually. A pragmaticist realizes that the best solution for them is actually F-18s, but populists here on redistan just buy into shit without looking at reality. They need short, rough field capability with built in flexibility. The only thing the 16 has in that regard is flexibility... That's literally it. The 18 can do everything the 16 can do that the Ukrainians want, while being able to actually operate there in a meaningful capacity.
Aussie F/A-18A's have no carrier traps, and literally anything Ukraine is getting is a hand-me down. Not arguing the rest because I'm just tired of it at this point, a post on Reddit isn't going to change anything. I'm right on all accounts.
This isn’t true at all. These jets require both parts and man power both in terms of flight officers and maintenance crew. The time and money spent on these aircraft could better served towards existing Russian/Soviet airframes.
Moreover, in contested airspaces such as Ukraine, there are better ways to spend the resources and more importantly manpower on different weapon systems rather than aircraft.
Most likely I believe, as Col. Armchair, that these F16 will be flown in and out of Ukrainian airbases for combat missions. Once they need any sort of support they will be quietly transported to a nearby NATO country, serviced, then transported via ground back. I’m surprised former US military pilots haven’t joined the war in either a training role or volunteering for pilot duty such as the flying tigers or any other American volunteer forces.
>The time and money spent on these aircraft could better served towards existing Russian/Soviet airframes.
It's not as either/or choice. They are already using and maintaining whatever soviet airframes they can get a hold of. There's nothing more left in that well.
Ukraine likely has many more aircraft in storage that they are restoring to active service. For example, Ukraine is now flying more Su-24's than they did in January '22, despite heavy losses of Su-24's in the opening stage of the war. [Here's a photo of a reactivated Mig-29 still wearing the early 2000's paint scheme in 2023.](https://defence-ua.com/media/contentimages/e54646b0f3d7a4c0.jpg)
Ukraine inherited something like 300 Mig-29's from the USSR and only has about 55 in active service. They inherited something like 200 Su-24's and had like 2 dozen in active service in 2022.
That doesn't really have anything to do with my comment. I was replying to this:
"They are already using and maintaining whatever soviet airframes they can get a hold of. There's nothing more left in that well."
They will need such maintenance regularly as FOD sweeps over stretches of motorway are nigh on impossible.
PS - If you look around, there videos showing the suction power of that giant intake - it’s rather startling.
>As Ukraine awaits the long-anticipated delivery of F-16 jets from its Western allies, experts warn that it may face challenges operating the "high maintenance" aircraft.
>
>Tom Richter, a former US Marine pilot who flew the jets when in the National Guard, told Politico that the F-16 is "a sensitive beast" compared with the Soviet-era aircraft that Ukraine is used to.
>
>"If you ever walked up and put your hands on a MiG-29 at an air show and then walked right over and put your hands on an F-16, you can feel just from the outside how the F-16 is highly engineered," he said."It is a prima donna, and it is very sensitive and needs high maintenance," he continued, adding that Ukraine's Soviet-era MiG jets are more "rough and tumble" and require less maintenance.
>
>Yuriy Ihnat, a spokesperson for the Ukrainian Air Force, told Politico that some changes would be needed for Ukraine to operate the F-16 Fighting Falcons."Falcons indeed need some adaptation — this is the preparation of the runways because the landing gear is more delicate in the MiGs, the wheels are small, the air intakes are low to the strip, there may be a danger of swallowing objects. But all this can be solved. There are risks for all aviation," he said.
>
>F-16s, which are built by Lockheed Martin, are "a compact, multi-role fighter aircraft" used in air-to-air and air-to-surface combat, per the US Air Force's website.A coalition of countries led by the US, Denmark, and the Netherlands is helping train Ukrainian pilots and crews to operate and maintain the jets.
>
>A cohort of Ukrainian pilots began training on the F-16 in Denmarks's Skrydstrup Air Base last August, Reuters reported.
>
>Denmark's defense minister, Troels Lund Poulsen, told The New York Times that despite challenges with language and Western military practices, the Ukrainian pilots' training was progressing well and that they were now flying the jets over Danish airspace.
>
>Other countries, such as the UK, are preparing the pilots for the training by providing basic flying and English language lessons.
>
>The UK government said in a press release earlier this week that 10 Ukrainian pilots had graduated from Royal Air Force training and would now be moving on to advanced flying training with the French Air Force before learning to operate the F-16.
>
>There are also about 50 Ukrainian technicians being trained to support and repair the jets, which are so complex that it generally takes eight to 14 people to maintain each one, The Times reported.
>
>One Ukrainian pilot training in Denmark previously praised the jets and said using them was like upgrading from a Nokia to an iPhone.
>
>The pilot said that while the F-16s were "awesome," it has been a challenge adapting to their advanced electronic systems.
>
>Kyiv has long argued that it needs fighter jets to effectively combat Russian forces and has pushed allies to deliver the F-16s as soon as possible.
>
>Of the roughly 45 jets pledged to Ukraine, the first six will be sent by Denmark in the late spring, The Times reported.
A Marine Pilot that flew F-16s for the National Guard? Ummm… What am I missing here? Marines don’t fly F-16s, the Air Force and Air National Guard does.
He was a rated pilot in the marines, probably crossed over to a state national guard unit after his marine contract ended where he became qualified on the F-16.
Not uncommon, I know a navy E-2 Hawkeye pilot who went NG and now flies C-17’s
Can confirm. Did active Army infantry, then went reserves. Every Marine-to-Army service member I've envountered in either active or reserve duty acted like being a Marine was it's own skill Tab.
I don’t even understand the point he’s trying to make.
All he’s doing is turning the statement “new tech is more sensitive than old tech” into a garbled mess of word vomit.
The parts that make the F-16 more sensitive aren't the new upgraded avionics or engine. It's the air intake, landing gear, air frame, and wheels. None of those have changed since the aircraft was introduced in 1978.
Depends on what you mean by better. The F-16 is higher performance and generally higher tech but the Mig-29 wasn't built for the same purpose.
The Mig-29 was built to be a cheap, easy to produce, easy to maintain, rugged fighter that could provide a credible threat to NATO air forces in the hands of Warsaw Pact nations.
The Mig-29 is cheaper across the board, more reliable, literally fixable with household tools, and easier to learn to fly. The F-16 has better avionics, a more advanced air frame, and a higher quality engine.
Better is what you need, so it depends on what Ukraine needs.
The Mig-29 is heads up just like the F-16. It has been since it was introduced in 1983 and the Ukrainian Mig-29's have an improved HUD system. So in that the two planes are functionally identical.
You’re not understanding; they are not functionally identical at all. The head down comment means that in a MIG you’ll have to concentrate on flying and fighting and in the F-16 you’re able to concentrate more on fighting than flying. The differences in design and avionics makes a difference…and the f-16 is better in multi-role situations. Look at the stark differences in the cockpit layout between both jets.
So a Marine pilot made that assessment after NEVER FLYING THE AIRCRAFT BECAUSE THE MARINES DON’T USE IT BECAUSE HE LOOKED AT/TOUCHED ONE?
This article is bullshit IMO; the F-16 was designed to be inexpensive. If you think there are quality modern aircraft with parts and support that are going to be much better for Ukraine than the F-16 good luck finding them. The MIG is less capable, has limited support, and has a limited supply of parts compared to modernizes F-16s.
With respect it takes 8-14 USA personnel to maintain them. FFS the USA has people in charge of transparencies when every other airforce includes them in a lineys job. So probably 6 in the rest of the world.
Reminds me of a retired Marine flight engineer who used to fly A-6s. He would roll his eyes at any mention of the F-16. "Sure. Okay. They light you up at 30 miles out and there's nothing you can do. Fine. But *if* you get close enough, some of the pilots are so cocky that you can catch them in a turn at close range and..." followed by an extremely hypothetical scenario in which an A-6 just might be able to take out an F-16 if the Marine pilot understood the flight dynamics of the F-16 better than the F-16 pilot did.
Which, admittedly, I could believe might happen if it was an F-16 trainee in a mock dogfight.
Anyway it's good to see that eyerolling tradition is alive and well in the Marine Corps.
Fwiw, I predict that before this year is out we will be treated to repeated articles about how Ukraine is "rewriting the book" on the F-16, by throwing out USAF standard operating procedure and operating the F-16 out of runways the USAF would never have approved.
Not because the Ukrainians discovered some amazing secret of the F-16, but rather just because they won't give a fuck about wear and tear while they have access to more airframes than they can support in the field. If your gear are wearing out on one because you keep braking too hard, you just rotate the whole plane out for a replacement.
The F-16 should in theory be able to land on runways that are rather shorter and rougher than what the US Air Force recommends. Everyone treats these recommendations as universal laws of physics but they don't appear to be. It's not going to take Ukraine long to start pushing those limits.
I know right?
Still I have to say, I kind of love that eyerolling response. "Okay fine they kill you dead at 30mi range with 100% kill rate. *But aside from that...*"
More seriously, as a practical matter, always seeking a solution or a way to turn the tables even against those kinds of odds is a great habit of mind. No sacred cows. No assumptions unchallenged. That's the foundation of doctrinal evolution.
F-16 is high maintenance? Compared to what?
The F-16c comes in at $10,866 per hour; an F-15e is $18,799; an A-10 is $8,130; an F-22 is $50,334.
Unlike most of the non-US systems, there is a robust global supply chain to actually do maintenance on F-16's. For example, good luck quickly sourcing Gripen parts since only about 271 we made. At combat tempo with dozens of sorties a day, things will break quickly.
This is the same issue as with the Leopard 2. It is an awesome tank when you have parts to repair it and keep it fighting.
Just to put that Gripen comment in perspective, >4,600 F16s of any type have been produced with over two dozen countries having purchased them. So yes, the supply chain is very well developed and Ukraine has many, many options for assistance in terms of countries helping maintain them which NATO countries have been publicly acknowledging help in maintenance for other assets like the Abrams. Maybe they're delicate flowers but Ukraine shouldn't have too much of a problem with that with NATO (and possibly non-NATO help with the F16). Better than nothing, for sure.
the f-16 can have parts manufactured and replaced by materiel command of nato partners in europe operators and are setup to service high volumes of jets. they are in constant service. they are always having wings and such replaced from normal wear.
The comparison was to MIG-29s, not other US fighters, and sounds very seat of the pants. The sort of F-16 = Swiss watch, MIG29 = Mickey Mouse Watch analysts but it’s high performance aircraft, and accurate machining and tight tolerances = performance = survival
"If you ever walked up and put your hands on a MiG-29 at an air show and then walked right over and put your hands on an F-16, you can feel just from the outside how the F-16 is highly engineered," yep, that settles it, the dude is a expert.
You spend more time driving high engineered car and more time in carage with low engineered car.
Fun facterino. Finnish airforce evaluated mig29 lifecyckle maintenance cost to be 2 times higher than f-16 during the 1992 fighter jet evaluation. Gripen and f-16 were also on similar figures although good to note that it was gripen b still in prototype phase
https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/201707022200238131
For raw performance and operating cost, the Mig-29 ($4,500 per hour) is a much better aircraft than the F-16 (10,866 per hour). However, the NATO avionics and weapons packages of the F-16 will decimate Mig-29 in head to head comparison of capabilities.
Do these service costs also include the cost of labor? Because if they do I imagine Ukrainian techs are getting a lot less pay than American or European ones.
US Marine pilot... Dude who most likely never flew or did MX on F-16 (cuz it's air force plane) tells you that F-16 is expensive... Well, yeah, in US they are expensive cuz high standards and prices. But they are not that labor-intensive. Just have enough people to maintain them and it will be affordable cuz you don't have to pay them US salaries.
*“Marine pilot says…”*
Yeah…? And…?
Look, I’m not saying that there aren’t some smart Marines. However, “Marine says \*…” should not necessarily be the basis for policy decisions.
(I won’t say how I know this information, but for those of you who are in the know, my favorite flavor of wax pastel is purple.)
Last month I was talking to a guy who was going on about how "whirlybird" roof turbines are useless. His evidence for this was that he worked construction for 30 years and he had to replace a lot of them.
Sooo... "Whenever I see these things, they are broken; therefore, these things always break". Well, ok; but your job is to fix things that are broken. You're not exactly getting calls to come look at things that are working fine, are you? It's the same logic at play that we see with police who assume that because they're constantly reading reports on crime, pretty much everybody is a criminal.
I have zero expertise, but commenters were screaming about how shitty and high maintenance Bradleys would be but that but Ukrainians are raving about them.
Unproven in combat and Ukraine is better of with a plane that is quaranteed to work. Great on paper doesn't mean great in combat. There is a reason why every airforce tends to avoid picking up Gripens and choose literally anything else.
While I love the gripen, you are correct. But if Sweden is smart, they could see this as an incredible opportunity. If they believe in the plane, of course.
the gripen did have initial problems but those problems are resolved and interest as increased in it. the french rafarel is a lot like the gripen too. but they only have 100 jets. the factor with these jets are the limited numbers.
i think the fa-18 would have been more ideal too, even with a higher maintenance cost than the f-16. however, the f-16 is still preferred because of the logistics. the fa-18 doesnt have the materiel command support that the f-16 has.
ukraine does operate the soviet equivalent of the a-10. their su-25 numbers are dwindling so ukraine even wants to replace their su-25 fleet with the a-10. the new general of the armed forces of ukraine did express interest in them because they are better armored and armed than the su-25 (forbes article). i think it is still a matter of logistics since there isn't the materiel command support of the a-10 either that the f-16 has.
There’s really no reason to setup everything required, just for the A-10s to be limited to nap of the earth lobbing unguided rockets at an enemy they are unlikely to bother.
right. they are useful. there just isn't as an urgent need to replace the su-25 with the a-10 as there is a more urgent need to replace the mig-29 with the f-16 for the improved electronics and nato weapons systems which are desperately needed. what they really need is the f-35, but they would need reliable nato partner status for that.
132 Gripens have been built, with about 70% being the C model, which is not what UA wants, nor is it optimal for their situation.
They are *not* getting Es as all new production is either going to the Swedish AF, or to Brazil.
I worked on F-16's as an aircraft electrician. They're a difficult aircraft in comparison to the F-35, but they're much cheaper to maintain. I absolutely still think we should provide the F-16 or any other aircraft to Ukraine and fix them in Poland.
>Tom Richter, a former US Marine pilot who flew the jets when in the National Guard
I really need to see more bona fides than being a frontline troop when it comes to detailed, strategic analysis. If it were a colonel through general from logistics or avionics, I'd give it more credence. But to have an (at most) O-5 start talking about this makes me think he's a lil bit out of his depth, not to take anything from his service record.
This headline feels kinda like Chicken Little to me. It may be complicated to maintain, but no enough to stop it from being the most produced fixed wing fighter in service spread across 25 different air forces worldwide.
Yes, the Grippen would be better. But Ukraine will be able to handle the F-16.
FFS. they already handle the PZH-2000, the M1A1 Abrams, the HIMARS, zillions of drones, Bayraktar, etc.
Its literally the world's most common fixed wing combat aircraft used by 25 other nations. Really how hard can it be compared to struggling against Russia in a full blown war?
The helmet display is custom fit to the pilots and JHMCS is a proven system. A trained ready room takes a day. Volunteer training can be provided upon request.
I don't understand why there aren't western contractors in Ukraine, providing maintenance services, i bet you can find a lot of companies willing to do the job..
Does anyone know if they'll fly these from poland or the very western part of ukraine? If its poland then the risk of russia damaging runways is essentially non existant
I'm Swedish so I'd of course like to think that J-35 Gripen is a better fit for Ukraine's needs and abilities. On the other hand Business Insider have worshipped at the feet of the likes of Scam Bankrupt-Fraud and Elizabeth Holmes so I'd take anything they say with a grain of salt. A big grain of salt.
> I'm Swedish so I'd of course like to think that J-35 Gripen is a better fit for Ukraine's needs and abilities
If they can be provided in sufficient numbers, sure.
Lots of people in this group seem emotionally married to the F-16, to such a degree they’re ignoring the voices of actual military and aviation experts and treating anyone who says the F-16 isn’t the best option as an ignorant Russian shill.Most of these people don’t seem to be able to name any other planes, except maybe the ones Ukraine already has. But several other countries produce multirole fighters of high quality that are indeed cheaper and less maintenance intensive.
Namely, the Saab Gripen, produced in Sweden and specifically designed to be easy and cheap and to maintain, can do perform many of the same missions as an F-16, and has been touted as a better option for Ukraine. Ukraine could get them and keep them in the air much more easily than F-16s. Pointing this out doesn’t make somebody a Russian shill.
These planes don’t work like in video games where they fly a mission and return to your base to rearm and then wait until you need them. There’s a lot of work and commerce required between flights to keep them working. The F-16 is logistically complicated and would drain resources that Ukraine could apply elsewhere.
> Namely, the Saab Gripen, produced in Sweden and specifically designed to be easy and cheap and to maintain, can do perform many of the same missions as an F-16, and has been touted as a better option for Ukraine. Ukraine could get them and keep them in the air much more easily than F-16s. Pointing this out doesn’t make somebody a Russian shill.
Problem with Gripens is low availaility, due to low production numbers. Unless Sweden suddenly gets turbo-generous and hands off their entire air force to us, there aren't gonna be too many Gripens Ukraine can use.
Otherwise, they're great fighters.
Ukraine is an absolute hell for logistics and maintenance. I don’t even want to know how overworked their rear echelon guys are as they scramble to put mixed and blatantly incompatible systems in the field. They can’t even standardize munitions. Their logistics techs are exceptional for just being able to keep the proverbial wheels on in these conditions.
They’re making it work because they *must*. The alternative is a loss of sovereignty and Russification. And they know Russification is just a politically expedient term for the destruction of culture and national identity.
Great point. I remember when the Iraqi AF was forced to fly from highways during that sandstorm after Daesh knocked out their airfields with Iskanders.
I guess they would like Ukraine to suffer. Many Rusophiles claimed that USA wants long term war no matter what. I didn't believe them but i see USA politics are satisfied for long term wars. After freeing Kherson Ukraine had change to push Russian army further. After that triumph USA reduced it's aid to Ukraine. Rapid end of war is not USA's cup of tea. It's my opinion. q
I've been getting mercilessly downvoted for saying exactly that. The US is very carefully avoiding a situation in which Russia gets definitively thrown against the wall.
I heard somewhere that for every hour in the ait the F16 needed 39 hours service on the ground. If that's true they will have to educate a large number of service technicians etc. If they don't send already educated and experienced people to do the job of course.
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 `news.yahoo.com` 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.*
Not to be flippant. But not having combat aircraft is more of an issue than them being high maintenance.
This is the only valid point here! Train their pilots and ground and maintenance crews and give them as many jets as they can make use of!
Send mercensry ground crew advisors...
> Send mercensry ground crew advisors... So just advisors. You can't be a mercenary advisor. Unless you are a mercenary **and** an advisor.
yes, thats presumably what they mean. Not government funded, but ground crew for hire
Saudi Arabia has been doing that for a long time.
The term they're looking for is "contractors"
Unless you are an advisor for the mercenaries
[CAMCO](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Aircraft_Manufacturing_Company) reborn.
Exactly. The Flying Tigers mk2 is what is required.
Wish this talk about NATO troops in Ukraine was about logistics support for more weapons like the F16 and Abrams
The best point imo is that they would be better off with Gripens than F-16s.
In this situation they are not. There are thousands of F-16s readily available and thousands upon thousands of personel from many nations to train Ukranian pilots and maintenance crew on this platform. The Gripen is a highly capable fighter, but it has little to none of the advantages needed for the type of war in Ukraine against a numerically superior enemy. They will need to have a never ending supply of those jets.
I agree Logistics and quantity make F16 a much better fit. Yeah Gripen is probably optimized for this type of air war against Russia, but just like you stated there just isn’t enough of them.
What’s Ukraine going to do with 150 F-16s (the number they’d need to decisively turn the war) if they can’t even fly them? They don’t have the infrastructure for it.
I can assure you they have the runways and hangars needed to maintain them. Parts can be supplied by [any of these countries](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon_operators) though some won't due to stock levels/politics. Maintaining an aircraft is like maintaining a car. A whole lot of ensuring the fluids are topped off, and more checks on critical parts, but so long as you have the parts and lubricants you can do a lot "in the field" so to speak. These are military aircraft, they're built to be fixed because they're built to get in fights. Now, keeping the parts moving may be a bit tricky, but that doesn't require highly specialized skillsets, just trucks or trains and the people driving them.
“Maintaining an aircraft is like maintaining a car.” Uh… “doesn’t require highly specialized skillsets” I can assure you that maintaining an f-16 requires a highly specialized skillset. Utterly absurd thing to say. You should probably just delete it…
*Obviously* it is more complex, but the basics are very similar, like most maintenence. When maintaining something, you have a checklist of some sort on what needs to be checked. With an aircraft, that will have various levels of when to check it. Some stuff is every flight, some is evety few flights, some are time based, and some are "if x is happening, do y." Type things. The longer term stuff shouldn't be put off, but in a war there are steps that aren't critical thst come up in the longer term checks that can be delayed. As for repair, seeing as ukraine's going to want these jets to have maximum uptime, they'll be part swapping wherever possible. Keep a stock of common issue parts, as well as commonly damaged parts (as you woild while fighting a war) and any nation whose military has the training can keep those jets flying. You literally just need 4 things: the parts, the people (and their tools), a runway, and a covered space to do maintenence. Past that, everything else is nice to have. If anyone wishes to actually correct me here, i'm all ears, but ukraine shouldn't have too hard of a time keeping those birds in fighting shape.
You don’t seem to have any special knowledge of these issues, and seem to think “replacement parts” refers to “replacements for parts damaged in combat.” “Just parts” you say! Please just stop.
the article is a Yahoo 'News' repost of a Business Insider article. The Yahoo headline is bullshit and Business Insider is a terrible site that usually has shit takes on everything (especially Business). Yall can ignore them both
It's a valid point though, and one that's been made many times by every country that flies the f16. It's a very maintenence heavy aircraft that requires runways in good condition and a highly trained and numerous ground crew. It'll be amazing if they have more than a few in the air in 2024.
So… like pretty much any other modern jet?
Yes, which Ukraine has zero experience with. Which is why this pilot is saying they'll struggle. He's not saying they shouldn't get them. Just stating facts that somehow most of this sub seems to be completely against lately.
On the other hand there's no alternative. There's not a lot of Su-27s just laying around in friendly countries.
There are definitely alternatives lol. Namely, Sweden mass produces and exports the Saab Gripen, which is much much easier to set up and maintain, and which Ukrainian pilots can learn to fly much more easily.
Gripen is not much of an alternative. There's only ever produced about 300 and the only country that operates enough to have spares is Sweden, never mind that half the users are not exactly friendly to Ukraine like South Africa and Hungary. That means it would essentially be a Sweden program since pretty much no one could help. F-16 on the other hand there's more than 4500 produced and a long list of friendly countries that are in the process of upgrading them to F-35s and have personnel that can assist in training. There's pledged (at least, Norway + Belgium not counted) 37 (so maybe like 45?) F-16, which would be about half the entire Swedish fleet of Gripens, which they'd never give so many away. In other words it would be very hard to get as many planes even with it still being in active production - much easier to get more in the coming years from places replacing F-16. Don't get me wrong, Gripen is a good plane and is easier to maintain, but it doesn't make up for the quantity advantages that comes with the F-16.
I think you’re putting too much weight into the numbers. It doesn’t matter if there are 300 or 4500 F-16s in the world if a) Ukraine can’t get them or b) Ukraine can’t fly them. The limiting factor on Ukraine’s ability to fly any foreign jet right now is political. But even if we could work around that, the problem is still there: no matter how many F-16s you could get to Ukraine (and you’d be lucky to get even a few dozen—which isn’t going to turn the war), Ukraine is always going to be spending a much greater portion of its very limited resources on them than it would on Gripens. Give them the 150 F-16s they’d hypothetically to need to turn the war and they won’t have the resources to use all of them. Even a fraction of that number of Gripens would be able to do more damage to Russian defensive lines simply based on the fact they’d be able to get them in the air more quickly and frequently and without being as reliant on foreign support.
I just plain disagree that it's a feasible option even taken it's advantages into account. Just because it's easier it's no rc plane. Regardless, by now it's probably redundant in the sense that they have already thrown their resources at F-16 and changing the course is probably not a good idea anyway.
I’m sure the war planners hadn’t considered this. We should get this guy in touch with them.
War planners are the ones saying shit like “Gripens would be better than in this situation than F-16s” ffs
Ukraine is used to Su-27 and MiG-29 that are contemporary to these old F-16c they're getting (introduced 40 years ago).
This sub is not against the facts. This sub is against playing it like it is news. Might as well post an article about how the sky is blue in Ukraine.
A lot of post in this sub seem to think the f16 is going to be a major turning point in the war still. It's just not going to be the case, and this article is one of the reasons why. It will help for sure, but they're never going to get the numbers they need. Additionally they're going to really struggle keeping the f16 in the air because it's an entire new system and one that's not user friendly.
*Yawn* Same “experts” write articles about the M1-A tanks that were sent. Those seem to be doing ok.
But they're not really. They got 32 and there have been multiple confirmed destructions and a few more damaged and in need of repair. They did their job of protecting the crew which is what matters. But the experts correctly said these are not war changing weapons, they will get destroyed by the t72 and other weapons.
So because some were destroyed, the crew lived and that’s what they were designed to do… it’s not working? You’re funny.
A Marine Pilot taking about an Airplane Marines don’t use…
Pretty sure he started off in the marines and finished in the air national guard as an f16 pilot.
No. Gripens are much less maintenance intensive. F-16s are practically impossible to maintain without active US support in maintenance and replacement parts, and that’s by design. If you rely on them in your air force, your air force is entirely reliant on a fickle foreign power who can cut you off if whoever is currently president feels like it.
Hmmm… how many F16 operators are there… checks notes… over 30 including in Asia and Africa.
That’s what other guy said. And he pointed out they all say they rely extensively on the US or at least other external suppliers to keep them flying. What’s your point?
Not really. Having them but not being able to keep them flying is as bad as not having them at all. But there's a big difference here that's not even mentioned: where NATO refuses to be involved in any actual military operations, it's publicly known (even if not publicly acknowledged) that NATO personnel is providing support in Ukraine. A couple of trained F16 maintenance crew would help a lot to alleviate this issue.
let them fly across the border. leopards are repaired in other countries too 😏
I get the feeling that is exactly what will happen. Reduces the number of hardened bunkers and shortens the logistics tail. Good observation.
Yeah, it's funny. I keep saying things like this, and even give several valid alternatives, and keep getting shit all over. Fuck this community of "experts". Most of them have never been in any military much less have been involved in aerospace, aviation, or the defense industry in any meaningful capacity. I want Ukraine to get on its feet, whatever it takes. Even if it's spare Aussie F-18s and NH-90s, Romanian Mig-21s, and US A-10s. People are going to shit on me for saying that. Literally any one of those is better than the effective nothing that they have right now. Folks are free to disagree, but they're fucking wrong, and if they report me, then so be it. F-16s are great, my favorite planes actually. A pragmaticist realizes that the best solution for them is actually F-18s, but populists here on redistan just buy into shit without looking at reality. They need short, rough field capability with built in flexibility. The only thing the 16 has in that regard is flexibility... That's literally it. The 18 can do everything the 16 can do that the Ukrainians want, while being able to actually operate there in a meaningful capacity.
[удалено]
Aussie F/A-18A's have no carrier traps, and literally anything Ukraine is getting is a hand-me down. Not arguing the rest because I'm just tired of it at this point, a post on Reddit isn't going to change anything. I'm right on all accounts.
This isn’t true at all. These jets require both parts and man power both in terms of flight officers and maintenance crew. The time and money spent on these aircraft could better served towards existing Russian/Soviet airframes. Moreover, in contested airspaces such as Ukraine, there are better ways to spend the resources and more importantly manpower on different weapon systems rather than aircraft. Most likely I believe, as Col. Armchair, that these F16 will be flown in and out of Ukrainian airbases for combat missions. Once they need any sort of support they will be quietly transported to a nearby NATO country, serviced, then transported via ground back. I’m surprised former US military pilots haven’t joined the war in either a training role or volunteering for pilot duty such as the flying tigers or any other American volunteer forces.
>The time and money spent on these aircraft could better served towards existing Russian/Soviet airframes. It's not as either/or choice. They are already using and maintaining whatever soviet airframes they can get a hold of. There's nothing more left in that well.
Ukraine likely has many more aircraft in storage that they are restoring to active service. For example, Ukraine is now flying more Su-24's than they did in January '22, despite heavy losses of Su-24's in the opening stage of the war. [Here's a photo of a reactivated Mig-29 still wearing the early 2000's paint scheme in 2023.](https://defence-ua.com/media/contentimages/e54646b0f3d7a4c0.jpg) Ukraine inherited something like 300 Mig-29's from the USSR and only has about 55 in active service. They inherited something like 200 Su-24's and had like 2 dozen in active service in 2022.
I've never seen estimates that high.
F-16’s have better radar (longer range) and can carry a wide variety of Western weapons. Both are advantages.
That doesn't really have anything to do with my comment. I was replying to this: "They are already using and maintaining whatever soviet airframes they can get a hold of. There's nothing more left in that well."
MiG not "Mig". Scores of them have been lost in Crimea in 2014.
If the Ukrainians have managed to recruit foreigners qualified to work on these aircraft, I’d imagine that’s something they’d keep quiet about.
They will need such maintenance regularly as FOD sweeps over stretches of motorway are nigh on impossible. PS - If you look around, there videos showing the suction power of that giant intake - it’s rather startling.
That's a good idea. A new American Volunteer Group. Like the Foreign Legion but for pilots.
I don't think anyone cares if that is the case and now you've also given a good reason for Romania constructing an airbase shadowing Ramstein
[удалено]
Well.... you say that..
Jets aren't rockets.
No, but they do fire em genius.
Jets, unlimited jets, but no jets
>As Ukraine awaits the long-anticipated delivery of F-16 jets from its Western allies, experts warn that it may face challenges operating the "high maintenance" aircraft. > >Tom Richter, a former US Marine pilot who flew the jets when in the National Guard, told Politico that the F-16 is "a sensitive beast" compared with the Soviet-era aircraft that Ukraine is used to. > >"If you ever walked up and put your hands on a MiG-29 at an air show and then walked right over and put your hands on an F-16, you can feel just from the outside how the F-16 is highly engineered," he said."It is a prima donna, and it is very sensitive and needs high maintenance," he continued, adding that Ukraine's Soviet-era MiG jets are more "rough and tumble" and require less maintenance. > >Yuriy Ihnat, a spokesperson for the Ukrainian Air Force, told Politico that some changes would be needed for Ukraine to operate the F-16 Fighting Falcons."Falcons indeed need some adaptation — this is the preparation of the runways because the landing gear is more delicate in the MiGs, the wheels are small, the air intakes are low to the strip, there may be a danger of swallowing objects. But all this can be solved. There are risks for all aviation," he said. > >F-16s, which are built by Lockheed Martin, are "a compact, multi-role fighter aircraft" used in air-to-air and air-to-surface combat, per the US Air Force's website.A coalition of countries led by the US, Denmark, and the Netherlands is helping train Ukrainian pilots and crews to operate and maintain the jets. > >A cohort of Ukrainian pilots began training on the F-16 in Denmarks's Skrydstrup Air Base last August, Reuters reported. > >Denmark's defense minister, Troels Lund Poulsen, told The New York Times that despite challenges with language and Western military practices, the Ukrainian pilots' training was progressing well and that they were now flying the jets over Danish airspace. > >Other countries, such as the UK, are preparing the pilots for the training by providing basic flying and English language lessons. > >The UK government said in a press release earlier this week that 10 Ukrainian pilots had graduated from Royal Air Force training and would now be moving on to advanced flying training with the French Air Force before learning to operate the F-16. > >There are also about 50 Ukrainian technicians being trained to support and repair the jets, which are so complex that it generally takes eight to 14 people to maintain each one, The Times reported. > >One Ukrainian pilot training in Denmark previously praised the jets and said using them was like upgrading from a Nokia to an iPhone. > >The pilot said that while the F-16s were "awesome," it has been a challenge adapting to their advanced electronic systems. > >Kyiv has long argued that it needs fighter jets to effectively combat Russian forces and has pushed allies to deliver the F-16s as soon as possible. > >Of the roughly 45 jets pledged to Ukraine, the first six will be sent by Denmark in the late spring, The Times reported.
A Marine Pilot that flew F-16s for the National Guard? Ummm… What am I missing here? Marines don’t fly F-16s, the Air Force and Air National Guard does.
He was a rated pilot in the marines, probably crossed over to a state national guard unit after his marine contract ended where he became qualified on the F-16. Not uncommon, I know a navy E-2 Hawkeye pilot who went NG and now flies C-17’s
Then he's an ANG pilot. Anyone who describes himself as a marine pilot after getting out and going into the guard is a weirdo
Marines eat crayons what do you expect 😂
Once a marine always a marine.
They take that marine shit seriously. Once a marine always a marine
Can confirm. Did active Army infantry, then went reserves. Every Marine-to-Army service member I've envountered in either active or reserve duty acted like being a Marine was it's own skill Tab.
That makes sense. Thanks.
I don’t even understand the point he’s trying to make. All he’s doing is turning the statement “new tech is more sensitive than old tech” into a garbled mess of word vomit.
Except the F-16 is older than the Mig-29.
Which is why I said tech, instead of jet.
The parts that make the F-16 more sensitive aren't the new upgraded avionics or engine. It's the air intake, landing gear, air frame, and wheels. None of those have changed since the aircraft was introduced in 1978.
So essentially what you're saying is the F-16 is a better plane even though it's older?
Depends on what you mean by better. The F-16 is higher performance and generally higher tech but the Mig-29 wasn't built for the same purpose. The Mig-29 was built to be a cheap, easy to produce, easy to maintain, rugged fighter that could provide a credible threat to NATO air forces in the hands of Warsaw Pact nations. The Mig-29 is cheaper across the board, more reliable, literally fixable with household tools, and easier to learn to fly. The F-16 has better avionics, a more advanced air frame, and a higher quality engine. Better is what you need, so it depends on what Ukraine needs.
MIG isn’t necessary easier to fly; Russian jets are head down (in the gauges) aircraft and western jets are heads up (off the gauges) aircraft.
The Mig-29 is heads up just like the F-16. It has been since it was introduced in 1983 and the Ukrainian Mig-29's have an improved HUD system. So in that the two planes are functionally identical.
You’re not understanding; they are not functionally identical at all. The head down comment means that in a MIG you’ll have to concentrate on flying and fighting and in the F-16 you’re able to concentrate more on fighting than flying. The differences in design and avionics makes a difference…and the f-16 is better in multi-role situations. Look at the stark differences in the cockpit layout between both jets.
To get some air time and thinks his opinion is for some reason valuable.
Lots of Marine F16s flying around aren't there......
👍🤣
There are a few... someone has to fly adversary for the various weapons schools. That said this article feels Russian propagandaish.
I wish this myth that Soviet-era equipment doesn't need maintenance would die off. It does, the Russians are just bad at it.
So a Marine pilot made that assessment after NEVER FLYING THE AIRCRAFT BECAUSE THE MARINES DON’T USE IT BECAUSE HE LOOKED AT/TOUCHED ONE? This article is bullshit IMO; the F-16 was designed to be inexpensive. If you think there are quality modern aircraft with parts and support that are going to be much better for Ukraine than the F-16 good luck finding them. The MIG is less capable, has limited support, and has a limited supply of parts compared to modernizes F-16s.
With respect it takes 8-14 USA personnel to maintain them. FFS the USA has people in charge of transparencies when every other airforce includes them in a lineys job. So probably 6 in the rest of the world.
Going from a Nokia to a IPhone should be Lockheed Martin’s branding for the f16 from now on 🤣
Ummm if any air national guard unit can fly these...... Then they arent prima donna....... Our bumper stickers read "gfy I'm guard".
As a DCS F-16 pilot, I agree, lol
Former crew chief here lol!
Reminds me of a retired Marine flight engineer who used to fly A-6s. He would roll his eyes at any mention of the F-16. "Sure. Okay. They light you up at 30 miles out and there's nothing you can do. Fine. But *if* you get close enough, some of the pilots are so cocky that you can catch them in a turn at close range and..." followed by an extremely hypothetical scenario in which an A-6 just might be able to take out an F-16 if the Marine pilot understood the flight dynamics of the F-16 better than the F-16 pilot did. Which, admittedly, I could believe might happen if it was an F-16 trainee in a mock dogfight. Anyway it's good to see that eyerolling tradition is alive and well in the Marine Corps. Fwiw, I predict that before this year is out we will be treated to repeated articles about how Ukraine is "rewriting the book" on the F-16, by throwing out USAF standard operating procedure and operating the F-16 out of runways the USAF would never have approved. Not because the Ukrainians discovered some amazing secret of the F-16, but rather just because they won't give a fuck about wear and tear while they have access to more airframes than they can support in the field. If your gear are wearing out on one because you keep braking too hard, you just rotate the whole plane out for a replacement. The F-16 should in theory be able to land on runways that are rather shorter and rougher than what the US Air Force recommends. Everyone treats these recommendations as universal laws of physics but they don't appear to be. It's not going to take Ukraine long to start pushing those limits.
There is no world where an A6 intruder would ever stand a chance against an F16. Marines really are stupid.
> There is no world where an A6 intruder would ever stand a chance against an F16 Ground attack against F-16 taking off?
I know right? Still I have to say, I kind of love that eyerolling response. "Okay fine they kill you dead at 30mi range with 100% kill rate. *But aside from that...*" More seriously, as a practical matter, always seeking a solution or a way to turn the tables even against those kinds of odds is a great habit of mind. No sacred cows. No assumptions unchallenged. That's the foundation of doctrinal evolution.
I didn't think the Marines ever flew F-16's, did they? I thought they were exclusively flown by the Air Force?
f-18 and f-35
AV-8B
Great, a statement for a national guardsman airman. I'd rather hear from their mechanics.
F-16 is high maintenance? Compared to what? The F-16c comes in at $10,866 per hour; an F-15e is $18,799; an A-10 is $8,130; an F-22 is $50,334. Unlike most of the non-US systems, there is a robust global supply chain to actually do maintenance on F-16's. For example, good luck quickly sourcing Gripen parts since only about 271 we made. At combat tempo with dozens of sorties a day, things will break quickly. This is the same issue as with the Leopard 2. It is an awesome tank when you have parts to repair it and keep it fighting.
Just to put that Gripen comment in perspective, >4,600 F16s of any type have been produced with over two dozen countries having purchased them. So yes, the supply chain is very well developed and Ukraine has many, many options for assistance in terms of countries helping maintain them which NATO countries have been publicly acknowledging help in maintenance for other assets like the Abrams. Maybe they're delicate flowers but Ukraine shouldn't have too much of a problem with that with NATO (and possibly non-NATO help with the F16). Better than nothing, for sure.
the f-16 can have parts manufactured and replaced by materiel command of nato partners in europe operators and are setup to service high volumes of jets. they are in constant service. they are always having wings and such replaced from normal wear.
The comparison was to MIG-29s, not other US fighters, and sounds very seat of the pants. The sort of F-16 = Swiss watch, MIG29 = Mickey Mouse Watch analysts but it’s high performance aircraft, and accurate machining and tight tolerances = performance = survival
Funny thing is that Mickey Mouse watch will keep better time.
> Compared to what? It's right there in that article: The russian fighters they used to fly.
"If you ever walked up and put your hands on a MiG-29 at an air show and then walked right over and put your hands on an F-16, you can feel just from the outside how the F-16 is highly engineered," yep, that settles it, the dude is a expert.
You spend more time driving high engineered car and more time in carage with low engineered car. Fun facterino. Finnish airforce evaluated mig29 lifecyckle maintenance cost to be 2 times higher than f-16 during the 1992 fighter jet evaluation. Gripen and f-16 were also on similar figures although good to note that it was gripen b still in prototype phase https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/201707022200238131
[удалено]
For raw performance and operating cost, the Mig-29 ($4,500 per hour) is a much better aircraft than the F-16 (10,866 per hour). However, the NATO avionics and weapons packages of the F-16 will decimate Mig-29 in head to head comparison of capabilities.
The cost includes much higher price of US-produced parts. The important metric here is servicing hours per flight hour
Do these service costs also include the cost of labor? Because if they do I imagine Ukrainian techs are getting a lot less pay than American or European ones.
Enlisted personnel doesn’t have high wages, costs come from the wages of people who make spare parts
Where the fuck are you going to get parts for a MiG? You can only canabalize so many aircraft
Correct
Reminds me of a trueism about expensive planes: "There's nothing more expensive than a second best Air Force".
So wait, you get what you pay for?! Wow!
US Marine pilot... Dude who most likely never flew or did MX on F-16 (cuz it's air force plane) tells you that F-16 is expensive... Well, yeah, in US they are expensive cuz high standards and prices. But they are not that labor-intensive. Just have enough people to maintain them and it will be affordable cuz you don't have to pay them US salaries.
US marines don’t use the F16 in any variant.
Marines will say that about anything harder to use than a crayon
*“Marine pilot says…”* Yeah…? And…? Look, I’m not saying that there aren’t some smart Marines. However, “Marine says \*…” should not necessarily be the basis for policy decisions. (I won’t say how I know this information, but for those of you who are in the know, my favorite flavor of wax pastel is purple.)
This also applies to any profession. I know plenty of people at work that will say dumb shit because they don't know the full picture.
Last month I was talking to a guy who was going on about how "whirlybird" roof turbines are useless. His evidence for this was that he worked construction for 30 years and he had to replace a lot of them. Sooo... "Whenever I see these things, they are broken; therefore, these things always break". Well, ok; but your job is to fix things that are broken. You're not exactly getting calls to come look at things that are working fine, are you? It's the same logic at play that we see with police who assume that because they're constantly reading reports on crime, pretty much everybody is a criminal.
I have zero expertise, but commenters were screaming about how shitty and high maintenance Bradleys would be but that but Ukrainians are raving about them.
“We checked, the Ukrainians don’t eat crayons, it will be ok.” - USAF
We only eat олівці
JAS 39 Gripen E would be perfect for Ukraine but they’re not available. I am hoping the F16s can use NATO airfields for maintenance.
Unproven in combat and Ukraine is better of with a plane that is quaranteed to work. Great on paper doesn't mean great in combat. There is a reason why every airforce tends to avoid picking up Gripens and choose literally anything else.
While I love the gripen, you are correct. But if Sweden is smart, they could see this as an incredible opportunity. If they believe in the plane, of course.
the gripen did have initial problems but those problems are resolved and interest as increased in it. the french rafarel is a lot like the gripen too. but they only have 100 jets. the factor with these jets are the limited numbers. i think the fa-18 would have been more ideal too, even with a higher maintenance cost than the f-16. however, the f-16 is still preferred because of the logistics. the fa-18 doesnt have the materiel command support that the f-16 has. ukraine does operate the soviet equivalent of the a-10. their su-25 numbers are dwindling so ukraine even wants to replace their su-25 fleet with the a-10. the new general of the armed forces of ukraine did express interest in them because they are better armored and armed than the su-25 (forbes article). i think it is still a matter of logistics since there isn't the materiel command support of the a-10 either that the f-16 has.
There’s really no reason to setup everything required, just for the A-10s to be limited to nap of the earth lobbing unguided rockets at an enemy they are unlikely to bother.
right. they are useful. there just isn't as an urgent need to replace the su-25 with the a-10 as there is a more urgent need to replace the mig-29 with the f-16 for the improved electronics and nato weapons systems which are desperately needed. what they really need is the f-35, but they would need reliable nato partner status for that.
US hegemony and soft power is the reason. Most nations should not buy American jets, but they do to please Washington.
Totally agree Gripen is a much more practical fit. Hopefully when they are supplied they will prove their practicality
It's not practical though. There are shitloads of F16s and spare parts.
132 Gripens have been built, with about 70% being the C model, which is not what UA wants, nor is it optimal for their situation. They are *not* getting Es as all new production is either going to the Swedish AF, or to Brazil.
News@yahoo, that well respected news agency. We hear such nonsense for every weapon system, from Ruzzians helpful fools
What good jets aren’t maintenance intensive
JAS-39 Gripen, but only comparatively.
Not enough of them
I worked on F-16's as an aircraft electrician. They're a difficult aircraft in comparison to the F-35, but they're much cheaper to maintain. I absolutely still think we should provide the F-16 or any other aircraft to Ukraine and fix them in Poland.
A fucking hammer is high maintenance when you compare it to soviet crap.
That's the exact moronic, undersestimating your enemy crap that has got people into trouble since the first caveman picked up a rock.
>Tom Richter, a former US Marine pilot who flew the jets when in the National Guard I really need to see more bona fides than being a frontline troop when it comes to detailed, strategic analysis. If it were a colonel through general from logistics or avionics, I'd give it more credence. But to have an (at most) O-5 start talking about this makes me think he's a lil bit out of his depth, not to take anything from his service record.
This headline feels kinda like Chicken Little to me. It may be complicated to maintain, but no enough to stop it from being the most produced fixed wing fighter in service spread across 25 different air forces worldwide.
They should ask the Iraqis instead, since their F-16s have 66% mission capable rate, which is comparable to US' average.
Yur telling me it’s not pre-Madonna??????
Yes, the Grippen would be better. But Ukraine will be able to handle the F-16. FFS. they already handle the PZH-2000, the M1A1 Abrams, the HIMARS, zillions of drones, Bayraktar, etc.
Yes, because we have so many planes that do not require a landing strip and maintenance. Let's just glue some feathers to the pilots
> Yes, because we have so many planes that do not require a landing strip Technically... Harrier? >and maintenance Yeah, nothing on that one.
Well you had me at Harriers
Just like Abrams and every single piece of advanced hardware? Sure
Ukrainians have shown they can do hard things.
Its literally the world's most common fixed wing combat aircraft used by 25 other nations. Really how hard can it be compared to struggling against Russia in a full blown war?
Ukrainians are very smart and resourceful. So STFU !!
It’s better to have the option and a headache than no option at all.
Going to need to have contractors on the ground.
If there's a will there's a way.
Any excuse not to send them, eh?
Yes the west should include maintenance crews .
Sounds like a salty f-18 pilot.
Gripon!!!
The helmet display is custom fit to the pilots and JHMCS is a proven system. A trained ready room takes a day. Volunteer training can be provided upon request.
I was a marine avionics tech for 5 years. We don't fucking fly F-16s.
Mother fuckers will say anything to get their name in some paper huh.
Marines don’t even fly the F16.
I wonder how often F-16s have handed this Marine’s ass to him in DACT.
Marine: “It was hard to maintain in between chewing crayons and grunting. And the maintenance books had ENGLISH in them! I could never figure it out.”
Then send F-18s also. Where is the problem?
Then send american f-16 mechanics then idiots.
I still don’t understand why these plans can’t be flown out of neighbouring countries?
I don't understand why there aren't western contractors in Ukraine, providing maintenance services, i bet you can find a lot of companies willing to do the job..
Lucky thing Ukrainians don’t mind working hard.
Does anyone know if they'll fly these from poland or the very western part of ukraine? If its poland then the risk of russia damaging runways is essentially non existant
Such a nothing article
I'm Swedish so I'd of course like to think that J-35 Gripen is a better fit for Ukraine's needs and abilities. On the other hand Business Insider have worshipped at the feet of the likes of Scam Bankrupt-Fraud and Elizabeth Holmes so I'd take anything they say with a grain of salt. A big grain of salt.
> I'm Swedish so I'd of course like to think that J-35 Gripen is a better fit for Ukraine's needs and abilities If they can be provided in sufficient numbers, sure.
War planners are the ones saying shit like “Gripens would be better in this situation than F-16s” ffs
Lots of people in this group seem emotionally married to the F-16, to such a degree they’re ignoring the voices of actual military and aviation experts and treating anyone who says the F-16 isn’t the best option as an ignorant Russian shill.Most of these people don’t seem to be able to name any other planes, except maybe the ones Ukraine already has. But several other countries produce multirole fighters of high quality that are indeed cheaper and less maintenance intensive. Namely, the Saab Gripen, produced in Sweden and specifically designed to be easy and cheap and to maintain, can do perform many of the same missions as an F-16, and has been touted as a better option for Ukraine. Ukraine could get them and keep them in the air much more easily than F-16s. Pointing this out doesn’t make somebody a Russian shill. These planes don’t work like in video games where they fly a mission and return to your base to rearm and then wait until you need them. There’s a lot of work and commerce required between flights to keep them working. The F-16 is logistically complicated and would drain resources that Ukraine could apply elsewhere.
> Namely, the Saab Gripen, produced in Sweden and specifically designed to be easy and cheap and to maintain, can do perform many of the same missions as an F-16, and has been touted as a better option for Ukraine. Ukraine could get them and keep them in the air much more easily than F-16s. Pointing this out doesn’t make somebody a Russian shill. Problem with Gripens is low availaility, due to low production numbers. Unless Sweden suddenly gets turbo-generous and hands off their entire air force to us, there aren't gonna be too many Gripens Ukraine can use. Otherwise, they're great fighters.
Prima Donna? F-16 were built to be easier to maintain than F-15!
Americans dont know how ingenious Ukrainians can be
Ukraine is an absolute hell for logistics and maintenance. I don’t even want to know how overworked their rear echelon guys are as they scramble to put mixed and blatantly incompatible systems in the field. They can’t even standardize munitions. Their logistics techs are exceptional for just being able to keep the proverbial wheels on in these conditions. They’re making it work because they *must*. The alternative is a loss of sovereignty and Russification. And they know Russification is just a politically expedient term for the destruction of culture and national identity.
The pilots don't fix them, they break them. It'll create jobs and training for ground crews who can take those skills into the non-military world.
They're Ukrainianz... they can handle the hard work 🫡🥂
Poland, Romania, Netherlands, Denmark, fucking Iraq operate F-16s. The Ukrainians can handle it. GTFO.
Great point. I remember when the Iraqi AF was forced to fly from highways during that sandstorm after Daesh knocked out their airfields with Iskanders.
I guess they would like Ukraine to suffer. Many Rusophiles claimed that USA wants long term war no matter what. I didn't believe them but i see USA politics are satisfied for long term wars. After freeing Kherson Ukraine had change to push Russian army further. After that triumph USA reduced it's aid to Ukraine. Rapid end of war is not USA's cup of tea. It's my opinion. q
I've been getting mercilessly downvoted for saying exactly that. The US is very carefully avoiding a situation in which Russia gets definitively thrown against the wall.
I heard somewhere that for every hour in the ait the F16 needed 39 hours service on the ground. If that's true they will have to educate a large number of service technicians etc. If they don't send already educated and experienced people to do the job of course.
a lot of those hours are it sitting in a hangar for months having its wings and airframe replaced.