The Coming Fight Over Fighter Jets

After finally reaching a deal on tanks, NATO now begins a debate on whether to send F-16s to Ukraine.

By
93
An F-16 takes part in a NATO air exercise in Poland in October 2022. (Photo by Omar Marques/Getty Images)

Last week, after extended negotiations, the United States, Germany and other NATO members formally agreed to supply modern Western tanks to Ukraine’s military. Kyiv now has renewed a different request for a powerful Western weapon—F-16 fighter jets—and the debate is already dividing the alliance again.

“Russia hopes to drag out the war, to exhaust our forces,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a televised speech Sunday. “We have to make time our weapon. We must speed up the events, speed up the supply and opening of new necessary weaponry options for Ukraine.”

The request may be a bridge too far for the Biden administration. Asked by reporters whether the U.S. planned to send the warplanes on Monday, President Joe Biden responded with a flat “no.” A senior administration official later clarified to Politico that there had been “no serious, high-level discussion about F-16s,” but didn’t indicate whether the jets would be under consideration for future aid packages. 

Ukraine’s request comes at a pivotal moment. After a winter of incremental gains and losses, both sides are preparing offensives. Ukraine hopes a steady supply of Western weaponry will be enough to counter Moscow’s superior manpower amid rumors of another mobilization in Russia. 

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
93
By
Comments (93)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Allan.Stam

    If one hopes/expects Ukraine to prevail in this war, one might also assume Ukraine will become increasingly integrated into NATO force planning. The Ukrainians will certainly expect to be able to arm themselves suitably to best defend themselves after this war is eventually over. All of that suggests the entire NATO military package will eventually be made available to them. That said, the training necessary to deploy successfully the entire combined arms system is a multi-year proposition. Maybe a good way to interpret the Biden administration’s ‘no,’ would be, ‘no, not yet.’

    Collapse
  2. Rsbailey1042

    Ukraine needs about 300 additional tanks and 100 F-16s. This will stop Russia cold.

    Collapse
  3. Randall Briggs

    I love the F-16. It's a terrific fighter that even looks terrific. It's not the ideal fighter for Ukraine, as it is maintenance-intensive and has a long logistical tail. But Ukraine needs fighters, and there are more F-16s potentially available than any other type. It would be nice if, say, Poland could open up a MiG-29 production line and crank them out like hotcakes, but that's a fantasy. It may come down to F-16s or no fighters at all.

    I hate how the big NATO countries, including us, keep insisting that we can't give Ukraine any weapons that could touch Russian soil. That means that Ukraine has to fight the war on its own territory, getting its own civilians killed and its own infrastructure turned to rubble. Meanwhile, Russia is off-limits. It's thinking like that that ensured our defeat in Vietnam.

    Three cheers for Poland!

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Marty

    I've just read all of (okay, most of) the comments and am tremendously impressed by how knowledgeable so many Dispatchers are about weapon systems and military tactics/strategy. Of course, there are differences of opinion among you, but it would be surprising if there weren't. I learned a lot from reading all this. Good job, y'all.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Jerry McKamy

    Give them the F16s ASAP and more tanks. Either make it impossible for Putin to further degrade Ukrainian infrastructure and seize new territory or plan for a Putin victory. Putin won't care if he sacrifices a million Russians on the battlefield and clearly Russia has allies willing to resupply them and keep their economy propped up.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Andy Napoli

    I was initially very wary about supplying Ukraine with high-end weapons systems like the F-16 and M-1 Abrams tanks. Mainly because many foreign militaries have a tendency to obsess over the flashiest hardware like fighter jets and main battle tanks, and neglect the more boring but ultimately more meaningful things like logistics, intelligence, training, air defense, and artillery. But Ukraine is not doing that. They're not asking for F-16s for frivolous reasons so they look nice in military parade flyovers. Ukraine is asking for F-16s because denying Russia air superiority is essential to their having any chance to resist Russia's invasion, and eventually to liberate their own territory from Russian occupation. Ukrainian Soviet legacy MiGs and Sukhoi fighters will not last indefinitely. Ukraine is burning through flight hours, spare parts, etc at an incredible rate over the past year. Metal fatigue, cracks, electrical shorts, etc., are all accumulating on their small but incredibly crucial aircraft fighter fleet. Ukraine is having to postpone all depot-level (think overhaul) maintenance because they're focused on immediate tactical fixes to keep their fighters in the air, causing their useful service life to be shortened still further. Nobody can put that kind of wear and tear on a complex system for long, before planes start falling from the sky in accidents, and critical pilots are lost.

    F-16s will not make an immediate impact but the purpose here is to set Ukraine on a long-term success path. They need predictability that when their Soviet aircraft inventory is no longer militarily useful (which is likely to happen more quickly than people think), they will have something ready and able to take its place. F-16s are a very mature aircraft system that have been very widely exported. There is a ton of expertise in NATO on how to maintain them. They are small but very capable, and by comparison to our F-22s and F-35s, much more easily maintained. Yes, it will take time and effort to train Ukrainian pilots and ground crews how to use and maintain them. But that's been true of all the weapons systems we've been sending to Ukraine.

    I also want to make the point that Biden and many EU leaders are being very short-sighted when they insist that Ukraine not use any NATO weaponry to strike into Russia itself. Russia is using its tactical and strategic bombers to wage a relentless bombing campaign to destroy Ukraine's civilian infrastructure and drive millions of refugees into the EU. We know where these bombers are taking off, being refueled, and being rearmed. They could be within striking range of ATACMS munitions fired from HIMARS, as well as F-16s, if we allowed Ukraine to respond to legitimate military targets. If Ukraine could threaten those bombers, the attacks against civilian infrastructure would slow down, reducing human suffering but also reducing refugee flows into NATO member countries. Our goal should not be to prevent Ukraine from striking valid military targets. It should be to ensure Ukraine does not target Russian civilian infrastructure in retaliation for Russia's brutality.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    PaulH

    Early on in the conflict, there was a big dispute about sending Ukraine MiGs from Poland. My recollection is that they were not sent. Did that change later? If not, it would seem to be a good first step.

    Collapse
    1. Russell J

      There are at least rumors that some planes went into Ukraine labeled as “parts”. There has recently been a discussion of transferring MiGs from Slovakia.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Howard Lewis

    I have so many questions about the F-16 being the warplane of choice for Ukraine. First, the F-16 has been around for years with continual upgrades. Are parties talking about the latest greatest update version or perhaps an older but still handy version from 20 years ago? If F-16 cannot be had right now what about the recently retired or in the process of being retired Tornados of various European countries? I must admit I dislike the idea of the latest version of a Fighting Falcon falling into Russian hands, but it might be necessary and there are other warplanes that other countries could send.

    Collapse
    1. Russell J

      I think there is a well established foreign military sales operation for the F-16 so I doubt the biggest concern is losing them rather than the cost and upkeep required. FYI: US pilots hate “Fighting Falcon” and call it “Viper” instead.

      Collapse
    2. Wes.Bridges

      Look at the list of countries currently fielding F-16s in one iteration or another. It is unlikely we'd share the latest and greatest, but there are a bunch of older airplaines around with plenty of mileage left in 'em. Watching the bouncing ball on arms to Ukraine reminds me of Jim Trott in "The Vicar of Dibley:" "No, no, no, no. Yes."

      Collapse
      1. Russell J

        No idea on what is being discussed but the F-16 production line has relied on foreign sales for years. This means the newest features are customizations for each nation. I know Israel gets special versions but maybe 1 or 2 of the Persian Gulf states as well. The US probably scoops any software upgrades that can be easily applied.

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      George.Skinner

      I'd guess the aircraft would be drawn from the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona (there's ~300 in storage there), or European countries like Belgium, Netherlands, and Denmark. Not the latest tech, but would certainly give the Ukrainian Air Force a fire-and-forget radar guided missile capability that they currently sorely lack.
      F-16s are probably the best choice in terms of the number of airframes, availability of parts, and existence of training pipelines. Tornados are tired old birds, and were never the most reliable aircraft even under the best circumstances.

      Collapse
    4. R. James

      It was an aircraft designed in the 1970s, yes there have been upgrades but its a fundamentally old weapon system. The US have sold export variants of the F16 to many countries. I do not think the concern is the tech falling into the Russians' hands its got more to do with a concern over escalation, which I also think is misplaced.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Charlotte are you in Europe for this assignment? The Dispatch is sending you on some great reporting trips.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Charlotte Lawson vertical-nib Author

      I’m currently on assignment in Istanbul but we anticipate more reporting trips around the region in the near future!

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ben Connelly

        Cool!

        Collapse
  10. R. James

    Bridge too far? Either cross the bridge or not. There is no point standing in the middle of the proverbial bridge. There is no point providing token armaments to Ukraine, too late for them to effectively use them. If Biden is going to supply the Ukrainians, then supply them to win. If Biden is not willing to do that, then he should just not bother and admit as much. Giving the Ukrainians a tenth of the tanks they say are necessary to blunt a Russian offensive, too late for the Ukrainians to actually use the tanks to stop that offensive (which is expected in a couple weeks) and no jets, makes zero military sense in a 21st century combined arms fight. So, I must conclude that Biden's support to Ukraine is just for show and not meant to actually help them win the war.

    Collapse
    1. GregL

      The Biden approach - throw a 20ft long rope to a man drowning 25 ft away.

      Collapse
Load More