LONDON \u2014 The F-16 jets that the Ukrainian military is touting as a potential game-changer in its conflict with Russia will either be restricted to defense or deployed in very high-risk operations, according to people who\u2019ve flown the planes in combat.<\/p>\n
The General Dynamics Corp fighter-bombers will be a significant upgrade on the Soviet-era planes that Ukrainian pilots have been flying so far. But the F-16s that are likely to be sent to Ukraine will still have inferior radar and shorter range missiles that the most modern Russian jets and air defenses.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019ll be like they pushed the easy button or switched from driving a Lada to a Honda Accord,\u201d says Brynn Tannehill, a former aviator who designed simulatros for F-16s, referring to the notoriously clunky Soviet-era Lada car. All the same, she added, \u201cyou can\u2019t overcome the laws of physics.\u201d<\/p>\n
That means that the Ukrainians may have to rein in their stated expectations that the F-16s will enable them to to impose air superiority, shoot down cruise missiles and the latest enemy jets, destroy troops and artillery on the battlefield, and even sink the Black Sea Fleet. The jets would, instead, give Ukraine \u201can incremental capability that they don\u2019t have right now,\u201d U.S. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said at a briefing on May 22. <\/p>\n
Were they to fly at Russian lines to take out artillery, air defenses, or jets, Ukraine\u2019s F-16 pilots would likely get an alert to signal detection by enemy radar long before getting close enough to shoot, according to John Venable, a former F-16 pilot in the U.S. Air Force. <\/p>\n
\u201cAll you can do is dive for the dirt and hope you can put a hill between you and the missile\u2019s guidance systems,\u201d said Venable, now a senior research fellow for defense policy at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington think tank. Without that cover \u201cyour chances of survival are not great,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n
That\u2019s likely to be the case in the open plains of southern Ukraine, where many believe Ukraine\u2019s likely imminent counteroffensive will focus. <\/p>\n
In the hillier terrain of the east, the pilots could hug the ground until the last moment and then \u201cpop,\u201d just as they attempt now in their elderly MiGs and Sukhois, according to Venable. That means climbing suddenly at a 30-degree angle and experiencing four or five times the normal force of gravity before taking their shot and diving again for cover. But the chances of success with a single missile are limited and additional jets would be exposed after the initial surprise. <\/p>\n
\u201cYou aren\u2019t going to be hitting anything,\u201d Venable said. <\/p>\n
Some Ukrainian goals for the F-16s, such as shooting down cruise missiles, are indeed impractical, says Dan \u2018Two Dogs\u2019 Hampton, who flew 151 combat missions in the jet during the two Gulf wars and Kosovo. That\u2019s because there\u2019s only a short window between when a radar detects a cruise missile and the moment it reaches its target. For an F-16 to succeed it would need to spend too many precious flying hours circling in wait.<\/p>\n
But he\u2019s more optimistic about how they\u2019d fare against Russian air defenses. They\u2019d be a tough challenge, Hampton said, but a lot depends on how well integrated they are. The S-400s were developed to defeat 4th generation aircraft like the F-16, \u201cbut they aren\u2019t magic,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Hamilton is far from alone in thinking F-16s are worth sending. They would offer a clear signal of long-term allied commitment, important both to Ukrainian morale and as a signal to Russia\u2019s President Vladimir Putin, whose strategy in Ukraine now appears to rely on outlasting the West\u2019s political will to arm its defense. <\/p>\n
Another clear benefit is that Ukraine\u2019s air force is struggling to supply the parts needed to keep its remaining Soviet-era planes in the air. F-16s would have value just as replacements, essential to keeping Russia\u2019s still large and dangerous air force at bay. <\/p>\n
Some also argue that if supported by a ground-based and integrated system of radar, layered air defenses and enhanced electronic warfare capabilities, the F-16s could achieve what former U.K. Air Marshall Edward Stringer calls a \u201cpoor man\u2019s air superiority.\u201d By driving back the zone in which Russian jets can safely operate, that could reduce a growing threat from the heavy glide bombs Russia has adapted for launch at front line Ukrainian positions.<\/p>\n
They could also launch U.S. AGM-158 JASSM stealth cruise missiles and their anti-ship LRASM cousins. Delivered in sufficient quantity, those weapons would vastly expand Ukraine\u2019s capacity to strike targets deep behind Russian lines, in occupied Crimea, and at sea. <\/p>\n
That\u2019s viable, says Venable, but also expensive, raising the question of whether the hundreds of millions of dollars involved in supplying properly equipped F-16s could be more effectively spent on Ukraine\u2019s ground-based air defenses, or other weapons systems. <\/p>\n
JASSMs cost upwards of $1 million per missile, depending on the model, and it can take more than one to destroy a target. A single mission with four aircraft would cost at least $8 million to arm. <\/p>\n
F-16s would need the latest AMRAAM air-to-air weapons to have a chance of out-ranging the 200-kilometer (120-mile) missiles that Russia\u2019s \u2014 on paper \u2014 superior SU-35 jets have been using against Ukraine\u2019s air force. Those were costed at $1.8 million a piece in the Pentagon\u2019s 2023 budget justification.<\/p>\n
Then there\u2019s the cost of the planes themselves. According to a March U.S. Congressional Research Service report, a recent sale of new F-16s to Bulgaria \u2013 including munitions and training \u2013 priced the packages at $209 million each. Older F-16s sold to Italy in 2015 cost $23.8 million.<\/p>\n
Another concern is that the F-16\u2019s relatively light landing gear and an unprotected air intake slung below the fuselage mean that runways need to be smooth and swept of clear debris that might get sucked up into the engine during take-off or landing. That\u2019s a problem MiGs and other aircraft like Sweden\u2019s Gripen don\u2019t have.<\/p>\n
In Hampton\u2019s view, though, many of these obstacles are overdone to justify not giving Ukraine the NATO-standard aircraft.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019ve flown F-16s out of some really lousy airfields, through sand storms and ice storms. Sure it\u2019s more sensitive than a MiG or a Gripen, but it can be done,\u201d he said. \u201cI\u2019m still here.\u201d<\/p>\n
___<\/p>\n