The F-18 has rough field capability. None of the other western aircraft in this comparison have rough field capability. Ukraine airfields can definitely be considered rough.
And if Australia gets in on the f18 supply, ukraine can get 40+ of them real quick. Also F18s and later model Gripens use the same GE F414s. Certainly an option.
As a retired "Plastic Bug' maintainer, I think - even with getting the F-16's (which would certainly be less expensive in the long run to keep) a Squadron of them dispersed Finland-style would give the UAF some great counter-strike capabilities!
The F-16 is the most logical platform to increase Ukrainian Air Force capabilities. Almost all of NATO can support this aircraft directly and indirectly with a well developed logistics chain. Lots of airframes are also being retired across these countries who are acquiring F-35. Dozens at a time can be sent straight to 🇺🇦. I say send it!
Good points, the F-16's big negative is its very poor choice operating from unimproved runways like roads with it low air intake, small wheels, poor shocks, and narrow rear wheel trolly. The F-18 was built for rough carrier landings so is better in that regard and the Gripen is specifically designed in all aspects to be operated on roads in the middle of nowhere with very short take off and landing capability and to be rapidly refueled and rearmed by just a couple of guys.
If the Gripen was produced in higher numbers than the F16 then it would definitely be better for Ukraine. But the F16 is a dime a dozen compared to the Gripen
Hmm, you should compare F-16 block 70 vs. Gripen G. Payload of over 7,700 kg vs. 6,500 kg. APG-83 provides F-16s with 5th Generation fighter radar capabilities by leveraging hardware and software commonality with F-22 and F-35 AESA radars. The F-16 Block 70 generally has a longer ferry range compared to the Gripen G as the extra 1,200 kg payload helps it to carry more fuel tanks. Both planes have different versions, so ideally you want to compare the latest versions.
@@eman3682 there's no point in comparing thevlatest versions because the west won't be giving the latest versions to Ukraine. they'll be getting the oldest flyable versions possible
Gripen is designed to go up against the Russians. It has a very strong defense and an excellent radar. I believe it can carry all NATO armament, including the Meteor. 2-3 Gripen for 1 F35 in price.
Whichever one of these you can get at least 200 of in under a 12-month period, along with an appropriate missile loadout and maintenance support, is the one that is the best fit for Ukraine right now. My understanding is that that would be the F-16.
The Gripen is ultra modern, therefore expensive and more fragile than an F-16 The Gripen has never seen combat, so its performance remains "theoretical".
I also like the Gripen very much / landing gear very robust, quick handling, modern technologie / - but simply there are not enough of them. My proposal: Sweden should give 12 Gripen to Ukraine and train pilots, they can come additional to 60 F-16.
Both the Gripen & F/A 18 can be used on austere runways (highways ) due to strengthened landing gears. Finland flies their F/A 18s off of highways. The Gripen is more modern though.
I remember thailand took gripen to do military exercises with China and air combat fighting , gripen beat China airforce with dogfights and long-range combat .
I think Gripen would fit best. But i agree, give Ukraine as many F16 as you can find to Ukraine. And Sweden should offer the Gripen for „testing“. But i am sure Sweden will wait until Nato membership is approved.
So a few corrections. Maneuverability is very complex, while the F-16 can pull higher Gs and is better for high speed maneuvering, the Hornet is better at high alpha and slow speed maneuvering. The photo you used for the Mig-29 was a Su-27 The Typhoon doesn't have thrust vectoring.
Yes I saw all of those, F4 and F14 shown at random intervals and HUD displays from other aircraft too, but it was just fill footage I felt. F16 is the G-monster only limited by the pilots capacity for G-load, but I am told the SuperHornets can do 9G all day long (and of course in Top Gun they hit 9 lol) Legacy Hornets are limited to 7, but can pull 9 in a pinch, but they will need a significant maintenance check after an over-g-load like that. This would make the pilot extremely unpopular with their maintainer...
Its like the Leopard - its about numbers, logistics and spares/repairs. The F-16 is much more widespread and has many more spares for maintenance/repairs and can supplied by more Nations compared to the other options - like the Leopard as its the most common MBT in Europe - but took Challengers and Abrams to 'unlock' the Leopard...
Australia has 40 F-18s they want to give Ukraine. This platform holds our longest range of anti-ship missiles. That would be the ultimate air defense is destroying the missile systems. Outside of that I would say the Typhoon because of runway logistics. They can take off from anywhere including highways making them easy to hide like Himars.
Ich sage es mal so kurzfristig kann das ein wenig helfen. Ich sehe aber bei der Russischen Luftabwehr schwarz da werden sehr viele F16 abgeschlossen weil einfach sehr große Radar Reichweite der Russen auf gleich sehr Große Reichweite der S-400 Trifft genauso sieht es in direktem Luftkampf aus der klassische Dogfight wo Geschwindigkeit und Wendigkeit zählt ist Geschichte. Heute zählt Elektronische Störung, Radar Reichweite und Reichweite der Waffen. AIM-120 AMRAAM ca 180km Reichweite Die R37M hat etwa 398km Reichweite Selbst der Nachfolger der AIM 120 hat nur 200 km Reichweite die AIM 260 MiG-31BM Radar Reichweite 320km F16 bei der Radar Reichweite ca. 300km wobei man sagen muss welcher Block Typ der F16 hat diese Radar Reichweite ältere können kürzere Reichweite haben und das wäre das was die Ukraine bekommt Auch hier wäre eine eigene Produktion besser weil auf Bedürfnisse zuschneidbar nur mit einem Blaupausen Flieger wie der F23 könnte die Ukraine ihrer Bedürfnisse einbringen in der Serienproduktion. Alles andere ist nur ein Spiel auf Zeit ohne Produktion eigener Waffen innerhalb der Ukraine wird die Ukraine auf lange Sicht verlieren und wir mit ihr. Wenn der Westen es also wirklich ernst meint mit der Unterstützung muss bei der Produktion von Systemen und bei ihrer Verteidigung der Produktion geholfen werden dann und nur dann wird die Ukraine eine echte Chance auf den Sieg haben.
@@TankandDimples , not an expert, but I guess every carrier-oriented airplane [like the Hornet] has a robust landing system that helps it land and take off from a highway... the F-16 has to ''weak knees'' to do that...
@@brianchee1968 because A-10 needs another airplane to protect it from above... plus the BRRRRRRrrrrr... thing?... that's just for kids who play games... it was supposed to kill tanks... not anymore... ruZZian tanks got thicker just because of that...
JAS 39 Gripen is more expensive than the F-16 to buy but what I have read it is much cheaper in maintenance so the total cost of ownership is probably a lot less than the F-16
The Gripen is also more suited to ad-hoc deployments on smaller airstrips/highways and cost per flight hour is about 30% less than the F-16, it was designed to be able to be supported by a much smaller support crew. This is often overlooked when discussing Fighter Jets, is the required ground support teams to keep the planes operational. For a squadron of F-16's (12-24 fighters) there will be about 4-5 people per plane. Unfortunately they aren't really a viable option due to availability, also I'm sure the US military industrial complex would throw a hissy-fit because of 'lost business'.
Typhoon doesn't use vectored thrust though it has been developed for it. Also not including numbers Gripen is probably the single best fighter for Ukraine. For a long range missile carrier the Greek F-4E Peace Icarus aircraft could be an option to be offered Ukraine
Also low maintenance and intended to be turned around for another mission extremely quickly by relatively untrained crews. Also doesn't require an airfield making it harder for Russia to find and hit on the ground.
I had at least expected the Saab Gripen to be in this comparison. Besides its limited availability, it does look on paper to be an excellent fighter for Ukraine with its ability to operate from runways and low maintenance cost.
The Saab JAS-39 Gripen is probably best suited for Ukraine overall. The multi role fighter is allegedly designed specifically in countering Russian fighters and SAMs. Can take off with short runways and has lower maintenance cost.
The F16s won't arrive until middle of next year since the Ukrainian pilots started training in August. The issue we found is that many Ukrainians lack a proficiency of the English language to start the training. The aircraft and maintenance training is all done in English by European and American instructors who all are fluent in English. There are no trainers that speak enough Ukrainian to train the pilots. The planes systems are only set up in English. They found 8 Ukrainian pilots with proficient English language skills to start training. They have a dozen in remedial English language class to get them to the point they can start the training. The rest of the ukranian air force pilot pool has little to no understanding of English and need to start from the beginning that will take at least a year for them to be proficient in the language. This means Ukraine won't be ready to receive any new western aircraft until late next year at the earliest. It is best to keep it simple right now and only train them on one aircraft type.
It would seem the ukranians taking the training who are fluent in english would be helping their fellow pilots after hours with anything they don't understand. My understanding is, these are not new pilots, just new F16 pilots. The language barrier should be much less of a problem than it would if they were true novices.
@@franksmith4730problem is most Ukrainian military pilots don't speak English at all. Only a couple dozen are proficient enough to even be give the ability to get remedial language lessions. It takes years to master a new language.
considering the circumstances... What's best for Ukraine right now is a jet that is rugged and requires less maintenance. Even the best fighter jet is not worth much if it can't get airborne.. The F/A-18 fills the role since its designed to have quicker turn around times between flights and it's landing gears are much stronger for landing on a carrier. As a bonus, it can carry almost all the same weapons an F-16 can.
I'm not sure Algeria is in the most-stable part of the world either, perhaps a government that might not be looking to off-load military capability right now. Unless they have replacements already purchased?
F16's are the best choice. Even if the F16 does not achieve an A+ in any discipline it can do almost everything and do it pretty well. Their versatility and wide availability, including spare parts and technical improvements, make them the best choice for Ukraine! Are there better fighter jets? Sure, of course! But none of these can be delivered immediately in large enough numbers (+100). Slava Ukraini, heroyam slava! ☮️🇺🇦👍
F-16 has pretty much the absolute best rate-fighting performance, roll rate and cockpit visibility compared to all other fighters. The dogfight may not be relevant anymore, but I'm just saying-it's definitely A+ in a few things. And also incredibly versatile and capable yes. It's main drawbacks are having one engine and not being suited for operating from rough airfields.
Gripen would be better in theory if there were more of them and broadly distributed across the partner nations. Gripen E is only just being developed to start replacing other Gripens in the Swedish Air Force 🇸🇪 that are aging out. There simply aren’t Gripen E airframes available to send, and to build them brand new for Ukraine would take years. The F-16 is in the conversation because of the vast body of active and freshly retired airframes across all the partner nations. Multiple air forces are simultaneously retiring F-16 squadrons to replace them with upcoming F-35s.
@@jean-philippebobin3732 yeah there was a chance the SuperHornet production might continue a couple more years if the Indian contract went that way, but the Rafale won that contract.
I'm surprised the Gripen hasn't appeared in this video. It is very light on maintenance and has a good performance being another multi role aircraft. Including supercruse capabilities. However it is only operated by a few countries so I can see availability being a issue.
@@FoxbatSqn120th Are you high or something. It can carry the latest meteor missiles and has a AESA radar system. It is a hell of a lot more mordern then the F-16 mlu that they are currently sending to ukraine. Though perhaps you have no ideas over how aircrafts work. The gripen C/D are 2008 upgraded versions, these are the oldest gripens that exists. If you really think that there are no older models of F-16 that is pre 2008 then you know nothing about aircrafts. Its a design from the 1970s and the most common variant is the MLU upgrade package from 2002. These are the fighters denmark and the netherlands are sending. Maybe if america sends its F-16 V which is 4 years newer then I might get your point. The problem is more about availability then how mordern it is. Most F-16 variants are from the 1980s. 16 years older then the first gripen A model first flew during 1996.
availability. No one expected jets would be in such demand and it will take couple years for Sweden to build new ones. Sweden don't want to give their existing ones cause they also need them for protection. There was a dedicated video about this problem
Gripen would be the easiest to incorporate into Ukraine, made for make shift air strips and maintenance is easier. F16 needs long and clean runway plus 17/18 Maintenance hours per 1 hour flight time. If Ukraine gets old F16 it’ll be Block 40/50 since they just started a upgrade to Block 70 in 2020-2022 that was 600 Jets plus.
Does Ukraine even have 600 jet fighter pilots to be trained? Right now only 30 pilots were selected for training. Only 8 have started training this month, the others have to take English lessons to get their language skills proficient enough to be able to start training, which will take a few months. The rest of the Ukranian pilot pool has no understanding of English and will have to take courses at a local college. The same goes for ground crews who also need to be able to read and speak English to be able to work on the aircraft. All the aircraft systems are in English, and so are the manuals. Though they likely don't need to be completely fluent in the language.
Maintenance hours are averaged over the lifecycle of an airplane and include all checks (A, B, C, D). The reason for extensive maintenance is not because it is needed to get the airplane into the air but to prolong the life span of the equipment. This is of little to no concern for Ukraine.
The ideal is to have some of all the types which can be used for specific purposes. There are other jets available too...as already mentioned the Gripen.. It is essential to gain air superiority. Why oh why are western nations not reacting quicker???? Invest in Ukraine now and save future costs by allowing Ukraine to win sooner than later.
Having multiple plane types is a logistical nightmare. Not only do pilots need to be trained on each separately, but also ground support (maintenance teams). Each type needs its own spare parts and so on, not many parts are exchangeable if any. Western countries are reacting as fast as Ukraine has capability. The most important thing is not to get the stuff in but to teach people to use the stuff in cooperation with other stuff sent, and additionally teaching the higher ups the tactics and strategies the stuff makes possible. Otherwise it's just wasted stuff because of losses and errors with little to no strategic or tactical benefit. Wars are not won with stuff but with skills, all kinds of skills, and communication. Those skills take a long time to learn.
Apparently the French Mirage 2000 (C or D) has been delivered by France to Ukraine at the beginning of August 2023. Slava Ukraini, Vive l'amitié franco-ukrainienne, Vive le SCALP-EG ! :)
Eurofighter doesn't have thrust vectoring. On a side note, its inclusion in Ukrainian Air Force in future will give it a great stand-off capability against Russian air threats.
Everybody ive talked to who knows about these things has been suprised by the eurofighters performance . There was an expectation it would be a bit of a gap filler committee built thing but its a great interceptor.
I love the hornet, but I'm definitely biased. F-16 makes the most sense to me, because of availability more than anything. You get quantity and quality. F/A-18 is probably better for multirole bombing missions. F-16 for taking on Russian aviation. I love doing low-altitude bombing missions with the F/A-18 in DCS. Very good for that. It can take on all of the Russian planes and helicopters too so multirole. I'd fire 2 amraams where you'd use 1 meteor though. Aim-120's are cheaper, but the SU-33 often dodges the first one in the simulation. Running the same mission thousands of times with only 1 aim-120 taught me that it's a huge gamble you shouldn't take. Fire one as soon as they're in range, and follow up with another when they're a little closer. Either plane is a big upgrade over the mig-29. I'm glad Ukraine is getting both. They can put them all to good use.
F/A-18 hands down. Fastest/Highest wins. Does all the jobs of the others. F/A-18 and A-10 will give you the most rounded Air Force. Whatever fighter you get, also get a few A-10, you're gonna want them too. From Fox Hole Clearing to High Altitude Bombing Runs and Missile Launch & Detection Platforms. IMHO
@esbenm6544 Out-run perhaps. But you seriously underestimate Hornet's manoeuvrability. It's literally designed for high angles of attack, Fox 2 dogfights. Speed is its disadvantage. Missles perform better the faster you go.
@@teemukustila Look it up if you dont believe it. I recommend Aviatia as a good source for such comparisons. But it is only logical. You can get 2.5 F-18, or 5 F-16, for the price of just one Eurofighter. That, and the much higher cost per flight hours, is the real drawback of the Typhoon as compared to the others. I image Ukraine would rather have 5 F-16 than just one Eurofighter. Also F-18 and F-16 are multirole fighters, the Typhoon is a dedicated air-superiority fighter. It is only logical it would be superior in that role, while It would still make best sense to have more F-18, even if deployed alongside the Typhoon. Similar to how you wouldn't want to choose between F-22 and F-35, you would want both, but more of the latter.
@esbenm6544 The Typhoon is a multirole fighter as well. E.g. performing air interdiction, close air support or Air superiority is no issue. But in any case, you are right about the unit cost and operating costs so the Typhoon is not very realistic option for Ukraine.
@@teemukustila Typhoons and F-22 can do more than one thing, all fighters can, but they were designed as air-superiority fighters. The upgrades to make the Typhoon more capable for ground attack were made just a few years ago. Only the Typhoon FGR4 variant have them, which further reduces the amount potentially available for sending to Ukraine. While the RAF have several versions of the Typhoon at their disposal, they are also introducing the F-35 as a true multi-role fighter. Only so much can be done to the Typhoon to keep its roots as an air-superiority fighter from shining through, eg. its high maintenance cost and low stealth capabilities.
100 each of the above, please, with a side order of 50 F-35's. Now for condiments, let's add a full set of spare parts and 80 weapons loadouts for each aircraft. For dessert, we'll have a few dozen of those tanknivorous A-10's. Well, that's what would have happened last year if I were the boss in the White House! 😁 Oh, to be only slightly more serious, I am partial to the F/A-18 for purely personal reasons--I worked for McDonnell Douglas for decades and my boss, a retired astronaut, flew F/A-18's off of carriers when he was a Marine. Setting prejudice aside, it looks like the F-16 is the best solution for Ukraine, especially considering the total operating cost and availability of both aircraft and weapons. Nevertheless, if an old aircraft carrier just happened to left lying around at the shiny new Ukrainian naval base at Zelenskyyport (which as I recall was once named Sevastopol), it would do no harm if a wing of those good ol' F/A-18 Hornets just happened to be left on board.
For some reason, I haven't heard much of people talking about giving f-15's to Ukraine, considering that different variants could perform much-needed air support for Ukrainian troops on the ground while having fantastic standoff capability in air-to-air engagements (the strike eagle variant) while the f-15c variant, while providing fantastic standoff capability (due to it's extremely powerful radar) as well, could also dominate in dogfighting situations if needed. Not to mention the fact that the f-15 platform is a battle-tested weapon of war.
For good reason. The only source of F-15 is the US. They have 2 types. The F-15C and F-15E. F-15C are all needed as the F-22 buy was curtailed. However the remaining fleet has major issues with fatigue, including cracked wing spars. Basically the USAF needs all its got to see it through to replacement. F-15E are newer but are the USAF's principal fighter bomber. They will be replaced in due course by F-35 but will have to soldier on until then. Essentially the USAF needs all that it has until a replacement arrives.
Those are unfortunate circumstances, but I thank you for enlightening me in regard to them, as I was unaware of the condition and situation regarding our F-15 fleet. Let's hope that the arrival of American weapons systems such as the F-16 and the Abrams will be swift and uninterrupted. @@dogsnads5634
There has been a lot of talk of the F16s under carriage not being strong enough for Ukrainain runways. I'm sure this could be fixed somehow but this is one aspect that the F18 has over the F16. One plane you guys forgot and I know was in consideration and I think would be awsome for Ukraine for it was built for your type of war is the Sweedish JAS 39 Grippen. Though I don't think there would be enough I see why Ukraine does want the F16 fighter it is avialabiltiy. Really at this stage Ukraine should get thier hands on what is begging but I hope it soon gets what it needs should have happened ages ago just like the modern MBTs.
@BrokenSociety966 That literally would invite Russia to attack Polish airfields, thus dragging NATO into the war. NATO is trying to stay out of this conflict as much as possible other we risk escalating it with Russia.
Runway improvement and repair is much easier that supplying parts and training for an advanced fighter jet. All it takes is a few trucks and tractors and a reliable supply of rock and concrete or asphalt. I have seen multiple reports that Ukraine has been making runway improvements aimed at accommodating the F-16 for more than a year and has several runways ready to go.
For Ukraine best one would be F-16 modern version - as there is a lot of them and a lot of weapons for them. But Ukraine also needs a few Typhoon or F-15, to keep the sky free from Russian airforce.
A problem with the F-16 is that it needs a very long runway. The Gripen is capable of using roads as runways, so it can be distributed all over the country which makes it difficult to attack the bases as the Russians did at the beginning of the war. F-16 is a weapon system going to be phased out and therefore it can easily be given to Ukraine in large amounts as a multi-role warplane.
@@Jasonth131 Yes, you are right, but there is a factor to consider; Soviet tracks are like tiles, to support the expansion and contraction of extreme heat and cold. It also means that moss, stones and other rubble accumulate in the middle. The grippen, with smaller air intakes that are found above in the fuselage, would face this much better than the F-16, Regards . .
I think if they had the American F 16 super hornet, Russia would have no chance against them, and very skilled pilots with that weapon and maybe even some of the Apaches
F-16 also has a lower radar cross section, especialy in side aspect, compaired to alot of other jet fighters. If I remember correctly out of the 4th gen fighters only the Eurofighter Typhoon has a better radar cross section. This means that it should be easier for the F-16 to notch incoming radar missiles. Given how air defense plays a big role in the russian invasion, this is a big deal.
I’m not sure where you’ve read that the F-16 has a lower RCS than other 4G jet fighters? The figures I’ve found: F-14: 25m2 F-16: 1.2 to 5m2 (for the F-16V, probably 5m2 for others) Mirage 2000: 1m2 Gripen: 0.5m2 Typhoon: 0.5m2 Rafale: 0.5m2 (F3) - 0.1m2 (F4) Super Hornet: 0.1m2 So the F-16’s RCS is OK for a 4G jet, and not great compared to 4.5G jets…
The Gripen is the best-suited for Ukraine, but it's not a US jet. Dr. Justin Bronk can explain this to you if you do your research. The question of "what's best?" is not just one of some basic characteristics. There are so many more factors to consider.
Typhoon doesn't have thrust-vectoring and the F-16s, which Ukraine will be receiving, won't be the latest models so they won't be much more modern than the Mirage 2000. However this doesn't matter anyway since the main thing is availability and logistics, including training and constant supply of weapons. F-16 (and to a lesser extent F-18) is the only platform which is available in sufficient quantity to Ukraine, none of the other options can match it.
It is down to numbers, yes the Gripen would probably be the best combat aircraft for Ukraine, but they are not available in sufficient numbers as the F-16...
There is a lot to criticize in this video, but the bit about giving Ukraine a Nimitz-class supercarrier takes the cake, so to speak. I would actually love to see that happen, because it would be awesome to see a supercarrier blown up by a nuclear missile. It would make a great example to the world too.
and the altitude most of the aircraft in Ukraine are operating at is LOW. F18 is every bit as fast as the F16 down low. F16 is primarily a high alt air-superiority bird that can do atg roles well. F18 is the opposite - primarily an attack aircraft with enough sting to defend itself and continue the mission. I'd be going for both 1st. F16 alone 2nd. Australia's old F18's are available in very short time. and can do everything the F16 can, but with less maintenance and from austere runways and highways like the Gripen.
I'm not an aviation expert of any sort, but F16 does seem to be the most logical choice as a platform for the moment. Saab's Gripen just isn't as 'off the shelf' available as the F16 is. And then there is training potential to be considered, F16 has many capable instructors across many countries.
F-16 is the fighter aircraft for Ukraine but you need the largest collection of them. It will be a huge problem to operate over the combat area without taking out Russian radars inside Russia itself. I’m unsure if you can manage this without loosing a lot of aircraft’s and pilots. But then again you really have no other option. Good luck. Slava Ukraine!
Very good analysis. My only complaint is that it took way too long for the F16 to be approved for deployment. The Western powers dragging their feet on supplying more capable weapons to Ukraine angers me so much. You guys need to get anything ... short of nukes ... that can help drive Russia out of Ukraine and keep them out. That's a win for everybody.
@tsmartin • Your complaint is the same as my own - literally, word for word! If Ukraine 🇺🇦 had every weapon and air defense they were promised and needed from the beginning - this war would be closer to a Ukrainian victory now! Also, all of the innocent Ukrainians - men, women, children, aid workers, hospitals staff, etc. may still be alive 😢! You are “playing a game” with people’s lives!!😠. As a citizen of the USA 🇺🇸, I’m angry at my own government and President 😠
We have the AfD in Germany with us, which would like to immediately stop all Russia sanctions and all arms deliveries and Ukraine should give up immediately. Actually the stupidest thing we could ask considering the situation in Africa.
@@TeresaEAnn Ukraine is never going to win, your government is just trying to get as many Russians and Ukrainians (who are a type of Russian too) killed as possible.
Ukraine does not need weapons it cannot use. Such stuff is just waste. Skill is more important than than a pile of toys no one can use effectively. Ask a RuZZhist conscript who shot his shoulder off with RPG a few days back if you don't believe...
F16 is a great choice without doubt, and the best choice for longevity and air-to-air capability for the dollar. Australia's legacy hornets are probably the most-available jets right now, and will be better suited for the atg role with enough sting to fight back hard if approached too close. It is worth noting though, depending on the variant of F16, the Australian Legacy Hornets might have better BVR radar range, at least up to ?Block 50 standard should be outclassed by the Hornet in terms of radar quality. Flying in tandem with the F16, however, with the F16 flying a high-alt fighter cover, the F18 could be devastating to russian troops as the better air-to-ground platform. Range disadvantages could be better adapted by running the F18's on austere runways closer to the front, while the F16's run from your more-protected bases deep in Ukraine. The ability of the F18 to run from highways and rougher surfaces gives it a lot more flexibility to engage closer to the front and hide. The outright speed of the F18 does not matter down low in ground assault as it is a very fast aircraft in the thicker air down low and almost equal to the F16 at that altitude. From reports, this is the altitude that most aircraft on both sides are being operated in russia's war on Ukraine. With many other nations retiring the F/A18s in preference of F35s it is likely more will become available later, to augment the fleet later, but it is worth noting that they are no longer in production so updates/upgrades won't be available like the F16 and that is the key to the F16 being the long-term plan. Of course availability of the Hornets all depends on the Aussie gvt letting them go, and so far they have been quite stingy on Ukraine donations, so I don't have a lot of hope. Certainly these are enough to form a squadron or two, and be available within a short time-frame and most have been updated through the HUG program. 41 jets, some of which are two-seat variants for training new pilots. Many in very good condition reportedly and have never been operated from carriers. A Boeing official stated combat-ready within 6 mo according to one media report. If we could get Gripen in the numbers needed, I'd put that in the role of the F18. Additional superfluous comment - Gripen is one of the most aesthetically beautiful aircraft ever made. IMO anyway. You asked for some thoughts...
As difficult as it is for Ukraine to obtain the Eurofighter Typhoon, a twin-engined "heavy fighter" such as the Eurofighter Typhoon would be a welcome countermeasure to Russia's Su-27, Su-30, and Su-35 Flankers.
There is no more useful "Fighter" plane than the F18 Super Hornet. It can go Air-Air, Air-Ground, It can Tank, It can Jam, It can lase. It's capable of beach and ship ops, It's not excellent at any one thing. But it's good at everything. Source- Used to work on them.
I don t understand the aim of this vidéo ? Because we only speak F16 for Ukraine since a long time and even if USA are very slow "to give" them. As a french, I would have be very proud if France give UKrainia mirage 😢. 🇨🇵🇺🇦🌹🙏
No need to include Gripen. We already know its the most versatile fighter with the most capabilities, the easiest maintenance, the quickest turn-around times and the best overall economy and operability. 🇸🇪🇺🇦🗽
The Gripen is by FAR the best option for Ukraine. The Hornet would be the second best Western option for Ukraine. After these two there really isn't a Western fighter that makes good sense for Ukraine.
Australia went through these planes as their new fighter in the mid 70s to replace their mirage fleet. now they joined with all the others on the F35 program hounded by cost over runs and failures to meet requirements deemed necessary. the 18s now replaced with the super hornet replacing the F111C with 35s coming in numbers but no additional numbers.
Based on plan functionality, the Gripen is by far the best choice for Ukraine. But they are not available in the short term. The US F-16 is and can also be supplied with a large quantity of potent weapons. So that must be the choice. The problem is not the choice of plan itself. It is the politicians who are the problem who are unable to make decisions to deliver. The plan was needed yesterday.....
Keep in mind that the older legacy F/A 18 is what is being considered but the F/A 18 super hornet is not the same, it is a larger jet with substantial upgrades......it is still active in the US Navy, whereas the legacy hornet has been replaced by it.
I'm a retired F-4 and F/EF-111 wso/ewo. I will comment on my limited experience against the Mirage. It's very fast for sure, but that delta wing really slows it down in a tight turn. That's why the Eurofighter has thrust vectoring and a canard, to pull the nose around. They had a hard time intercepting F-111s in low level flight. I've seen Ukrainian pilots say that there is no 'dogfighting' in their war, which I tend to believe. Because of the simplified logistics the Grippen would be best for Ukraine, but I don't think any are available. I think the F-16 would be just fine for Ukraine. There are lots of them around. The Viper is certainly better than a Mig-29 and probably better than a Su-27 for a lot of missions.
There's almost 50 upgraded F-18A and F-18B's just sitting in storage hangers at RAAF Williamtown that have been retired awaiting new owners. They were upgraded continuously until Super Hornets, Growlers and F-35's came online. They have only been retired since 2020.
Im French, we retired one year ago a few Mirage 2000C. We use them for interception and good platform for bombing. Its nit a dogfighter like a Rafale for exemple
The Typhoon doesn't have thrust vectors, it has canards. That's what makes it so maneuverable. The GRIPEN would be an excellent choice for Ukraine, Its smaller than the f16 and can land on rougher surfaces.
Completely missed out on the Meteor missiles of the Typhoon. Given contested air space, Meteor missiles would be an absolute game changer to dominate the skies against all Russian craft. The best plane for Ukraine would be - excluding availability in numbers - the Gripen. The Gripen is one of the few airplanes that can have Meteor missiles mounted, has the necessary stealth fighter tech of a 4th Gen aircraft, and most importantly: it's designed with short takeoff and landing strips in mind, allowing it to use highways for this. This means it doesn't have to be stored & maintained in concentrated locations and is much easier to split up & protect from long range missiles, instead of getting all clumped up on a military airport.
The F-16 beat the proto F-18 in a head to head compitition. The F-16 is far more prolific, and therefore has far more parts and techs across the globe. The F-15 would also be a devestating weapon in the hands of Ukraine’s pilots. Even with 2 engines, the Hornet is slower than the Falcon. So, this is a no brainer. The F-16 is the best option for Ukraine. Though, any similar European craft would also be very useful.
Spot on! The F-16 and F-18 are multi-role aircraft. The F16 is a little better on ground support. Ukraine needs a multi-role to drop bombs and turn into a fighter.
Looking at logistics it makes more sense to operate the F-16. Spares for the Mirage are barely available as is proven by India buying the old mothballed ones for spare parts. The Typhoon is built by six countries that can barely agree on the colour of an orange not the most stable of suppliers and the F/A-18 is slowly being phased out so are the spares.
In reality, Ukraine will have roughly 6 F-16 pilots trained by next summer. They should be able to make their presence known spamming plentiful small diameter bombs all over Russian positions. What they can't do is carry Storm Shadows, SCALP-EG or Taurus cruise missiles. They will have to be upgraded (software) to carry the Harpoon missile.
