Ukraine F-16 & Gripen: Why it's difficult to send jets! 

A correction. Romania doesn't have F-16 "because of Norway." Romania first adopted it with an initial purchase of Portuguese F-16s, further expanding the fleet with Norwegian ones later.

Just a quick correction ;) The Netherlands are already at 66% of the transition to F-35 (only 52 in total). Indeed, 8 planes are stationed in the USA for training but all others are flying from the Leeuwarden and Volkel airbases in the Netherlands itself. As far as the F-16's go, the Dutch government cancelled the sale to a private US based company. Best guess is that it was done because they want to deliver those to Ukraine. But we're talking about a sqdrn, perhaps 2, at the most. Always love your vids! Your passion really shows which makes it extra enjoyable to watch!

For all this talk about F-16 pilot training wouldn't ground crew training be as much if not more important? Is anyone claiming you can train ground crew on simulations in 2023? Even if major repairs would have to be done in Poland or other points west of Ukraine, the checklists that have to be gone through before a plane so much as taxis from one point to another on the ground are extremely lengthy, are they not?

As a Swede and very familiar with the subject from different perspectives there are a few things to take into consideration. 1: What Ukraine wants and what they need is not the same thing, what they need at this moment, or as fast as possible is a fighter that can carry a LR AAM like Meteor 2. So what Ukraine needs to achieve is air denial and for that it would probably be enough with 16+4 aircraft in the short term. The VKS would be very hesitant to enter Ukrainian airspace if Ukraine had a 200 km AAM on its aircraft 3. To be able to fly these machines they need pilots and as far as I understand, how a Russian fighter works is very different from a western fighter, to your point, these needs to be new pilots and I cant see a shorter training period than 6 months, preferably longer 4. So the pilot training gives you at least 6 months to sort out the rest. 5. Sweden could send 16+4 aircraft but for that to happen there are a number of steps 5.1 NATO membership, without that, no Gripens 5.2 Cost, who will pay for all this? Sending 20 Gripens plus all the logistical hardware, training, missiles(a meteor costs 2m US and you would need to send at least 100). As a final note I will say this, Turkey is a very very important NATO member but how important are they if they are a conduit for Russian interests within NATO by disrupting the interest of the other members of NATO and NATO as a whole

The Gripen is probably better, it was designed exactly for this kind of war. But there’s so many F16s, in terms of supply, it’s an obvious choice.

the gripen was sent to south africa - and with all the negligence it suffered, it still operates. speaks to its quality i think

Perhaps one squadron of Gripens with weapons that the F16 isn't fitted to carry (Meteor, storm shadow) to compliment 3 - 4 Squadrons of F16's.

"Logistics an under appreciated field of endeavor." Good video informative.

During the First Gulf War the UK Tornados had to be very quickly upgraded in two areas of interest. Number one was US Frequency Hopping UHF Radio Communications. To prevent jamming and eavesdropping, "Havequick" Radio Systems are required. This will require Ground Radios to also have this capability if Close Air Support is required. More complicated, and difficult to see how Ukraine can cope with this situation.

Early on in the war in Ukraine, I read that they preferred the Gripen as they said: "It is most suitable for our circumstances." I assume they meant low per-hour flight cost, low maintenance cost, and very quick turnaround using non-technical staff. While at the same time being a capable multi-role airplane.

the main reason why the Gripen is not likely a candidate for Ukraine is its limited numbers, the one who have them needs them for their own security particularly Sweden, this leaves the F16C as the only viable option for Ukraine.

The best assessment I’ve seen or heard / read on this important and timely topic. Well done and thank you! 👍👊

I've always admired SAAB's fighters. For such a small country they seemed pretty much cutting edge, yet pragmatic - like being designed to operate off of highways if needed. Sweden certainly does punch above its weight. I have heard this has come with an opportunity cost for the other Swedish armed forces - the aircraft cost a great deal to develop and that's money not available elsewhere for Swedish defence. I would love to see particularly the Gripen E more widely deployed and with Sweden eventually entering NATO, perhaps that might happen some day. A great overview - thanks again Chris.

USAF said that the existing pilots could learn to fly it in 4 months.

A great, enjoyable video and informative video. You produced a well written discussion here mate.

I don't know if you would want to use F-16s on the rough airfields I've seen pictures of in Ukraine. Anything loose can, and will get ingested by the low-sitting intake. F-16s like a nice, tidy environment. At 3:29 the F-16 is an A- or B-model, most likely Block-15, from my old USAF squadron, 421st TFS (now FS), Black Widows (smaller tires, intake, and old squadron logo sticker) from before the end of 1989 when we started converting to the Block-40 C and D models. Also at 5:31 the closest F-16C (delivered as Block-40) is from the 421st and the other two are from the 4th FS, both in the 388th TFW (now FW).

The Gripen's ability to work in austere environments, with a minimal support crew, and with relatively low maintenance costs, make the Gripen an excellent choice. I know it adds complexity to support multiple aircraft types. But as we see with tanks (Challenger, Leopard, Abrams, more?), Ukraine will benefit more by dealing with this complexity rather than wait for a large number of any one type. It's likely the same applies with aircraft. Heck, I wanted the venerable A-10 to appear in Ukraine before being retired. (designed specifically for Soviet tanks, armored vehicles) Brrrrt! Besides, the Ukrainians learn quick. They may already have the world's most diverse weapons array (600 weapon systems from ~50 nations)

*Brilliant episode as always.* This recently discovered channel has quickly become my favorite military aviation channel - second to none. Now, *I have a hot video suggestion for the channel:* It goes along the line of the "white elephant in the room", and more specifically once and for all explaining to a somewhat broader, let's say "uninitiated" audience more precisely: [1] *_WHY_* the often mentioned "3-4 month crash course" on e.g. Gripen, followed by an immediate transfer of planes to the front in Ukraine just *isn't realistic and possible* in general terms, while also [2] giving the viewer a very brief, but still sufficient overview of all the elements, personell, training, systems and sub-systems that are *_actually_* involved in implementing a fighter-jet _successfully_ into the armed forces of e.g. Ukraine. [3] Last but not least, to have the less knowledgeable viewer and "layman" really tie the loose ends together and come to a somewhat educated realization of why the scenario of "3-4 month crash course and consecutive transfer of planes to the Ukrainian war front" *_is_* unrealistic, Mr. Military Aviation could simply paint a brief, "real case" picture of how such a nightmare-scenario could play out, and how the concrete consequences *_relates_* to such an insufficient "fast-track implementation". I'm more than certain that this video topic would be highly appreciated to an even broader audience than usual, who perhaps previously hadn't realized the *complexity, magnitude* and *scope* of implementing a leading edge fighter-jet like SAAB Gripen.

20 Ukrainian pilots have just started a 12 week ground based conversion to NATO aircraft course in the UK. The idea is once thats completed they will move on to F-16 specific Type Training though that program, likely to be hosted by the Netherlands with assistance from others, hasnt been sorted yet. Some mumblings US may lend other countries F-16 for Ukrainians to train on as well as providing technical support but wont donate aircraft for combat. Of course we may get a surprise and suddenly in years time they are flying the Eurofighter Tranche 1 as the UK has a policy of not announcing equipment donations to Ukraine until after they have already been transferred.

During the Falklands conflict a British Naval Captain was concerned with his 4in Gun being close to the maximum number of shots it is supposed to fire before the barrel became end of life. After being put in his place I think it was this same gun that was used to blow up an Argentinean tanker in the strait between West and East Falkland. In other words in time of war yes an airframe may be near its max flight hours but there should be a safety margin in there and the pilots may be quite happy to stretch the specification a bit.

I like gripen so much. This machines are beauty

Great you covered everything I wrote in my comment that I started when your video did! Basically Grippen are not available in 2023, the F-16C very likely are. The F-16C can do more in the air and I think Ukraine sees servicing complexity as the price of air capability. Grippen would have fitted in real quick in 2022 if they’d been immediately available, but they’re weren’t & still aren’t. Ukraine has a need for immediacy & a pipeline, with logistics costs not a worry that’s high on the list at the moment. Existential threat overrides a lot of problems. Poland has less political & budget barriers than most states and higher threat given its border with Belarus & Ukraine. Netherlands can afford it, and has anchored the Ukraine pilot program, so they’re both v.likely suppliers.

that was so kool to see my old 18Cs (VFA-94) at the beginning (0:09)of the vid. the paint scheme is after i left the squadron, tho. we were NH and 400s when i was there.

2:35 This is the first time I've ever seen a content creator mention their Patreon in this light - and it's a refreshing breath of fresh air. "Never build a business on land you don't own."

I have heard ground crew tearing the F-16 to pieces for how much of a PITA it is to maintain. They hated working on the thing. I think Gripen is a better choice if its ease of maintenance reputation is to be believed, but I'm not in charge.

Grippen no doubt is a better fit, but the numbers just aren't available. One thing I am confident in, is Ukraine's ability to put to good use anything they are given. Great video and analysis as usual.

F16's are the go, the reason is availability and because of upgrades they can carry all the modern arms systems, you need to forget about dog fights that was last century, you also need to forget about whether Ukraine can fly them or maintain them because they can do that as good as anyone, we need to get these frames over there pronto

For all the reasons the Gripen might be favored, the AV-8B Harrier would be more suitable by fulfilling the same requirements for use in austere airfields and roadside in an emergency, and is capable of VTOL which the Gripen cannot do. Nearly all air forces which currently have Harriers are upgrading to F-35B so there are plenty of aircraft countries are willing to give away soon if not already. Like the Gripen, Harriers can be armed with all NATO munitions. Only significant obstacle would be to find sources for parts since manufacturing has ended in anticipation of everyone upgrading the the F-35B.

So far fascinating. So just a little remark that I CAN make in an interlude. 'Gripen' - The Griffon - in Swedish is pronounced more like 'Greepen', not 'Grippen'!

Speaking of JAS 39 and how many copies there are: A total of 152 JAS 39Cs were produced, of which 66 were upgraded from the 39A. Of version 39A, 38 planes produced have NOT been upgraded. The school planes B and D with double seats have been manufactured in 14 and 23 copies, respectively. 39A: 38 39B: 14 39C: 152 39D: 23 39E: under production. An unknown few delivered. A total of 227 produced. South Africa: 26 Hungary: 14 leased Czech Republic: 14 leased Thailand: 12 Sweden operates 98 32 are dismantled (Variant A) 4 are wrecked/crashed (Variant A) 2 are museum objects (Variant A) Does that mean that 21 planes of Model C remain in storage perhaps?

Maybe the way to go is a semi-clean sheet design on a rush basis. Design something specifically for Ukraine and countries in a roughly similar situation, design for off-the-shelf technologies, turnaround to initial flight, ease of manufacture, supportability, etc... In other words, completely reverse the recent trend for example of F-35 taking 22 years from pen-to-paper to flying in the fleet. It was doable for decades and with modern techniques should be doable now. Share resources across NATO and get something produced.

Love the video, very informative, covered a bunch of things about European military flight logistics that I didn't know about. But I have a criticism that doesn't have to do with the substance of the video: you have a fairly soft speaking voice, and the transition music comes in significantly louder than the rest of the video. It's a bit overpowering compared to the talking portions (which is what we're all here for).

Great coverage of the challenges. keep up the great work. Any thoughts on fixed vs temporary bases/runways impact of such airframes in Ukraine? I heard from some source that F16's are very 'delicate' when it comes to runway abstractions, making it challenging to take-off/land in temporary 'field' runways, of which Ukraine must make use of to avoid Russians from bombing the equipment. Not sure of this claim accuracy.

One thing about the Gripen is - I wonder whether Sweden has any old A models in store that could either be updated to a more modern software standard and sent over, or simply operated locally for comparatively less demanding roles (e.g. air policing/maritime surveillance) while the E production line spins up.

About Belgium, they will have 5 next month (July) but I assume they are stationed in the US, for training purpose, although our better pilots already had their training for the F35B we ordered 35 of them. Don't forget they are not prioritized, because we have an agreement with the Netherlands for guarding the entire Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) and the North Sea region, the Netherlands are the mightier part of the alliance. So it's fair to say the needs there are more important. I think that's the reason they have a decent number of the F35s

In your list of possible aircraft at the start of the video you missed out the UK's retired Tornados. I have no idea what state they are in, but a year ago there was much discussion of them.

In the end I think the decision has fallen on the F-16, purely because there are a whole bunch of F-16 Block 20 aircraft with the MLu around. With the MLu, they become roughly Block 50/52 equivalents. Main thing would be the newer radar system and a larger quite of weaponry that can be used. But a lot of these planes are about to be replaced by F-35A, thus making them surplus. Further there still is a facility in Belgium that is capable of rebuilding these aircraft to extend their service lives. Because a lot of those airframes probably would need to undergo such a rebuilding before they can be expected to be sent into a war zone.

Gripen would have been a better airplane in every respect for Ukrainians. But there are just not enough of those aircraft in existence for Sweden to provide. F-16 is a prolific platform with readily available airframes/training/logistical support. The Swedes should have tried to at least provide some aircraft for combat evaluation and marketing purposes.

I think the realistic solution is to send bouth of them. F16 for air defense based west from Kyiv. And then as many Gripen teams that is possible to send to eastern Ukraine. In that configuration the F16s can protect the logistics for the Gripens, and Gripen can boarder cross into ocupied territory and operate close to the front under an umbrella of F16 that can protect the forward bases.

As so often the procurement of military hardware is a political question first and foremost. For many reasons, the F-16 is a much more politically viable jet to send to Ukraine. F-16 will be replaced by F-35 in many countries, a lot of inventory is basically looking for a new home already. Relatively, there is a lot of supply and little demand for the F-16. The situation surrounding the Grippen is totally different. Sending Grippen is politically much more difficult. Countries like South Africa and Brazil are certainly not amongst the strongest supporters of Ukraine (both are of course BRICS countries). This is a political question and politics follows the path of least resistance which is F-16, there can be no question about that.

It's quite obvious that like tanks with the AMX 10 France would be the first to send jets to Ukraine, Ukrainians are training in France since last summer on ground attack and usage of French and NATO equipment, the Mirage 2000 are the obvious choice as they are discountinued in France the problem is what is hapenning in Belgorod as France might retract it's offer if it was ever to be used against Russian soil especially now that they have French missiles SCALP (Storm Shadow in english).

From what I have heard at least from Justin Bronk from RUSI even a few Gripen would make a major difference. I would hope that perhaps Sweden could part with even single digit numbers. It seems like with the lower cost a small fleet would have long term usefulness to Ukraine. The F-16 seems it would be most useful later and after the war. As hard as it is to get fast jets counties won't want to part with jets however Poland seems somewhat willing to actually make sacrifices and maybe would offer a few. At least from their attitude of wanting to stick it to Russia it seems like something they might try

I think the CNI systems or at least parts of it are different for each countries version, making it harder for them to work cohesively or even communicate at all on a secure channel.

In CZ there is an initiative from the DOD to move away from Gripens C to F-35As as the lease is coming to an end. If supplies of F-35s would be prioritise to CZ, after the decision is made on CZ side, a whole squadron of JAs-39Cs can be freed very quickly.

As Voltaire said, "The best is the enemy of the good". While Gripen is an excellent aircraft, and very suitable for Ukrainian conditions, both the ground infrastructure and in having a smaller logistics train, it just ain't available *right now*. Vipers look to be more of a near-term solution, being more readily available and adequate, and that will carry the day.

Sweden requires national security including air power. Sweden does not necessarily require Gripens. Sweden could depend, at least partly, on other NATO aircraft. There has recently been created a common command structure for all the Nordic air forces. This means that 20-40 Gripens would not be taken from the 84 Sweden currently operates, it would be taken from the roughly 300 aircraft in the freshly created "Nordic Air Force". However, I would assume that Sweden will not agree to that before full NATO membership. If the support from the other Nordic air forces would not be enough, then maybe, just maybe, the USN can show up with a carrier. I see the recent visist of USS Gerald R. Ford to the area as a way of convincing Sweden to let go of some Gripens. The Ford is to big to enter the Baltic, or any of the ports on the Swedish West Coast, so a visit to Oslo was the closest they could get.

Interesting analysis, summary it could be done if certain issues are resolved but it will awhile before any planes could show up in reasonable numbers. But the key is it won't be a magic bullet nor as easy as many assume.

American ex USAF pilot Mover (youtube) who's flown the f-16 and f-18 said the Gripen would be a better platform because it's less reliant on the airfield. Can land on roads. They stated the F-16 is very touchy about its landing strip, if a rock is on the runway, the engine will suck it right up into the intake.

Very interesting. I didn't realize there were so few modernized F16s available outside of the US. P.S. the music when transitioning is way too loud

In the end...if you want to make it work, you will make it work. Ive seen too many impossible projects in my life being made. Also, there are so many thi gs we dont know about so best strategy is wait and see.

I think it would be a good time for the factories to amp up their production of both airframes and other parts of these fighters. And that would require a political decision sooner rather than later of making an order, either to be sent to Ukraine directly or to replace those that are instead.

Adding another jet to the mix....Australia and the US have apparently signaled that there may be an opportunity to transfer F/A 18 Hornets from Aus to Ukraine as well

From what I have heard, Ukrainian pilots have already been sent to my state, and received training to see even if it was possible to train them on the F-16. As far as I know, it would take only 3 to 4 months for them to become efficient on the airframe. Now I don't know if that includes ground crew, etc.

Was there ever any discussion about sending old AV-8B harriers? The US is retiring them and freeing them up, they work well on short/ improvised runways, and has compatibility with the AIM-120 amraam. As long as they are used in conventional or short take-off and landing (not vertical landing), I imagine training is not too much of a hurdle. Also is a really good platform for ground attack

15:16 Wikipedia claim Brazil is starting a Grippen variant production line this month, out of interest. The aircraft customers all have more use for an aircraft that better tolerates austere conditions, is pretty modern, and is cheaper than 5th gen... how much cheaper though I couldn't guess. Edit: he does mention Brazil later in the video. So, OK then.

F-16 hotpit or quickturn, minimal time on the ground just fuel rearm and go. This is done all the time made the day go by quickly. With a 16 you can rack up some quick numbers other airframes are ground down by attrition (Code 3 on landing, shutdown, simpathy abort) not the 16...she is a warrior and Code 1 Bandit, in my humble opinion.

One option I have only seen one commentator talk about (Tyler Rogoway and was early in the war), is Romania's now retired Mig-21 fleet. Apparently they are much more capable than what meets the eye with deep upgrades with Israeli electronics, giving them EW self protection, western targeting pods, and ability to carry a variety of Western, Israeli, Soviet and I think even South African weapons. Apparently they still have some airframe hours left. What are your thoughts on using these as a gap filler option until Ukraine is fully geared up with Western fighters? Also any thoughts on recent suggestions on recently retired RAAF hornets?

For me the limiting issue is more about maintenance than pilots. As you alluded to Chris, it is possible to train a single role pilot (let's say air denial, no AAR) to an ok standard, in a much shorter time than most air forces' full training programmes. But you can't really take short cuts when it comes to maintenance. So whilst you could focus on 1st line combat support only in the first instance, it is likely that any F-16 would have to be flown back to its parent nation for deeper maintenance for at least the first six months of operation whilst maintenance crews are fully trained. That would definitely be a political hot potato as it would be seen to be the sort of direct combat support that NATO has so far avoided.

I did miss a lot of info and comparison regarding the ground handling and turnaround times between the F16 and Gripen. Gripen can be handled by a few conscripts with an officer as boss but what about F16? AND Gripen can be repaired on a remote roadstrip - even structural repairs! Can you replace a damaged tailfin on a F16 out in the woods?

As a master trainer in aviation, now civil formerly military, my opinion is that you hit the mark with the question wetter if we want fresh pilots or experienced ex mig pilots. From my experience it is easier to draw on a blank canvas. But unlearning embedded tactics is not easyJet.. on the otter hand reshaping pilots with compatibel experience will go faster in a way you will not have to "ungreen" or "baptise" them in combat regardless of the airframe conversion. I think you have to select the most adaptive pilots and converse them into train the trainers to succeed

I'm reminded of a comic book, in which Buck Danny and Sonny Tucson are enlisted in a Squadron of F-16's and surreptitiously bomb the living crap out of Serbs in the Yugoslavian war during the 90's. (Episode 46) It gave a lot of reasons why they used F-16's. It's the most commonly flown jet fighter, it has multi role uses, it's weapons systems are NATO based and you can find pilots to fly it just about anywhere in the world. It also gives deniability to nations. Which is something to keep in mind seeing as NATO and Russia are very strict about not engaging with each other. If for whatever reason NATO would want to be able to deny sending pilots of other nations to fly for the Ukrainians, like The USSR and China denied sending pilots to fly MiG's for North Korea during the Korean War, it would help if Ukraine would already be flying F-16's...

We hear a lot about fighters but for ground attack although this won’t make a perfect replacement for the su25s. It is still very useful and that is the L139. I think this will be a very very good replacement although that’s a stretch for su25s if the active fleet of su25s begins to get worn down from combat losses.

Moot point - there are plenty of F-16s and parts to spare, not the case with Gripen. Gotta go with what you've got

One thing you didn’t touch on (probably intentionally due to controversy) is each options access to potential foreign combatants/contractors. F16 has many trained pilots and crews around the world. Both active and retired. If one considers even a minuscule percentage willing to contract to Ukraine - many F16 negatives are diluted maybe eliminated. Grippen is perfect tactically and for this theatre’s difficult operating environment. F16 is perfect in global logistic terms. Neither directly addresses cross border SAMs.

I feel like we need to not only specify the aircraft but also the type, because there are large differences between the initial models and modernized version. F16 is one of those airframes that nowadays have little to none resemblance of the initial aircraft. The question is, what will Ukraine end up with?

It does not matter to the Weapon of Mass Destruction manufacturers and their owners whether to send these planes to Ukraine will be effective or not, as long as they can laugh all the way to banks.

great to see you add production value. now tune the audio levels :p

Gripen was designed with the Soviets in mind; Sweden is nearby for parts and basic maintenance, and the Gripen has less complications with political sensitivities.

Another option not talked about much, is the Mirage 2000-9. There are several of these being replaced in Qatar and the UAE and the have comparable capabilities as the F16

I was disappointed at the headlong charge forward with F-16, when F-18 has better availability with nations that are more sympathetic to Ukraine and more willing to part with their own jets (Canada, Finland, Oz). Plus, stronger gear and an extra engine don't hurt.

Are hot refuels and rearms fast or even needed for f-16s in ukraine? According to a Swedish pilot he refueled and rearmed his gripen in 20 minutes and took of again during an exercise where the ground crew was missing and the missiles and the fuel truck was just standing there. I presume the Israelis have done something similar.

It seems that the option of buying MIG 29s from countries that do use them, could be a be a good option in the meantime. They are mostly obsolete, but the training and infrastructure is already there. According to Wikipedia, Malaysia has 16 in “active reserve “. There are apparently 22 in the US in mainly private collections. It would fill the gap until more modern and capable aircraft are available and trained for. Edit; I read that Poland had already donated some Mig 29s, which is great. It would be timely now if the 38 I mentioned above could be made available. Spring doesn’t last long.

Great video, Chris. Thanks. Thanks to its availability in large numbers the F16 seems to be a first hand choice. But looking at which overall system that would suit the current needs, the Gripen seems to be the best option. Base dispersal, logistics and fast turnaround are crucial key factors. Beside that, the F16 will need to operate from fixed bases requiring adequate air defence resources when the bases will become high priority targets.

Dear CIA, I am forming a PMC that will contain experienced F-16 pilots and maintainers. Please fund me and we can then ship F-16s to Ukraine immediately without this pesky training problem.

Thank you Chris for this episode. Much to consider/powder/evaluate. Considering the dispersed “operational necessities” of potential “near adversity” combat operations in say the )cough,cough) Pacific realm, the implementation of a “Swedish” based operations setup/configuration deserves in depth consideration. Weather this will occur is problematic..

Last I heard, Sweden is not replacing Gripen C with E, but expanding their airforce with Gripen E, using C and E alongside each other.

Well, it was difficult to send Abrams, Challenger and Leopard. It was also difficult to send MLRS, before that - M777. I love you and your channel, but you're German, after all😛 Jokes aside, maintenance difficulties of F16 and the benefits of Gripen (which I like very much too!), do you think maintenance on decades-old MiG-29 and Su-25 airframes in an active warzone is easier? It's just different. Just supply the planes, train the pilots and mechanics & bring the spare parts to the Polish border - leave it to Ukrainian/Eastern European/Post-Soviet ingenuity.

Ukraine’s fighter jet needs are: 1) deep strike, a western platform to carry long range air to surface weapons like Stormshadow and Scalp 2) defensive counter air as they’re surface to air munitions are continually attrited 3) SEAD to neutralize enemy surface to air system, such as with HARM 4) direct action close air support as their SU-25 fleet is continually attrited The clear roadmap for increasing their capabilities is to get used F-16a models from allies and establish the logistics train in Poland and the west of the country. The F-16 is the platform for this war. Once Ukraine has regained its independence and hopefully become a NATO member, they could benefit from buying brand new Gripens in the future. While the F-16s would represent their older platforms with stronger logistics support in the west of the country, the new Gripens could be largely based as frontline fighters in the eastern areas closer to Russia. Having your newest and best fighters based in the east and able to operate on austere conditions and utilizing the same tactics the Swedes developed for taking off and landing from highways and minimal maintenance crewing would make sense in the future. F-16 for winning this war and a high low fleet mix of F-16 and Gripen in the future 👍

You hit upon the real world problems with transferring any modern fighters to Ukraine. Training, logistics, and support. Ukrainians have been very motivated to learn the new equipment that they currently have or will soon have which is a plus. They have been hindered by the reluctance, primarily from the US, to transfer F16's. I can't help but think this would be much further along if the US just bit the bullet and commit to transferring the F16's. At least they are willing to train Ukrainian pilots on the F16 which is a start, if a late one. I like the point you made that while there are planes available on paper, they are not immediately available because most countries have balanced the number of planes for their estimated needs meaning that while they have fighters, they don't have any to spare, or the ones that they do have available are at the end of their service life and are therefore unusable. Many countries are transitioning to F35's but until complete, the F16's they have are not currently available.. It would be great to be able to give Ukraine F16's or Grippens, but at this moment it is not possible. I hope it can happen before the end of this year. I have been disappointed and frustrated that the US has dragged it's heels on providing tanks, IFV's, artillery, HIMARS, MLRS, and fighter jets. If they had sent a lot of that equipment much earlier, Ukraine might be in a better position than they currently are. However, the US and it's allies have not been structured for fighting a conventional war, rather it has been structured for small regional conflicts that don't require massive quantities of munitions in particular but also spare equipment. So some of the "foot dragging" may actually be due to not having sufficient munitions and equipment readily available. This war caught NATO and US allies by surprise in that they quickly realized they did not have munitions and supplies for more than a few months of steady conventional warfare so they have been playing catch-up trying to provide supplies to Ukraine.

Love your insight

One of the (potentialy) downsides of the F-16 is the (potentialy) to confuse it with the I-16 that Russia may (potentialy) pull out of storage soon.

What exactly am I missing? Where is the downside to the Gripens low logistical footprint, short field performance, etc?

Also it deserves to think in terms of geopolitics, Brazil and other nations are pushing for a ceasefire, one that maybe sending Grippens might be perceived as making things worse... invited to send ammunition to German tanks, Brazil declined... and the alliance of tech transfer to Brazil as well as partnerships might come into play in the sending of Grippens to the battlefield ( as opposed to selling Grippens in the future peacetime after the conflict is done, for self defense purposes ). Those fights might come into a future scenario of defense, rather than the current conflict.

Another outstanding video thank you 👏🙏 🤔 And that flat pack joke 😂🤣@12:47 killed 😅😂

For once people can't be mad at Germany for refusing to send arms to Ukraine.

The idea that either Brazil or South Africa would send jets is politically dead.

A few comments to add. Using untrained pilots for F-16 may produce a crop of trained aviators more quickly. The F-16 flies very differently from other aircraft due to five factors. Sidestick controller with very little movement, airframe attitude that is nearly in stall mode at all times, an inclined seat that allows higher G-forces, a completely different training/ doctrinal approach, and maintenance training requirements. To my knowledge, there is no way to separate air-to-air and air-to-ground pilot training. The school is one. As you point out, logistics is very complicated. There would have to be a PMEL, hydrazine, and avionics facilities close to the action. And, as a small airframe, there is a tradeoff between sortie length and munitions load. I have seen no mention of aerial refueling capability in Ukraine's ask. As the F-16 is not an air superiority fighter, there would be no powerful fighters to fly overwatch while Falcons (sorry, I am old school) get down in the dirt. Warsaw pact fighters are not equipped with secure comms or compatible IFF systems. Most of the IFF systems of SU aircraft have been in the OFF mode so far. Any mix of A/B and C/D would be a logistical nightmare. Different avionics LRUs and test stations, powerplant, etc. The last operational F-16A in the US inventory flew in 2007, so good luck finding training, maintenance equipment, and spares. So, where will they come from? Gripen, being simpler is the best bet.

A group of Ukrainian pilots have already been assessed by instructors in the US on the F-16 simulator. The report stated that the pilots would be trained in 4 months. The main problem was language since everything in the aircraft cockpit is in English. So the training is already underway and by the time the political wrangling over the aircraft is done the pilots will be ready. Four months not nine. The F-16 will be in Ukraine in the Fall.

The only realistic option is for the planes to operate from Nato airfields with volunteer pilots. In the Korean War, Soviet pilots flew Migs from Chinese airfields. We have already seen what happened to the SU24s delivering Storm Shadows destroyed on the ground

Mirage 2000 is an obvious pick that somehow gets left out of discussion

I saw one analysis which made the point that the Ukrainian govt.considers the NATO commitment to send F16's is symbolic insofar as it represents a long term relationship by necessity. The dial up time is determined not so much by pilot training but rather maintenance training. Makes sense. President Zelensky sees the F16 as proof of a longer term relationship.

I think its not difficult to get Ukraine the jets, it just takes time to hardwire Drone controls into an existing fighter, let alone 30+. The US has specifically testing the F16 openly using remote technology, something similar to the Reaper drones but better and If they were just announcing it in 2018/2019. Its perfected now. I bet you'll see pilotless craft in Ukraine.

I prefer the option that never gets mentioned in the mainstream media - the option of sending them nothing.

Terrific analysis ⭐⭐🌟⭐⭐ + 💖

Just out of curiousity, what happened to all the Gripen A airframes that were NOT converted to Cs? Are they still in storage or were they reduced for spare parts?

Of the European countries, only Denmark and the Netherlands can supply F-16s. Denmark has at least 43 F-16, only 16 to 24 of them have sufficient lifespan to serve another nation. The Netherlands apparently does not have more than one squadron of F-16s that could continue to serve for at least 5-10 years. The Dutch and Danish F-16 MLUs differ mainly in the radars, the Danish have APG-66(v)2a, the Dutch have AN/APG-68(v)9. Otherwise they are very similar. Belgium (F-16 MLU) and Poland quite new F-16 Block 52+) cannot deliver their jets. If Ukraine were to receive at least 4 F-16 squadrons, the USA would have to add some pieces, or alternatively, they could be negotiated in some Arab or Asian countries. It will interesting to see how the whole issue with the F-16 turns out. It would not be a surprise if the Mirage 2000-9 from the Arab Emirates remained in the game, which are at least at the level of the F-16 Block 50 in terms of modernization and, above all, are actively offered for sale in sufficient quantities..

Greece has block 30,50, 52+, 52+ advanced and now block 70. So the whole spectrum of C and Ds. Block 30 and 50 should be retired due to the block 70 and possible F35 purchase (although the plan is to replace the F4E AUP with the F35)

I think that Sweden might be able to send an old Saab Erieye (AWACS) since I think we have upgrading. Compatibility with Gripen C would be good. Coordination is crucial!!

Ukraine needs the UTAP-22: it can basically launch and land vertically from a truck, has enough payload capacity to carry a pair of sidewinders, and can double as a reusable cruise missile with a flight performance similar to an F-16. For long range combat a Mig-21 is the better choice, it can operate from gras fields if need be and has minimal maintenance. Arm it with a pair of AMRAAMs (HARMs on Mig-29 prove that's possible) that are guided remotely from ground radar, AWACS or satellites, and you've got an aircraft that can sit near the front line and instantly launch, zoom to the front line at treetop level, launch its missile and run back before the enemy gets a lock, it's what the Mig-21 was designed to do.

It's not which plane is given to Ukraine that's important. It's the maintenance & logistics required to keep that plane flying & in combat. Without the backup, it really doesn't matter what they're given & it takes quite some time to train the technicians & maintenance personnel. Gripes might be designed to be easier in this regard, but it will still take time. I really can't see anything given to Ukraine being in service & in combat until next year (2024) at the earliest. Oh & for what it's worth, I think the Gripen would be a better option than the F16