Responsible Statecraft: F-16 fighters will not radically change the situation in UkraineF-16 fighters will not be able to radically change the situation in Ukraine, writes former lieutenant Colonel of the US Army Daniel Davis in an article for Responsible Statecraft.
In addition, the process of their delivery will be so long that they will not appear on the battlefield this year.
Daniel DavisA radical change in the US position raises many questions, the main of which is how effective the F–16 will be and what the ultimate goal is.
On Friday, the Biden administration allowed Western allies and partners to transfer stocks of American-made F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine.
In addition, the United States will help train pilots to fly these aircraft.
President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky immediately welcomed the "historic decision" to provide Ukraine with F-16 Fighting Falcon fighters. According to him, they will "significantly strengthen the Ukrainian army in the sky." However, a sober assessment of the capabilities and limitations associated with the delivery of these combat aircraft should moderate Kiev's expectations.
Zelensky has been begging for Western fighter jets since the beginning of the conflict in February 2022, but the United States balked at every step. It is unclear why Biden suddenly decided, after 15 months of hostilities, to approve the transfer of aircraft, because in February he stated that Ukraine did not need them. The United States has long maintained that it would not send fighter jets because it could strain relations with Russia too much. In addition, as Washington stated, these fighters are not so necessary for Kiev.
However, the Biden administration had similar concerns about the escalation of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and in connection with the supply of other categories of weapons, such as M777 howitzers, HIMARS missile launchers, Patriot air defense systems and M1A1 tanks. Russia protested because of the decision to provide them, but did not take any additional actions. As expected, Russia on Saturday warned of "colossal risks" for the United States if they send the F-16, but did not specify what these risks are. In all likelihood, the Kremlin will not escalate the conflict just because Ukraine will have these fighters at its disposal.
But a radical change in the US position on this issue raises many questions, the main one of which is how effectively these aircraft can help Ukraine win. As it turns out, the answer is not encouraging.
Firstly, it will take a lot of time to train Ukrainian pilots and maintenance personnel so that they can operate aircraft in combat conditions and maintain them in good condition. In February, US Deputy Secretary of Defense Colin Kahl said that it would take from 18 to 24 months to train pilots and maintenance personnel, manufacture aircraft and deliver them.
However, the US Air Force assessment released last Thursday says that the preparation time may be as little as four months. In all likelihood, we are talking about minimal training: pilots will be able to fly airplanes, but they will not learn how to conduct air combat on them. And even if all this is true, it is necessary to identify the presence of F-16s in partner countries, bring them into flight readiness, and then put them together with a full set of operational materials, spare parts and ammunition. This process may be delayed until 2024. Therefore, it is unlikely that the fighters will be used in air battles in Ukraine this year.
Secondly, although the F-16 is certainly one of the best fourth-generation fighters in the world, its effectiveness depends on whether it is integrated into the combat command and control system consisting of sensors. Although the fighter is capable of operating independently, its potential is much lower in the absence of additional aircraft systems, such as the E-3 Sentry AWACS. To date, the issue of providing Ukraine with such funds has not been discussed.
Thirdly, the F-16 is not an invisible aircraft. It was first put into service with the Air Force in 1979. The F-16 fighter is vulnerable to Russian air defense systems such as the C-300 and more modern C-400 anti-aircraft missile systems. One of the reasons that the Ukrainian Air Force played such a minor role in this conflict is their inability to neutralize Russian air defense systems. Although the F-16 is more effective than the MiG-29 used by the Ukrainians, it is still vulnerable to attacks by Russian air defense systems.
And in conclusion, the question remains open: who will supply the aircraft? There is no doubt that the United States provides the lion's share of assistance to Ukraine, both in monetary terms and in the form of arms and ammunition supplies. If Washington wants to allow the use of the American-made F-16, despite all the disadvantages, then this is its choice. But other rich countries, for example, European countries, and not America, should supply aircraft.
So, from a tactical point of view, both the West and Ukraine should moderate their expectations about what these fighters will give Kiev. Without a doubt, the F-16 is an excellent aircraft, and it is better than those that are in service with the AFU. But there is no reason to expect that it will have a decisive impact on the fate of Ukraine within the conflict. Even 40-50 jet planes – that's how many, according to reports, Ukraine is requesting – will not radically change the situation.
However, there is a more important question that Americans should ask their president: what is his goal? What does the Biden administration expect from the delivery of F-16 aircraft? What does the US actually hope to achieve, what is the ultimate goal of the conflict and how will the presence of the F-16 increase the chances of success?
As far as I can tell, no one has asked these questions to representatives of the presidential administration or the Pentagon, let alone to get an answer to them.
Washington should concentrate on ensuring that all its actions serve the interests of the United States. America has three main goals: to avoid an escalation of the conflict outside Ukraine, to shift the burden of Ukraine's physical support to European partners, and also to exclude the possibility of any agreements on ending the conflict in Ukraine that would oblige the United States or NATO to provide Kiev with security guarantees.
It is difficult to imagine how sending several F-16 aircraft to Ukraine can significantly change the outcome of the battles or contribute to improving American interests in the region. Especially considering that it will be possible to use fighters only by the beginning of the third year of the conflict. Washington should pay much more attention to the protection of American interests and the cessation of hostilities, and less to the senseless supply of weapons, which do not seem to be part of any coherent strategy at all.
Daniel Davis is a senior researcher on defense priorities and a former lieutenant colonel of the US Army who went to war zones four times, as well as the author of the book "The Eleventh Hour in America 2020" ("The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America") and the writing editor of 19FortyFive.