Why F-16s in Ukraine Will END Russian Airforce
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 31. 03. 2024
- In the fierce Russo-Ukrainian conflict, air superiority remains elusive for both sides. đ©ïž Yet, the tide might turn with the U.S. agreeing to send F-16s to Ukraine, a historic first. Will these jets change the game? đ Despite their age, F-16s outshine Soviet and Chinese models, offering versatile attack and defense capabilities. đ This video delves into the potential of F-16s in rewriting aerial warfare and tipping the scales in Ukraine's favor. âïž #F16 #Ukraine #russia #militaryanalysis #AirSuperiority #fighterjetshowdown #fighterjet
#themilitaryshow - VÄda a technologie
The US has not agreed to send their own F16s to Ukraine. They agreed not to block other countries from transferring them. Important to be accurate on these things.
We are training Ukrainian pilots in AZ .
No, but we did offer some pretty sweet deals for F-35s to countries with fleets of serviceable F-16s.
@@holden5478 Facts!
@@jonmueller2117 So they still will not get our f-16's Denmark and the Netherlands and dI think another are givingtheres and got Discounts for the f-35's or credits of some sort..
@@killingyouwithlogic5808 Belgium is also sending f16
0:18 The US didn't send F-16s to Ukraine. The Netherlands and Denmark did that. All the US did was to not forbid those countries from sending them.
Keep watching longer than 18 seconds before commenting.
Give your brain a chance. Just like US has nothing to do with thousands of Palestinian children being murdered by it Best friend country and master!
@@jamesjross "Agreeing to send" is not ambiguous. Every fact should be correct and accurate when engaging in a serious discussion or education.
In effect sending F16s to Ukraine as all owners of F16s need the permission of the US or they risk keeping their own contracts with America. Capiche? No permission no F16 even if you are an Ally.
@@LaughingOrangelol. Donât be so Naive.
Mistakes galore, just in the first minute alone I found like 3-4 major mistakes or inaccuracies.
No, the US didn't say they would send F16, they said they would allow other countries that own F16 to send theirs, as military equipment usually needs approval for selling or giving away to third parties by the main seller.
The F16 isn't a 'late' fourth generation aircraft, it is THE 4th generation aircraft. The latest upgraded models (that are not even on the table for Ukraine) may be considered late fourth generation, but that goes for basically all aircraft with modern upgrades.
For NATO old soviet jets were never much of a consideration in the first place, with the exception of some newer eastern members, that still had some in storage, and Chinese aircraft were never a consideration, because they didn't even exist until a few years back (the Chinese jets itself were old soviet jets).
Also, the f-16 doesn't have 4x as much fuel as an Su-27, more like 1/3.
Achcholly.
â@@vk45de54but the F-16 is at least mass produced. Range really isn't a big deal if you can't produce them or even produce the means to maintain them. I'd take a batch of old F-16s over old Su-27s any day.
Not. US said they will send our f-16s you are wrong.
â@@vk45de54 Naw do some research F-16s have an extremely long travel range .
USA isn't sending any F16s!!
They have allowed Denmark, The Netherlands and Norway to donate F16 AMs.
đź 16 !!!! đ±đ·đș
đđ€Łđđ€Łđ€
@@jayhernanes7864 will be exciting to see what the pre-historic f-16 can achieve đâ€
"The Military Show" lol..... emphasis on "SHOW" đ€đ
@@Trulte60still far more lethal and advanced than anything Russia has it its arsenal
The USA must say yes before we can send them to Ukraine. It,s there technology.
We are NATO.
It is a bit annnoying to hear that the dutch and danish are giving their planes to save money on decommissioning. That is not true. The dutch even canceled a deal where they sold F16's, so they could given them to Ukraine.
Just 1/3 can fly. 100% cracked airframes. The wunderwaffen show. Ukraine is done. No nato, never nato.
Good on the Dutch. The Danes, on the other hand, are selling F16s to Argentina and delaying deliveries to Ukraine, probably hoping we will be done by then so they can sell all of them elsewhere, without looking like they broke their promise..
Very true.
Ah. Misinformation. Thanks for calling them out!
1/3 of the dutch planes can fly. They have been used for spare parts . Du the f35 transition. And 100 % has cracked airframes du their flighthours.
And not 1 runway in ukraine suits a f16.
There are so many mistakes in this video that I must assume that it is written by an AI.
Like in the very first sentence, "neither side has managed to gain air superiority". Ukraine does not have an air force, and has almost no air defense, while Russia is flying missiles and planes over the entire country. To claim that the air battle is evenly matched is absolute ignorance of reality.
"A" is enough, you can leave out the "I" for "intelligence".
Or use "AnI" for: "Artificial not intelligence"
It has to be
@@drutterUkraine has a small Air Force. Ukraine has a vast and integrated air defense. Russiaâs Air Force attacks Ukrainian target as far away as possible because of Ukraineâs vast integrated air defense system. Russian aircraft fly over Ukraine as little as possible because of the Ukrainian air defense system.
Do better.
@@christopherlamitie3506 You need to do better if you can't take those facts and arrive at the "Russia has superiority in the air" conclusion.
Update : Slava Ukraini đșđŠ.. Only 6 in !! F-16s in july 2024!!Bruh, these overhyped Clickbait Titles haven't worked for Ukraine for more than a year. We said the same thing for Leopard+Abrams + Challenger Tank. Please refrain from posting these clickbaits. Ukraine is in desperate support of US and Western Support. Republicans in Congress aren't helping đą . I am pro Ukraine... I hate Pootin .
@@tedpiecula3972đ
â@@tedpiecula3972Ever hear of the F-22 and the F-35, Ivan?
@@tedpiecula3972đ
â@@tedpiecula3972
Bud graduated from Clown University
â@@scottbrower9052 you mean those F35 who fall down every month and has problems with all electric systems and you mean this old F22 with small Power ? đ
This channel has, in one vid, destroyed any credibility it may have had. Inaccuracies, bullshit and hyperbole - unbelievable! Then again, it might be an April fools joke ....
Belgium is supplying F-16's to Ukraine. Pilots from Ukraine trained on the F-16 in USA were, in one instructors' word, "naturals"!
In depth donation list:
"-Denmark is donating 19 of its 40 F-16AM/BM Block 15 mid-life upgrade (MLU) aircraft to Ukraine.
-Belgium is sending an indeterminate number of its 53 F-16AM/BM Block 15 MLUs ( assume about the same numbers as other allied countries aprox 20+) ,
- as is Norway which has 25 remaining F-16AM/BM Block 15 MLUs ( I recon about half of current stock , about 10-15 birds , like others ).
-The Netherlands has said it is sending 24 of its 42 F-16AM/BM Block 15 MLUs to Ukraine, with more potentially to follow.
To protect the airframes 8 Patriot batteris ( serving currently 2 from Germeny , 1 from the USA , heard 5 more to be delivered) will be ready by end of 2024. Other air defence systems also on the way .
Note:Argentina will pay $320 million for the acquisition of 24 Danish F-16 jets.
Ukraine could purchase more f16 if they allocated money for it ( more likely in the long run) .
To wage an efficient war against the agressor , our heroes would need between 200-300 f16s , plus all the weapons come with them.
Update (12.04.24): "Norway is preparing to deliver 22 F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine as part of an air coalition."
Update (27.04.24) : Belgium transfers the entire F-16 fleet to Ukraine in the medium term, 44 in service + 8 trainer aircrafts.
LMAO HAHAHAHA
They are heroes now?
Who is gonna fly them? There are only half a dozen trained Ukrainians pilots. It will take a long time for these jets to become battle ready.
Even F-16 Block 50/52 are old but those which donated are just ancient.
â@@akm90115I'd say defending against invading nahtzees would count as heroes to anybody
With F-16, it is better than no F-16 in your Airforce.
Right it is better than nothing.
They're using mig 29s and had like 100 of them. 20 f16s + AWACS + patriot systems. My moneys on the f16s, and that plus the NATO drones feeding them data. Its why we invented the internet. To do shit faster and better.
*F-16s**
The F-16 is NOT a person.
_"It is better with F-16s* than with no F-16s in your air force."_
@@customfantasyhotwheels are you just bored?
Not really. Transitioning the logistics and training leaves you extremely vulnerable. Ukraine is only desperate since their Air Force has been wiped out.
As much as we all want to see Russia on the retreat, I wouldn't hold my breath here. We heard too many stories of game changers. I guess if anything, a consistent and long lasting support is what changes this war.
Yup. That. Not a single "superweapon" will win this war. I'd say not even F22's or F35s would win the war - if there'd be no further support.
Consistent, long lasting and (relatively) substantial support - thats what will win this war.
the only people who spoke about game chargers are the idiots who are ignorant to the horrors of war. They think Abrams will destroy russia or F16 will dominate the skies and put the russians on the backfoot. War is more nuanced then this, F16s wont be very useful until ukraine can start declaring air supremacy. This is a huge task for them becuase lets face it russia has a significantly larger airforce and even russia is affraid to send to many fighters into ukraine, HARMS can for the most part erradicate SAMS but it does not stop russian MANPADS making the whole idea of supremacy immensly difficult. But it is a step forwards.
The biggest thing Ukraine has recieved to being a game changer is Stormshadow and Himars. This literally made russia rethink their logistics which in effect changed the game. Everything else hasnt changed anything much if anything. The only Gamechanging thing modern western MBTS and IFVS have done is made sure ukrainians crews survived their engagements which is more precious then losing the vehicle, Especially for ukraine as that means sending troops to uk, germany or poland to be trained which can be 6 weeks to 6 months of training.
@@jxg1652 Sure, but the term here is "gamechanger", not "instant war-winning superweapon". Modern warfare doesn't work like that, anyway, as Putin continues to demonstrate. Comms and coordination rule, with the newest big factor evident here probably being "precision". And in combined arms, there are keystone systems that have disproportionate impacts. HIMARS, with drone and satellite recon, was one. F16s could be another, not least because they will allow Ukraine to unlock the full potential of a number of Western weapons currently jury-rigged to Soviet aircraft. The main thing, though, will be allowing Ukraine to seriously challenge Russia for the first time to claim at least partial air supremacy, and that's huge for NATO doctrine, particularly with so many Russian AA systems knocked-out by efforts to clear the way for Storm Shadow and Neptune strikes.
Remember, a big part of what limited the success of previous Ukrainian offensives was Russian air power hitting their armor. If that air power can't do that, the Ukrainians have proven pretty good at dismantling Russian fortifications on the ground, a process that fully-enabled JDAMs will help even more than the inferior FABs have helped Russian efforts.
@@jxg1652My guess is that it will be something that we have not heard of, that will shorten the war - some kind of black swan event: Putin's health, an insurrection, lack of political support, sanctions, who knows?
None of these technologies have 'changed the game': Javelin, Patriot, F16s, and so on - but it's the willingness of the Allies and Ukraine's own resistance which gives them hope.
So what happens when Ukraine runs out of their own fighters?
For for first time in this entire conflict, I clicked on a clickbait-titled video purely to improve my mood. I'm praying at this point that Western support for Ukraine is occurring in the dark.
It's not, Ukraine is a lost cause. Just wait until the world finds out what was going on there.
There are plenty of us who support Ukraine. Most of the commentors are just paid russian trolls who should be out on the runway guarding their jets against Ukrainian drones anyway.
Sorry to burst your bubble but there are two scenarios at play:
1. Ukraine only training for months using these weapon systems, leading to to subpar performances.
2. NATO troops are operating these weapon systems, and is being outclassed by Russia.
Either way, 24 planes ain't gonna stop 20,000 artillery shells pounding Ukraine every single day.
Its not. Vote blue. Europe's holding the bill right now. And they should, but the US also needs to step up, we are addicted the the US industrial base, Putin's puppets in the GOP are earning their paychecks (looks at mike Johnson, google it).
đ€Ą
The F16 which are gonna be supplied to Ukraine are not American donations but from Danmark and the Netherlands, they had too ask permission which was refused several times but after some talks the USA finally gave their permission to send the F16 to Ukraine.
The video does mention explicitly they are Danish and Dutch donations. You need to watch the whole video.
F-16s from Norway and Belgium as well....
The F-16 will not be a game changer. But will be an important element of a group of systems that can make the invasion much more difficult for Putin.
I thought the objective was for Ukraine to win? Are you saying US/EU are giving Ukraine just enough weapons to prolong the war and drain Russia's resources? Hmm. Sounds like the West is fighting a proxy war using Ukraine as an expendable pawn.
I don't care about "might, maybe, should"... I only care about what is actually happening. Stick to facts not expectations.
Trying to predict the future necessitates the use of conditional language, because the future is not yet written. So you're just complaining about nothing, or stupid, or a Russian puppet, or all 3.
Happening includes the future.
Other than continuesely having bad information in the video, i'd say it is factual. The F-16 will do fine, design to be an air superiority fighter jet, but with time turned out to be a decent multiple role fighter. It will be good. Ulitmamtly Ukraine has to get the front line moving again.
Ukraine pilots training in Sweden on SAAB JAS Gripen too
Best april fools yet! You almost got me!
That reasoning for only 7 losses in 2023 is far fetched. If you lost most of your aircraft the previous year, naturally, you lose fewer as you fly fewer sorties. The rate of loss per sortie flown has not changed between the two reference years.
A large number of those Ukrainian aircraft losses were suffered in the first two months of the war during the desperate fighting around Kyiv.
Wrong. The Ukies restored most of their losses with ex Soviet planes and parts of planes from other countries. That said, the mix did change, and Ukraine is short on planes that can launch the larger ATG missiles like Storm Shadow.
This video is a Taco Bell special. They got the order wrong, it tasted awful going down and the end had me running for the toilet. BOO!
The F-16 is an amazing piece of tech even today despite it being over 40 years old...But it all comes down to who's handling the plane. I doubt the Ukranians will be capapable enough after the blitz training they'll receive. The Belgian pilots for example have decades of experience and most pilots are veterans with the F-16's which makes them very wanted. I remember that Americans were all too happy to have Belgians with F-16A's assisting them because of the experienced pilots. But for the Ukranians this will be very foreign tech, quite literally.
You are correct. The Ukraine pilots are drinking from a fire hose right now. Prob not end well, the 16 is a handful designed on purpose to be unstable so they can maneuver at high speed and not lose momentum.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The addition of a single weapon system will not be a gamechanger.
Everything given has been a game changer
@@sshumkaer YES, In favour of RF.
Drones and Glide bombs are the only ones that are actually proved to be game changers in this conflict, really
@@zde1532 disagree. They've not been able to move the front lines or provide a breakthrough. The used drones are handy in a support role. But what is lacking is a way to punch through a hardened defense
@@ikkieman Glide Bombs are literally one of the main reasons for the mass retreat of Ukrainian forces in avdeevka (Along with their Lack of supply ofc)
For a better understanding, Avdeevka (since 2014 until Feb 2024) was the most heavily reinforced city in the whole >EUROPE< and with the help of these undetectable glide bombs, the Russians have been able to penetrate its defenses.
Right now the Russians are ramping up the production of a more massive FAB-3000 bombs from previous FAB-500 and FAB-1500. An upgraded game changer of the existing ones
The biggest advantages F-16's will provide are the tactical data links and the potential use of GBU-12 laser guided bombs. Remember the gulf war? Static ground forces such as what you see in the current stalemate and a precision strike munition that costs about $20k each is going to completely change how Ukraine fights. A 500 pound warhead that lands within a few feet of a designated target is absolutely devastating.
2 to 4 months to train pilots? It has taken longer than that by recent experience.
Are these pilots well trained? Can these F-16s be repaired easily when damaged? Do they synchronize well with their current systems?
I live in the Netherlands and the netherlands only give 18 F16 aircrafts so i don't know how you get at the number 52?
That is the amount of planes Ukraine can get, but it has to wait till all F16's are replaced with F35's
@@user-ho8jj8vt1h Not true they will get the f-16's first bettween Netherlands and Denmark they are gaining 50-60 So 52 sounds about right. They wont need to wait for 52 F-35's to be built They are getting credits for each f-16 MLU they send to use as credit for off the f-35's.
Denmark pledging 19 and the Netherlands an unspecified number. Then Ukraine president Zelensky said that the Netherlands would donate 42 jets once Ukrainian pilots and engineers had been trained.
LOL @@ YOU FORGOT DENMARK , NORWAY, POLAND MAY ALSO GIVE SOME F-16 ?? BY JUNE UKRAINE WILL HAVE 90 PLANES OF DIFFERENT TYP E@@
How to get CZcams money:
1 have AI produce a video full of errors.
2 let viewers comment to correct them
3) get those clicks
Why would they destroy their credibility with a channel of 700k for a few comments
Good question. Laziness? Private issues that lost time needed for quality control? Naively believing AI is the future and make less mistakes than it does? Idk
At 14 minutes, the cockpit on the right is not an F-16, but an F-15E
Your map in the beginning of the video. Both Greenland and The Faroe Islands are part of NATO, just like Svalbard.
Good catch. How many people (myself included) didn't realize that Greenland and the Faroe Islands are BOTH territories of Denmark, and thus are 'NATO territory'
@@nobodyknows3180 Thule knows...
Greenland can send puffin
RAF Typhoons have just recently taken off from and landed on roads and a RAG Jaguar landed on a new motorway years ago. As long as the road is in good repair their should be no problem F16 doing the same.
Alex, may the force be with you on your health journey.
There are so many factual mistakes in this video that we could use it as misinformation bait for the FSB. Sorry if I blew your cover.
Depends who's flying them.
No it realy dosn't. The pilot is largely irrelevant to the capabilities of modern aircraft.
Yeah you are right. F-16 is modern air craft. Dude when was the last time you left basement ?
@@MeepChangelingNonsense. The pilot is more important than the aircraft.
Yeah... Abraham's and leopards proven to be very useless... challenger could not even make it to the front line... đ
@@peterpanini96Who told you this? Vladimir Putin?
The overall knowledge between different forces is the key. F-16s don't make the difference, if not co-operating with the other armies.
Aircraft speed is not significant because fighters don't dogfight any more. Even in WW II, the idea was to get to higher altitude, get the sun at your back, and dive on the enemy, blasting them on the way through, escaping with superior speed from the dive - boom and zoom (or maybe, zoom and boom, works both ways). But now you fight enemies you cannot see, and what is most important is the radar, targeting, missiles, and other component that are not actual parts of the airplane, hence can be upgraded. The question is what the Ukrainians are going to be given. "F16" alone doesn't mean much.
"Accrue significant losses" from nuclear warfare more or less means "end of the functional world".
16:30 "being able to take off from regular civilian roads, something that's unthinkable in modern aircraft"
F-18 Super Hornet, F-15 EagleEX, F-35 C, and the Saab Gripen all have rough-runway capability, and every single one of them are modern aircraft in production. Su-35, and Su-57 are also rough-runway capable, as is the J20. All of these are modern aircraft with recent design (or re-design) history.
C'mon Simon. This is 5-second Google search level of inaccuracy.
One year ago you made this video :
"How Ukraine's New OP Tactic Will Win the War"
This was just before the "counter offensive".
The end.
"Close air combat" in the USAF is called ACM. Air Combat Maneuvers
They're also ignoring the maintenance aspect.
Each squad (8-12) aircraft requires around 24 highly trained maintenance personnel plus the attendant maintenance equipment & logistical tails.
All that equipment is already on the razor's edge of being at their end of service life time.
And close to MTBF estimated times.
I'm making an educated and experienced guess that for every three planes flying, one will be used for spare parts to keep the others aloft.
And as time increases, it will go to 1:1, then two aircraft cannibalized to keep one flying.
(Mean Time Before Failures)
Because the older the aircraft, the more maintenance it requires.
Itâs takes many years to produce a good F-16 Viper pilot.
Donât know the load-out they will carry, but I was told the F-16âs will be integrated with ground-based radars⊠Meaning that it appears Ukraine will try to fight Russia with asymmetric warfare. Does anyone know if this is true? FYI⊠Two retired Air Force pilots live on my block in Colorado Springs.
My friend is training Ukrainian pilots on the F16. It is happening fast. I have a bad feeling how that will end up.
Fighting Falcon, Viper is only a nick name.
@@jonmueller2117 Yeah sure he is Ivan.
The US isn't sending any F-16's.
The didn't object to the allies sending F-16's.
They did object, for about the first 1 year or so, than gave the OK, Congress approved
Not just the F16 but the nato pilot training
One cannot assume a piece of American Tech will be as effective for Ukraine as they are for the USA. 1. US Tech isn't standalone, it's a piece in a web of Tech.
2. US Jets perform so well because of overall experience and experience with that platform.
Those are two things I can immediately think of, off the top of my head.
If Ukraine uses the F16s for anything but defense, over areas already defended by manpads and other air defense systems, they will be expensive piles of metal.
This!
Extremly underrated comment.
For the US, the F-16 work great - because they have the numbers, the training, tons of HARMs to take out GBAD, and the support for the F-16: F-16 don't operate alone, they are integrated with Awacs, there are F-35 if necessary, F-22 if necessary...
Taking the F-16 without all these other parts and expecting it to do anything spectacular is just plain stupid.
Guys, maybe you are more familiar with stuff like League of Legends. You look at a late game DD and think: Wow, what a great hero.
Then you try to play it solo, without any support from the other lanes, from your jungler...
And you get destroyed. Theny you complain: But I thought it was good???
Yes, it is good, if combined with a team.
It's the same with F-16.
Without the other parts, a few F-16 won't change anything in Ukraine.
Equipment means nothing without trained pilots.
It may take hours of maintenance and a long logistical effort for every hour that pilot flys đ€
And Denmark, Norway and Holland!
Belgiumđ
USA isn't sending any F16s. They have allowed Denmark, The Netherlands and Norway to donate their F16 AMs.
â@@timmommens901No
Holland is a region within the NetherlandsÂč. Previously it was an official name but that was dropped in 2020. Âč It's bounded by the North Sea coast and extends about 30 km inland, it includes Rotterdam and The Hague in the south, Amsterdam, and Texel in the north.
The one thing I find concerning about sending western aircraft to Ukraine is a durability problem. The Russian fighters have flaps that cover the main jet intakes while on the ground, and use a wing-top intake until clear of the runway. (See 15:55 for an example) This is done to prevent pebbles, or other debris from damaging the engine. (FOD - Foreign Object Damage) American aircraft need clean runways to operate. I have had to do my share of FOD walkdowns on airbase tarmacs and carrier decks myself, so I can tell you; they are immaculate. The Russians just designed their aircraft to not need such cleanliness. While I think their aircraft are basically flying garbage, I have to admit that I find that feature to be pure genius.
Edited: Lol, I should have kept watching. 20 seconds after posting this he talks about it. Whoops.
While these donated F-16s are getting on in years they are far from obsolete given that over the years they've been given regular hardware and software updates to keep them current, they can also carry a wide range of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons.
Well, in fairness, the US (or Allies) couldnât just GIVE Ukraine a bunch of F-16s âback in February â22. You have to train the pilots (which they have been doing in western countries for the last 5-6 months), train the crews on how to repair and maintain the aircraft, collect/purchase all of the machinery/tools/equipment needed to maintain and fix the aircraft AND install the necessary facilities needed to maintain them at the airfield (like Hydrazine storage) and to store the weapons.
In the end, Iâm not sure how the F-16 is going to be any significant factor in the current war (as opposed to forming the backbone of a postwar airforce). You canât operate the F-16 in a vacuum over the battlefield or behind lines without taking out the enemy integrated Air Defenses. Doing that is more than launching a HARM. NATO (especially the US) and Israeli airforces spend an unbelievable amount of Time training to do that. It is done accompanied by drone use, electronic warfare and significant command, Control AND coordination.
The US makes running an air campaign look easy but it is incredibly difficult. Ukraine does not have the capabilities necessary to take out the integrated AD to an extent that they can conduct interdiction and strike missions; and there is only so much you get from CAS
Thatâs a lot of training and a lot of equipment.
Ukraine, with the little they had, managed to keep the Russians at bay. USA, with all their power, money, and state of the art weapons, had to flee in a hurry from Kabul with the Talibans chasing them!
Do not underestimate the Ukrainians. They showed to be clever and determined people, that deliver a lot with little means.
@@marcobassini3576 lol..ok buddy. If you think giving up and leaving a country after you have been trying to build some semblance of a stable society for 20 years-without success- is fleeing, then we disagree about the meaning of the word.
Not to mention....what the hell does that have to do with the thread? or do you just run around taking shots at the US whenever you have a chance?
@@mikeck4609 It is relevant to the thread because you said that Ukraine does not have the capabilities to use effectively the F16s. Actually the capabilities alone are not enough, the USA with all their capabilities not only had to abandon Kabul after 20 years of unsuccessful military campaign (as the Soviet Union did in the 80s), but also Saigon after 50k dead (do you remember the iconic image of the american helicopter taking off the roof of the USA embassy?), and Korea before that.
You have also to be determined, and usually determination is more important and can also more than compensate the supposed lack of "capabilities".
One thing the world has seen with the Ukrainians is that they are very very resourceful and resilient. Give them a match they'll bake you a cake....they will find a way around any logical issues that may arise.
Very comprehensive video. Nice job!
Taking off from a public road with a modern western fighter jet is done regularly. Finland flies F/A 18, and practises operations from some roads dedicated as emergency airfields multiple times a year.
It's also not such a big deal, since it's still a paved surface. What old Soviet aircraft can do though is taking off from an unpaved surface as long as it has enough load bearing capabilities to support the weight of the plane.
APRIL FOOL'S EVERYBODY! Love to see how many people are unaware of XD.
it was at least 1 day late to be april fools so I guess you are the only fool here
posted 5 days ago, its currently the 7th here
I am unaware. What is XD? The name implies a condom
Im very sure the F16s will change dynamics and shift the balance
Friends, please don't be naive: Just because "..We aren't directly sending our planes, doesn't mean 'Incentives for new planes, ummm, can't be used for umm, 'other Countries, ..to simply provide Ukraine with that which they appear to so desperately need... đ€đČđâ
Mines and drones prevent either side from advancing. Since this does nothing to either, it's safe to assume it won't have any effect in that sense.
They won't be getting "modern" F-16s and thus won't be getting that 110 Mile range radar. What they're getting are early 90's updated versions...
There getting 40-50 F-16A's is still a HUGE threat to Russia! ButDen mark Uses F-16's ordered in 2003 so there not that old. F-16A/B Block 20 MLU and The Royal Danish Air Force purchased a total of 77 F-16A/B aircraft, with 48 operational units and 14 spares upgraded to the MLU standard. These MLU F-16s will remain in service until 2020-2025, when they will be replaced by the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
What Iâve read so far makes it sound like there will be a mixture of versions. Not just one. The maintenance of these units and training of the pilots are the biggest challenges. The ability to upgrade the HARM missiles theyâre been using, but in a lesser mode, to full mode will be a big game changer. It could decimate Russias air defenses. Ukraine will also get a much better ability to hit high altitude bombers that Russia has started using to launch glide bombs. Ukraine will also need a viable Air Force to protect the country after this war ends, so it is a real step forward to move to Western aircraft now.
If the F-16s are fitted with upgraded radars they will which are needed to fire amraams.
Block-50-52 all the way into early 200s, they will indeed be getting several that will have the ability to see over 100 miles. That is a huge upgrade, and at the end of the day, with all the gadgets the US they could end up with something truly amazing
@@killingyouwithlogic5808 The recites spell it out pretty clear. Block 50-52 those are fairly modern and going to be huge
More modern aircraft may, in fact, be able to take off from even civilian roads (e.g. Gripen), most of them just aren't designed to do so. There even were speculations that Gripens may be more suitable for Ukraine than F-16s, but there are too few of them in existence.
With Sweden in NATO now, I would not be surprised to see the Gripen orders to start taking off. Sweden being in NATO also ties Brazil closer to the West. So much for BRICS lol
Teh F-16 Block 20 MLU that they are getting will be better at strike Attacks then Gripen anyways.
In addition to the F-16 there are several other aircraft that could be donated to the Ukrainians are the Saab JAS-39 Griffen, Dassault Mirage 2000-5/9 and maybe early model (Tranche 1) Eurofighter Typhoons.
You are completely wrong. F-16 which will be provided to Ukraine are old model.
Su-35 will have twice more radar range against old F-16.
Tracking Range Against Small fighter:
F-16C Block 50/52 (AN/APG-68(V)7): 80 km
Su-27M/Su-35 (Zhuk-PH): 165 km (front), 60 km (rear)
And R-77 missile has a range of 110 km, so F-16 will be downed even before it has a radar lock on Su-35.
lol using the best case scenario stats when that will never be the case, you have a lot of data but don't know how it works irl
I think the most important thing is the morale value in Ukrainian troops seeing f-16s flying over their lines and the Russians seeing that and being shot down by them is huge and can't be measured. You should only need a few high profile incidents for the effect to be more than their numbers.
They wont be flying over their lines. They might see explosions off in the distance from them
@@sshumkaer they will prob take a slowly slowly approach
@@bestestusername im just saying big splas
Ukrainian F-16's will force ruzzia to redeploy existing aviation assets and acquire additional resources to defend against F-16 threat capabilities. This is a huge advantage to Ukraine without having flown a single F-16 sortie. If Ukraine can actually deploy the F-16 with the same ingenuity as some of its other western weapons, the orcs will be hard pressed to cope.
It will in deed be a major deal as long as they can defend them once they are on the ground. In the end you just never know how the U.S. will upgrade them, they have all sorts of gagets that can take the Block 50- 52 F-16 fighting Falcon and make it even more modern with variety of jammers and sensor pods. You just never know.
Here are some clarifications.Ukrainian pilots are being trained both in Europe and in the US. The US while not donating Air Frames did approve Danish,Dutch and other NATO F-16 operators to transfer those Airframes to Ukraine. The US is also supporting training of Maintainers and I imagine Operations Folks. I am sure that the Ukrainians are working with NATO Operations people with how to base, protect and support the UK AF Vipers when they become Operational. Yes, the JAS39 is designed to Operate from Roads HOWEVER, other NATO Birds do train to do this as well. The F-18A/C would also work for the Ukrainians but the Vipers are more plentiful, there are more Airframes, parts, avionics, Maintenance Support Etc. It will be interesting to see how the Ukrainians deploy the F-16s. The Vipers can give Ukrainian Commanders options for augmenting Air Defense as well as frontal support until the 155mm shells arrive (and the US Govt pulls its head out of its butt).
Will end? The proof of the pudding will be how well trained the pilots are.
Wow, this needs some fact checking
The F-16⊠âitâs not just about achieving air superiorityââŠ
nah, itâs about wrecking your day and f**king sh*t up!!!
thye will move mud
At 14:30 the right cockpit looks like one from the F-15E Strike Eagle. I bought that module in DCS.
Ukrainian mastery of whatever weapon they have to defeat the Russian army is the deciding factor. They overachieve continuously and will continue to defend their beloved country against the aggressor. Itâs not the weapon, itâs the soldier wielding the weapon. Of course with better and more weapons they can be more effective. I wouldnât underestimate them if I was in a conflict with them. Remember, David defeated Goliath with a sling and a stone. Boldness and standing your ground is a deterrent in itself. Russia should be ashamed of trying to beat up a much smaller opponent like a bully . And getting their ass kicked unexpectedly. Itâs hurt them internationally and economically besides the equipment and men they have lost. This is a very costly situation for them in many ways. People view Ukraine as a hero and Russia as a coward. I donât think many Russian people are proud of their countryâs performance either. They arenât even being told the truth about their losses which are considerable. I donât know how this conflict will end but it wonât be pretty for the Russians in any cat.
I think the F16s will quell the Russian use of glide bombs after they destroy the Russian air defenses which protect them. Fully functional HARM missiles will provide those means. That will make Russia retreat from the airspace needed to launch these weapons. Ukraine will likely not want to risk their small F16 fleet in aerial combat, using it more in a ground support and defensive capacity. The F16 will also provide the means for Ukraine to make use of glide bombs as well as cluster bombs, which are likely to not be very well received by the Russians. All in all, the F16s could have a very big impact in this conflict. It is a shame it has taken so long to get them into the fight.
What makes you think that F-16s would be absolutely, 100% invincible to Russian air force and AA missiles? The way you people portray it, F16s are so badass that they only need to refuel and nothing could stop them. You do realize Russia is not even Iran in terms of military capability, and Ukraine has already lost 1,2 million soldiers KIA - by their own calculations?
They already determined that cross training pilots from their MIGs to the F-16 poses to much of a hazard because their operational configuration are too dissimilar.
And one habit carried over from one platform to another could potentially be life-threatening.
So essentially they have to begin from page one novices.
NATO may have to resort to the USSR's Cold War practice of "advisor pilots"...
that's the only way that I foresee the F-16s making much of a difference.
Not going to be an issue, some of these guys in America training on the F-16 in Arzoina have already been their 9 months plus.
Yeah, F16 wonât change a shit
You right cuz people are still going to die đź
Your correct the F16 won't change anything at first. The Ukrainian pilots have never been in combat with this fighter jet. It's like taking a NASCAR driver and putting them in a Formula One racecar. There will be a learning curve. Same with the maintenance side as well. Now you have to change your infrastructure to accommodate an F16. It takes time and trying to do this while in combat conditions.
Abram tank got destroyed with $500 dollar drone so this f16 will be dropping out of sky
@@9w9id I worked on F18s. Engines and fuel systems for 8 years. We did Red Flag with F16s.
We used to call them the Fighting Falcons. Or the Thunderbirds.
Do not underestimate the The Thunderbirds.
@@9w9id Thousands of Russian tanks including brand new ones like their supposedly super tanks got destroyed by cheap drones. Abrams was down armored and it like 40 years old. Down armored NATO scrap still lasts 3 times longer on the battlefield than anything Russia has.
Want to make an even bigger difference for Ukraine? Upgrade their electronic warfare capability and send them some E2 Hawkeyes from Davis-Monthan AFB. Those F-16s Ukraine is getting aren't the newest models though. Last I heard, they were primarily F-16A's and B's that have received their mid-life updates. While this brings them to be the rough equivalent of the later Block 30/32 aircraft, that's still quite a ways behind the Block 50/52 common today and the Block 60s/70s that have come since.
While I don't know about Ukraine's ability to support them, F/A-18C/D Hornets would also be a great addition. Especially if that also included some EA/18 Growlers. The F/A-18 has all the same ground attack capabilities of the F-16 and can also be very effective in air to air combat, even if its not quite as good as the F-16 or Su-35 with its thrust vectoring.
I could definitely see Ukraine making use of F-16s and F/A-18s, with added guidance from electronic warfare aircraft like the E2 orthe E/A-18. And then give them a bunch of SuperCobras to support their infantry and dissuade the blatant Russian artillery usage they currently employ.
Pilots wonât even be trained to 2025, 94 f-16âs are turning AirPower around ok đ
Well yeah... an F14 defeated like 3 SU57s .
LOL
That's why Russia keeps taking Ukrainian fortified positions.....
@@diegoflores9237 LOL still posting nothing but blatant Kremlin falsehoods I see
@@diegoflores9237At the current rate, Russia will take over all of Ukraine by the year 3784
â@@diegoflores9237You live in Nicaragua, a failed state that can't even live on it's own...
Putin is TERRIFIED of F-16!!
That's why Russia keeps advancing and zelensky keeps begging for weapons
@@diegoflores9237 Russia is DOOMED. Putin is HORRIFIED of superior NATO military technology!
@@diegoflores9237 Nobody is scared of Russia man. If this is the best Ru can do we have nothing to worry about , 2 years of war in Ukraine and how many 100's of thousands Russians dead for how much of the map territory? We ain't worried..
@@diegoflores9237 Name one area theyâve advanced in
@@zenkaienergy3135 ... after Ukraine killed off several battalions worth of Russians while losing very few of their own, and destroyed several Russian tank divisions. If you think that's a victory for Russia, congrats join their army and be another life wasted on a meaningless "victory" that just depopulated your nation.
Fun fact: the R-77's nickname is Amraamski because, you guessed it, it started out as an AMRAAM knockoff.
And later:
"Is bad Ukrainian pilots tactics"
"No one said f16 is a game changer".
Opens video
1st sentence :Neither side has managed to achieve air superiority.
Get a good laugh.
Exits.
That isn't to far from the truth, but it have increased
@@sshumkaer Russia does have air superiority over battlefield
@@adityabharat1445 not much of one
@@sshumkaer ??
@@adityabharat1445 they do not. The air over the battle space can be best described as contested.
Honestly, I think that the F16 shouldnât be prioritized for air to air combat
Since they are more compatible with nato munitions, I think they should be used for more air to ground based missions, attacking more radar stations, SAM sites, ammo dumps further behind the lines, and other command and control locations
Feel free to disagree, itâs just my opinion that Ukraine would get the most use out of the F16 that way
It needs to be both, right? You can only hit so far behind the lines if you have to worry about anti-air missle, whether ground based or launched by enemy aircraft.
F16s will most likely act as wild weasels. Drawing out enemy air defences so they can shoot them down with HARMS, this is the only way they can make an impact as the battlefield is littered with anti air munitions. winning air control is probably more difficultt then winning the war itsself at this point. I wouldnt be surprised if either side gets dominance that the other might call a ceasefire. Air dominance is very important and the war will stagnate until either side controls the skies.
F-16s are multi-role fighters. They will kill planes and move mud in equal measure, and just because they are on a ground pounding mission doesn't mean they can't carry A2A missiles at the same time for self defense, because they can, and they will. How the mission unfolds is what dictates the priority. Also, they might have CAP, and SEAD birds up there too. The F-16 is a jack of all trades airplane and excels at everything it does.
@@ImpendingJoker this is technically wrong, F16 was designed as a cheap exportable air superiority fighter. It became multirole as it was iterated on. But overall its used mostly in an air to air combat role.
America fielded top of the line F15 Eagles as their dominance fighters while F16 would be far more numerous and give america more numbers overall.
They will use as more strike Fighter! They will not be involved in many Air to air engagements. And your 100% right! Russia doesn't have air superiority so there is no need for Air to air unless by chance they will be doing Strike attacks. Russia messed up bad not Trying gain air superiority the first 72 hrs. If Ukraine can maintain Sorties with out intercept Threat that 100% could Force Russia out because personally I don't think they have a air force to expend not that they will Risk with Patriots and what ever other nato Anti air they my be using + F-16's.
Back in the Gulf war in 91' , the US sent up a number of EW gathering aircraft and kept them high up and a few hundred miles away from danger. These aircraft just sat there in space waiting to collect signals. In a pre-planned mission, the US and UK sent in a couple of squadrons of aircraft and headed from Saudi to the Iraq border. The Iraqi radar operators then started lighting up these US/UK aircraft ready to fire. These aircraft could not be attacked over Saudi's skies because that would of dragged Saudi into a war and could possibly of created a much wider middle east conflict. All the time these radar stations and ground defence missile launchers were ready to hit the launch buttons, but they waited for the aircraft to cross the border before engaging. These aircraft got close to the border and then turned back around and landed at their bases. This " dry run " was repeated several times. It was never about coaxing the Iraqis to fire first, it had a greater significance. You see, each time a missile battery was activated ( armed and good to go ) - it gave off a distinct signature and its location. After several of these " dry runs ", those loitering aircraft were just sat there hoovering up all this information. They could tell what type of radar they had, and from how far away they could pick up targets, they knew the same for their missile batteries too, but most importantly, they knew their exact location. When the offensive started on 15th January 1991, the initial wave of attacks came from many many Tomahawk cruise missiles. They hit all the big stuff, the radar stations, the missile batteries, the power stations in Bagdad and all of their media ( tv and radio ). Those high value targets that couldn't be hit with conventional cruise missiles were simultaneously hit by a handful of F117 nighthawks. They got in, hit their targets and got out. This paved the way for all of the US and UK aircraft to take total air dominance and hit any military targets it deemed necessary. That then created a scenario that saw Iraq fold like a cheap suit. Why doesn't the US throw up some of these aircraft to hoover up the radar signatures from the safety of international airspace and then feed this info to the Ukrainian ground troops. Ukraine could use their existing arsenal of aircraft, Brimstone + HIMARS to knock all of those big pieces out for good. Ukraine would still have to contend the airspace with ruzzia but since ruzzia has about exhausted its stockpile of ageing aircraft, I don't think it would be too hard for Ukrain to win the skies. Then they'd have ruzzia on the ropes and running for their own borders. I know that the Iraqis were so fearful of even turning on their air defences because they knew that they'd receive a Tomahawk through the letterbox within the hour. We know how bad the ruzzian military are and they're running out of anything any good - quicker than they can retrain and replace.
@Echo30Mike You aren't dealing with a third world military now, Mike. Besides NATO is already feeding the Ukies that sort of intelligence and has been before this phase of the war started. Ukies can't do much with it...though they did have some successful strikes early.
My son-in-law was with the "Green Mountain Boys" when they flew f16's always bragged about them
The USA did not provide those F16s, they come from the European air-forces, especially the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. We also trained the pilots and maintenance personal. The USA did nothing, just signed a paper, that they would not object. Beside the US Republican Party and thus the House is controlled by Putin, so the USA is now so useless, that they are incapable of providing 155mm ammunition. Besides Dutch F16s have been used in Libya; Afghanistan and Syria.
@bertnijhof5413 The US House of Representatives is doing what it is supposed to do...protect US taxpayers' money. Nice to see you acknowledge NATO aggression in Libya, Afghanistand, and Syria.
Ukraine still need more SAM systems. If they get them together with the F16s, the SAM systems can give the F16s better opportunities to deliver CAS, to Ukrainian forces on the ground.
The F16s Ukraine is getting, are really good at CAS, thanks to advanced targeting pods. The Danish ones use Israeli Litening pods.
And BTW.. Argentina just bought 24 Danish F16s. It's a good deal. There are still many hours of Air policing hours in them.
they are getting a block 50-52 per last upgrades receipts, those are pretty good, and at the end of the day the US has so many gadgets you just never know what you might end up with
Storm Shadow = Game Changer
HIMARS = Game Changer
Leopard 2, Challenger 2 and M1 Abrams were also Game Changer.
USA is NOT sending F-16ÂŽs to Ukraine as you suggest. All F-16s sent to Ukraine were purchased decades ago by Denmark, Norway or the Netherlands. USA only got money for them and will get even more money for their maintenance and spare parts and ammo. Just to clarify...
These countries want to give Ukraine the F-16's because they want to modernize the own airfleets with F35's and some models created by Western European countries. Before getting the F16's, pilots much be trained. Mechanics must be trained. Support personnel must be trained. Sufficient armaments supply chain is needed.
But it's not about an airplane, it's about the fact that the pilot has to be completely at ease with it, that machine is great, but also difficult for the pilot to control and make decisions. I reckon Ukrainian pilots won't be able to do it in combat. Their roles and missions in the F-16 will no longer be the same as in the MiG or Su.
Depends on the numbers.
No. Patriot missiles stopped Russian Airforce, not F16s
he did not say that also , um yeah as the F16 are not there yet , He said once there and with modern missiles they will start pushing them back
Russia wasn't able to fly over Ukraine because Ukraine has s300 and tons of other soviet anti air systems from the start of the war. And even old soviet s300 are better than patriots in terms of range and speed
Well than we have double troble maybe
@@yellowtunes2756 unless it's meaningful speed which it isn't than it doesn't matter, The Patriot System is just better, The only argument here is that the beginning they use d to have like 300k S300 rounds but fired most off them off and now they are the same boat with all the air defense systems
@@sshumkaer c300 is deployed in 5min, while patriot needs 15-30min. C300 flies faster, so it can intercept targets quicker, so operator will have more time to react and send another rocket quicker in case of a failure. S300 can also intercept higher targets
So how exactly patriot is better? In what metric?
It frustrates me that people keeping referring to Russian nuclear threats. Putin gambles on being able to deter sufficient Western support. Russia is nowhere near as strong as they have convinced the West that they are and there is little likelihood of them doing anything other than stamp their little feet and whine if their threats are ignored.
Think of all the 10's of thousands of dead & wounded of body & mind we might have saved had we given Ukraine an Air Force right from the start. What kind of sick game are we playing?
I personally feel the F-16âs will be used mainly In air to ground combat and secondly in air to air combat, first priority wouid be I wouid assume is to be used as a platform to fire storm shadow missiles, Harmm anti radiation missiles, etc, at first they could use quick hit and run tactics trying to take out key Russian targets, artillery positions, ammo dumps, helicopters, etc
If Russia cannot have air superiority with hundreds of modern war planes, much less Ukraine with 2 dozens of planes
âŠ.was there more to this comment? It reads as if itâs unfinishedâŠ.
â@@mysticdragonwolf89
Alternate comment:
If the Russian Airforce, with it's hundreds of war planes cannot have air superiority, then the Ukrainians can't have it too, considering they'll only be receiving dozens
@@zde1532 The Russian air force and it's planes suck.
I thought F16 is considered a multirole aircraft and not a air dominance aircraft.
F-16 Falcon was above all a fighter jet, however like everything in time with upgrades it becomes decent at smacking around ground targets, and it will. The U.S. in general has so many gagets they could put on these things that in the big picture if they are still interested in Ukraine 2 years from now, you could end up with an amazing F-16. With Modern Sensors, and Jammers, and better computers. In the end you just have no idea. For example look at the Storm Shadow, we can agree it's been very affective on Aircraft they had to modified in order for them to be used. Now take the F-16 that can fire everything in NATO and keep lock on stuff without modifiers. Part of the reason why Storm Shadow is amazing and defeats Russia is because they have this little ingenuise design on it called the Maul. as it get's closer to target the Maul breaks away from Storm Shadowm broadcasting singles which draws the enemy air defense to it, its basically a flying decoy, while the 400 or 600 MPH cruise missile sails right over enemy positions and strikes it's target. The Maul is amazing for what it does, it's probably a part that costs only $200.00 dollars. Those are the type of little things I am referring to about the F-16, its like getting a Christmas gift you just have no idea what that final vision will be.
I'm also interested in if Sweden will donate Gripens in the coming months. From what I heard they better suited for Ukraine since they don't need an air strip for take off.
I keep finding inaccuracies and embellishments in every single video.
Just like the Abrams and HIMARS ended it before
I mean thats kind of dumb what the one form of battle russia has completely failed at??? Air superiority They should of had it week 1 with in 72 hrs. The F-16 will be a huge help! Also There Navy was a huge mistake also so I guess there are 2 forms lol
ââ@@killingyouwithlogic5808huge help? Firstly this youtuber got the missiles comparison range vs range wrong...there's the R77-1 the R77 M and R-77RVV-AE-PD which are the newer version then they also have the R37M even though designed to shoot down Awacs...it was used against smaller aircraft...doing a youtube video just to suit a narritive doesn't mean it will end Russian Airforce.. just like the NATOs and US tanks didnt have any impact when every body else besides the Russians thought counter offensive would destroy the Russians defence
@@Kullgan The Main Job of the F-16 is not Air to air in this case. There is no air superiority So they will be likely Flying Sorties on the Ground forces ad key targets. IF they were only using The F-16 block 20 MLU for just air to air Then I would agree not huge help But because Russia gave up air superiority Thats not the real risk they will Be using Stand off Air to Ground Missiles and Just piss pound the ground .
@@Kullgan Also Russian Air Forces is already done because it is not effective vs UKRAINE there nieghboor this only shows Russia CANT gain air superiority!
And your also VEry Wrong about The US tanks and nato tanks they made a huge difference just because they didn't end the war doesn't mean there not effective.
@@killingyouwithlogic5808 Russian Airforces and forces generally are done was what the West used to think...mainly because the Russians underestimate and failed to defeat ukraine which on paper is an inferior forces...but what the west discovered is a country which could adabt quiclky and above all produce quicker than all the West combined....there are only a few of those smart and advance guided missiles or bombs which can also be intercepted...thats why the updated FABS are doing so much more damage...cheaper, can be produce quicker and still on par damage wise compare to the hypersonic and expensive missiles
after what the Wagner group did it's not intimidating when I think about Russia đ ... I dunno maybe it's because I was in the army
Not intimidating would be an army running away in Vietnam then again in Afghanistan.
That would be a really crappy army.
US Army runs away faster than the french army.
@@user-tt6il2up4o Which armies ever won in Afghanistan? I don't know one, however, out of all the countries that gave up on conquering Afghanistan, only one state had a collapse after.
You know wich one I'm talking about. :-) The greates superpower EVER! Soviet Union!
Gets it teeth kicked in once in Afghanistan: "I think I'm tired of being a superpower".
@@jxg1652 Technically the British won afghanistan in the 20th century does that count ? đ
Among the many listed inaccuracies below. The most glaring one is any notion that the F16 will make a difference.
The F16 will not be getting the kind of stand-off munitions it will need to both avoid Russia anti-air and to score air-air. Additionally, the F16 Ukraine is receiving will not have most of the components that modern F16s have that make them competitive in todays era. Also, the amount of F16 Ukraine is receiving is not enough to conduct even a basic level of war time sorties.
That isn't even mentioning that there are no plans for replacement aircraft or munitons.
it's only game changing when the pilots receive enough training. wouldn't expect a fresh car driver to win the group b rally
They're flying Mig-29s and Su-27s for decades, plus some of them are already in the US training, regardless of whether Ukraine will get F16s. They're pro pilots. It takes a few months, but they're hardly fresh car drivers. Its more like jumping from wrc2 to wrc.
@@Yiannis2112 agreed
You released this 4 hours ago and Ukrainian pilots have been training on the f16 in the US since Feb. perhaps having up to date information could be helpful in the presentation of the facts? Idk but you were making it sound like itâs gonna be ages and theyâve been in the US training for a 2 months already. That doesnât include any training they could be receiving in any other nato nations. Shock of all shocks there are f16 trainers in many of them and some Ukrainians speak other languages besides English.
How many months does it take to train a pilot to fight in a F16 proficiently?
@@drutter fresh in the AF? Or the crash course the Ukrainians are getting? 6weeks to 9months. Depends but they donât have to all train in the US nor did the US have to be the beginning of their training.
@@arsenicjones9125 And when would that 6 weeks to 9 months of training begin, once the F16s (along with their support staff, spare parts, upgraded runways etc) arrive in the country?
@@drutter no. Dig bat. They started training in the US in February. As in in the past. And thatâs only training in this country. The US has sold f16s to many nato countries which have their own trainers.
Idk why you bother to respond when itâs clear youâve not read any of whatâs been written
@@arsenicjones9125 Oh, so they're training on flight simulators? Okay then. By the way, I'm not asking you to respond. If you're bored, or busy, please don't feel the need to inject your expert opinion, we'll somehow make do without.