>

No.  It has no business being anywhere near an active warzone with modern militaries.
...But ask again in the Spring and then we will... >

Yeah once they've secretly trained enough pilots under the guise of other training programs. >

The issue with f-16 isn't just training pilots (thought that is another issue) but maintaince and repair for the jets, it isn't something that can be learned within a few months and could take a few years with working experience on them before you could effectively work on them especially in a war zone where getting the parts you need could be hard due to logistics. >

Would the AT6 Texan II be a better donation? A simpler ground-attack/air-reconnaissance aircraft of great performance, that should be less logistically nightmarish. >

It would survive about 3 minutes in a modern warzone >

I was kinda hoping it would fare better. But I think you're right. >

It’s combat capability is good for counter insurgency against militants who don’t have advanced weapon systems but practically useless against a real military. >

Would it possibly have a place with border observation roles. Like near Belarus/Ukraine? Or is that also risking too much SAM interception? Turn it into an electronics warfare aircraft?