>

Because NATO is, whump whump
...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? >

No.  It has no business being anywhere near an active warzone with modern militaries. >

Understood. Thanks. >

That's right. Other NATO countries provide the F-16's and they get credit toward F-35's in return. Win-Win. >

I hope that is the case. >

Either way, I don't take these sorts of statements to mean much at all. Do you remember when they weren't going to provide M777's and then they weren't going to provide HIMARS and then they weren't going to provide Bradley's and then they weren't going to provide Abrams M1's? >

“Weren’t going to” as in President Biden said “no we won’t provide them”?
Edit: actually yeah he did, but a year later

At the outset of the war last year, the US refused to allow the transfer of so-called offensive weapons such as the M1 tanks and Patriots for fear of appearing to escalate the conflict.
A year later, Mr Biden has approved transfers of both weapon systems to Kyiv. >

How are Patriot missiles offensive by any stretch of the imagination?  I guess that's why someone put 'so-called'. >

There offensive to the incoming rockets >

It is rather offensive to be shot down, is it not? >

Just ask the 3 girls I asked to marry me last week >

Sounds like you're the one getting shot down >

I thought the reason for this is because they would have to retrain all their pilots (who are trained on the mig platform). >

They would also need a whole batallion of ground crew to service the fighters >

That’s why now that they’re getting tanks the US will start training them on F-16s in Germany. >

It's not really a quick solution and not all f16s are the same block.   There are a couple european countries that have been looking to offload their f16 fleet as they upgrade to f35.  Or the US could make an export variant out of ANG f16s as USAF replaces them with the high blocks.  Either way those transfer likely wouldn't happen until the replacements are ready to go operational.
If it's done - I wonder if the war will be over before they are ready to go operational. >

Even when the shooting stops Ukraine will need arms to keep another invasion from happening. There will be a long period of beefing up that border afterwards. >

Definately will be, you just have to question if it's the best use of resource to take pilots out of service and train them on a platform that they don't have and can not maintain, while the war does not seem remotely close to being over.
If Ukraine wins/survives I can see the Ukrainian army becoming more west aligned with it's weaponry, so that there isn't need to retrain soldiers/operators/pilots if another war/invasion breaks out, making supply lines much simpler. >

Not to worry, they also said no about the Abrams at first. >

I think they just wanna prioritize defense right now and armored vehicles are very helpful towards that whereas jets require a lot of maintenance and care that Ukraine can’t be bothered too much with at the moment since a russian offensive is still likely. >


they just wanna prioritize defense right now and armored vehicles are very helpful towards that

Not really. Tanks and other armored vehicles are offensive weapons. The best thing you can have on the defense is artillery and a surplus of anti-air and anti-tank missiles. >

Tanks can still be used for defense and they’re great for the terrain in Ukraine. >

I'm guessing its because they'd need to base US military contractors to maintain the jets. Its like 17 hours of maintenance per hour of flight. Its not an excessive cost and time relative to other aircraft but since the US isn't going to cross the line with personel in UKR the Ukrainians would have to be educated and trained to take it on. If the USA has any intention of loaning F16s the decision to prepare would have been made a while ago. >

We’ll just replace polands and what Poland does with them is none of our business. >

Accurate >

Alright with me, just so long those f-35's replacing the "missing" f-16's are nice and shiny >

Just providing spare parts for F16s. And to ease the transportation of parts they will be assembled into F16s. Once they reach ukraine, the parts are not the USAs problem. >

Nah he heard the rumours about the gripens so he is like “Fuck F-16’s, F-35 is the way to go” >

There is zero reason whatsoever that Ukrainian pilots have been training on f16s for long enough to be through the 1st class and half way thru the 2nd.
That's all just for the science. >

It’s weird seeing the difference between the comments when US officially says “no” and when Germany’s out of context quotes claiming Scholz said “no” are posted. >

For the first point, I saw comments pointing out that Poland hadn’t officially asked Germany but was still saying “Germany doesn’t want to” and “we’ll send them anyway” to get ready for election time. 
Is there evidence of Poland having officially made a request to send the tanks but being rejected? >

And just a day later Germany announced that it is ready to send tanks to Ukraine and allow others to do so: Germany U-turns over battle tanks, saying it will send Leopard 2s to Ukraine >

In all honesty I can't understand why Ukraine would want F16s anyway. 
Surely the risk vs reward of using jets in Ukraine is seriously negligible anyway whether you are Russian or Ukrainian, the sheer amounts of precision SAMs that is present in Ukraine surely lends it to being more of a drone/artillery war?
I get that it's always nicer for new stuff but I think they are better off pushing for better missiles, way more cost effective if nothing else. >

How long will it take ukrainian pilots to learn the new systems in these fighters? >

So, I'm no analyst but an F-16 in a short range war like this could be phenomenal for controlling air space. Logistics are a bit of a motherfucker though, and unless some previous pilots are volunteering it'll take a while to get going. >

It’s good to have a steady hand in this, although I’d prefer for the F-16s to be sent.
Regardless, secretly train them in F-16s so if it does escalate, you have that chess piece ready to go.
But before that the polish Mig deal should be the first step in escalation.
Deterrence and reciprocation for deterrence is key to ending this conflict by giving Ukraine leverage in negotiations. >

Sweet!   That means we are providing them with F16s.  See? We can Russian playbook too. >

I don't understand the hesitance to provide Ukraine with fighter jets. They could be trained and ready to go on F-16's by now. What's it going to do? Piss off Russia? Make them invade Ukraine? That has already happened. We should be giving Ukraine everything it needs to win, not to just survive. >

Money.  Why give our F-16s, when we can get other countries to give their f16s and promise to sell them f35s to replace them. >

Good point. The reason why I said so is because the US has a large inventory of retired F-16's just sitting there going to waste. Why not give them to Ukraine? >

Well it would be a big help to modernize some of our allied countries air forces.  And if we could make a quick buck while we're at it?  --Shrugs--    I'm not even sure about the service life of the f-16s, they were old when I was enliated back in the day.  They have to be running down to the end of their service career.  But then again the A-10 is still floating around bringing down hell. >

For now. >

Sure...give it a month or two. I will bet they already are training crews and pilots. >

Buncha T-38s training in Texas right now and very thick Slavic accents talking to ATC sometimes. >

Do you have a source on that? Ukrainians training in the US has been rumored for a while but I’ve never heard anything definitive until now >

Might be recordings around San Antonio/Houston/Dallas of their ATC and transcripts available on YouTube. >

Yet >

Would Ukraine not be better off with more air defences and the accompanying crew? They need to deny the airspace and win the air war to support their ground troops against the coming Russian offensive in the Spring. 
More air-to-air and anti missile systems could effectively be deployed for less money and less time training and blanket the air space making it impossible for Russian jets to fly sorties without the very high risk of being shot down. >

Biden didn't actually say that. Shit headline >

“We are not sending f16” he said with a pantomime smirk. The crowd boo’d and jeered and threw their beer cans at him. “Ok, we will send f16”. The crowd erupts with a crescendo of cheers. And after a few minutes when the crowd quietens... “But we will not send f15” the president states sadly. And again the crowd boo’s and sneers. “We already did send f15!!!!!”. And the crowd erupts and chants “fuck you russia” which reverberate around the stadium, nation, and democratic free world, while Biden shoots free t-shirts out of a cannon. >

No to F-16s, yes to F-35s? :-D >

Fuck that. F-16s will still dominate the skies against Russia at WAY lower lost to us, and we don't risk a downed F-35's technology getting into Russian hands, and then probably Chinese hands when it's sold to the highest bidder. >

I had hoped the :-D face at the end made it clear my comment wasn't meant to be taken seriously. >

When Biden says no no no, he means yes yes yes .  Scholz actually means no, but gets shamed into saying yes. >

Ah the dance begins...