It seems the strategy is that the UK floats the suggestion of these new weapons/capabilities and then the rest of NATO follows. I don’t think it’s the UK taking the lead, I think it’s their assigned roll. This suits a domestically unpopular UK government as it makes it look like they are leaders on the world stage, but I am also waiting for Russia to retaliate somehow. Probably with something covert so they can do that plausible deniability thing.
Yes, training outside Ukraine.
I’m not sure how Ukraine can establish a F-16 airfield. Russia will probably launch cruise missiles at it every night. But, it will be awhile before any planes are delivered. Ukraine has time to plan.
How do you think an F-16 airfield differs from a Mig 29 airfield?
Russia has a much bigger air force.
Their reaction to the Patriot has been fierce. Kiev is seeing unprecedented missile attacks night after night.
I would expect a similar reaction to the delivery of F-16’s. Destroying them on the ground would be a high priority. Parking the F-16 in revetments will offer some protection.
A Mig 29 airfield (or one for any Soviet fighter) is likely to be bumpier than the one designed for the F-16. The Soviet aircraft were generally designed to take more abuse from the tarmac.
What I mean is Ukraine is already maintaining airbases out of which fly Mig 29s and Su-24s. The F-16s will fly out of the same bases.
If it were so easy to destroy fighter jets on the ground at these airbases, Ukraine wouldn’t have any active fighters. And yet they do. Mig 29s aren’t all that much less capable than F-16s, and aren’t really any less priority as a target. The big deal with F-16s for Ukraine is that they can launch western munitions, not that they’re particularly superior jet aircraft. Though that said the F-16 do have somewhat better avionics, radar, etc.
From Russia to UK with love:
Ricin tipped umbrella.
Polonium laced tea.
Novichok nerve agent on door knobs and perfume bottles.
I’m pretty sure it’s the UK doing the retaliation.
What? If you’re pouring concrete for a runway, you don’t intentionally introduce bumps just because your planes can handle them.
I’m guessing he was referring to Russia cratering Ukrainian runways. In theory, Soviet jets can deal better with bumpy/patched runways than F-16s can
True but maintenance and pilot training seriously lag western standards. Russian doctrine has the airforce support the ground forces; not do things like active suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD). Few if any aircraft from Russia have ventured into Ukrainian air space. Even at the outset, Ukrainian air defense was a significant factor in denying aircraft incursions. With the advent of robust/substantial western systems, Russian pilots are loath to venture into range prefering to fire long distance missiles or lob rocket and bombs from low level from outside Ukrainian territory.
Putting an airfield out of commission is very difficult to do. Runway cratering can be quickly repaired. It takes continuous attacks to delay repair. Also damage is easy to decoy. Taxiways serve as runways in a pinch. Highways are used to disperse landing and takeoff points. US and western allies have upped their practice on using highways for alternate runways/logistic bases. They anticipate China making heavy and consistent attacks on major bases throughout the Pacific.
Well… Runway damage is a big enough risk that the west has spent billions on aircraft that can fly from unimproved fields, STOL and VTOL aircraft that can be hidden in metting in a forest then pulled out into a clearing to take off. It’s assumed that in a full scale war with a peer adversary, fixed runways may not last long.
Of course they were also worried about tactical nukes hitting airbases, but we should be as well. If Putin keeps losing, putting F-16ks in Ukraine might give him the justification for nuking some airbases.
No, but if your plane can handle a few bumps you don’t bother with the expense of making it smoother than you need to or as durable as you need to keep it very smooth, and you don’t spend the money to upkeep and repair it. Russia also has a different method of dealing with foreign objects and debris - they have covers that are in place when the plane takes off. The US instead walks the flight line looking for debris.
Actually, the Russians do. Or did.
They have much more concern with frost heave and thermal expansion in all their facilities. So their runways, taxiways, and ramps tend to be poured as slabs of concrete about 10m square, with a significant gap of a 2-5cm between each block. The gap isn’t filled with expansion joint material, expanding foam, silicone goop, or whatever. It’s just dirt. Which grows grass & weeds. And each slab moves & tilts independently with the seasons.
In normal Western practice even in cold country there are much smaller expansion joints, the whole thing is much more deeply set into the earth, there’s no development of large lips between shifting panels, and no rocks & weeds growing through the joints.
In the early days of Soviet jet aviation they made a conscious decision to make the airplanes much more “off-road” capable and saved rubles by building matching facilities.
I’ve had the “privilege” of running my airliner over some Cuban air force bases that are now civilian or mixed-use fields. It’s a rough experience. And that’s in a place with zero frost heave.
Two Ukrainian pilots proved they can master the American-made F-16 fighter jets in just four months — more than four times faster than the Pentagon previously predicted…
Over the course of eleven and a half total hours in nine separate simulations, the Ukrainian airmen outperformed US expectations in their quick ability to learn the ins and outs of the aircraft, according to the document…
The Ukrainian airmen received no official training on the F-16 flight simulator beyond a brief introduction to the aircraft before their training, the document said. The two men were already qualified to operate a MiG-29 and Su-27 respectively…
Normal training is for guys with normal motivation - like “boy, it’d be swell to be a fighter pilot, wouldn’t it, Wally?” Fighting for your existence is a different sort of motivation, and I bet those Ukrainians were essentially in a mindset of “I will devote every waking moment learning to more effectively kill Russian soldiers and defend my homeland”.
These are also guys who already have experience in flying fighter jets. Certainly not all of that experience will carry over, but a lot of it will.
Yep. They already know how jets work, and ACM.
I have no similar experience. But all of my fixed-wing time is in Cessnas. Last time I had a biennial flight review, I trained a couple of hours and passed it in a Piper Cherokee.
Well, Biden is behind the idea now:
I had no idea. That is very interesting. As someone from the land of frost heaves, I would never have guessed that would be a viable strategy. I was once present when concrete was poured for a de-icing apron at YXE, and, well, let’s just I wouldn’t have wanted to be footing the bill. Never seen such a thick slab before.
Nonetheless, I’m sure the Ukrainians will fly F-16s out of the same bases they’re currently flying the Migs and Sukhois. They won’t be “establishing F-16 airfields.”