Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-07-2024

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sweden-officially-joins-nato-becoming-171925276.html

Not really "news" but it is great that all the paperwork is done and there are no more bureaucratic reasons that information and planning cannot be totally "joint" with Sweden. This does matter, as before this happened an SSO could (and arguably should) get in the way and prevent distribution of some data to Sweden that was "NATO Only". Arguably, they would just be doing their job. I am sure some data was distributed anyway., but at least now there is no reason to disallow such transfers.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-08-2024

https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2024/02/first-ukrainian-f-16-pilots-will-complete-training-soon-may/394264/

Well, there might be 4 Ukrainian pilots ready to go by May. 4. Speaks for itself. There are another 8 to be available by August. It would be nice to hope that the 4 early graduates will be given the means to stay "current". It might make sense to keep them as instructors if nothing else. The 12 pilots are not enough to "stand up" even a single squadron of F-16s, especially given that there are no pilots in that group with "lots" of F-16 time. Pathetic.

The US needs to "get real" here. If we expect Ukraine to succeed in the air, they need more like 60 pilots, not 12, to even have a reasonable chance of success. Otherwise, we are "planning to fail". Ukraine is going to lose pilots and aircraft. Hopefully not many, but mistakes are going to be made. It boggles the mind that lots of "serious" folks are going ahead with such a travesty. It may be that the people below the level of general officer regard this situation as "above their pay grade". If so, our military is in even worse shape than I feared. Lots of the "rank and file" have to know that the 12 pilots they are training are simply going to die to no purpose unless a significantly larger force is created. Granted, this is the Air Force, but even there "push back" isn't unknown. IMO lots of that is called for.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 03-08-2024

Probably a large part of the problem is that Ukraine doesn't have many pilots they can spare to be out of the country training and not flying combat missions.

Ukraine needs artillery ammo. F16s would be nice to have.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-08-2024

(03-08-2024, 10:41 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Probably a large part of the problem is that Ukraine doesn't have many pilots they can spare to be out of the country training and not flying combat missions.

I doubt that. Ukraine lost a lot of aircraft on the ground at the beginning of the war. They have relatively few "legacy" aircraft remaining that are able to fly. Probably what they do lack is first-line pilots that are fluent (even minimally) in English. However, it isn't necessary (or even advantageous) to send your "best" pilots to learn the F-16. It is a different aircraft and relatively inexperienced pilots may actually learn it faster because they have nothing to "unlearn". Both the Germans and the Poles found this to be true as they transitioned to Western aircraft. Eventually Poland stopped even trying to transition pilots. It was easier to train "new grads". Ukraine has the bodies. The training path may be long because the pilots lack experience, but willing pilots are available. Even if you have to start them in T-38s, it can be done.

Quote:Ukraine needs artillery ammo. F16s would be nice to have.

Totally agree that right now Ukraine needs artillery ammunition much more than it needs anything else. This ammunition is needed to help stop Russian advances right now, today. It also has the advantage that it can be supplied immediately and have effect immediately. I think we all agree that the hold-up of this vital element makes no sense at all unless the West (and the US) intends to totally give up on Ukraine.

However, the F-16s are now unfortunately more than a "nice to have". There are two things that make this true. First, the Russian Air Force is actually starting to fight. This started back in the summer when Ukraine was trying to break through in the south. Helicopters and subsequently aircraft launching glide bombs became a big problem. It wasn't on a scale that was "battle winning" but was big enough that coupled with strong defensive positions Ukraine was not able to maintain an offensive. Recently, around Avdiivka the Russian Air Force became quite active, flying over 200 sorties in one day. Ukraine responded by shooting down a few Russian aircraft. That has deterred the Russian Air Force a bit, but they are still bombing much more aggressively than at any time in the past. Even if Ukraine gets back to something like parity in artillery, the newly active Russian Air Force will be a serious problem, and the more they fly, the better they will get. Ukraine needs to make that not happen, and to do so, they need an Air Force. Missiles won't cut it. IMO the only reason this war didn't end real fast was that the Russian Air Force didn't show up for a couple of years. If it starts doing so (as it appears it is), it is game over for Ukraine unless they have an answer. The only answer even vaguely available is the F-16s. This was Ukraine's stated reason for wanting them.

The second reason the F-16s are not a "nice to have" is very "real" but also partly psychological. Ukraine has pointed out the the offensive they undertook last summer was without the benefit of air superiority, or really any air support at all. In modern war, you need to be able to bomb your opponent to quickly make breeches in the defense that you can exploit (if you want to fight like NATO). Artillery generally can't do that because creating such an artillery concentration (in these days of drone recon) takes time and is impossible to hide. It gives the defense time to prepare. It also has limited range so the opponent can build a second line that artillery cannot reach. Ukraine needs an air force to ever have any hope of driving the Russians out of Ukraine. This is especially true if Russia is able to use their air force to defend their fortified front line. The psychological part of this is that the Ukrainian troops and people believe it to be true that they need this air force. If there is no way to develop a credible air force, the troops and people will simply give up, as there is no path to victory. The F-16s are at least a hope of future success, if not sooner then later. If it becomes clear that path has failed or will not be sustained, the results on morale will be IMO dire.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 03-08-2024

Your speculation is that Ukraine has plenty of spare pilots to be trained. Mine is they don't. I'm pretty sure neither of us really has any special insight into that, so will just have to be another point of disagreement about how feasible Ukraine operating a large number of F16s is by now or near future.

I think there are many good reasons why Ukraine is not flying F16s now and why USAF sources have indicated it probably won't be until 2025 that Ukraine is operating F16s in anything more than a cursory role. I don't think will alone would have changed that but I'm certainly no expert.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-08-2024

(03-08-2024, 12:22 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Your speculation is that Ukraine has plenty of spare pilots to be trained. Mine is they don't. I'm pretty sure neither of us really has any special insight into that, so will just have to be another point of disagreement about how feasible Ukraine operating a large number of F16s is by now or near future.

Agree, neither of us can "know" for sure.

Quote:I think there are many good reasons why Ukraine is not flying F16s now and why USAF sources have indicated it probably won't be until 2025 that Ukraine is operating F16s in anything more than a cursory role. I don't think will alone would have changed that but I'm certainly no expert.

I am no expert either, but I am fairly familiar with how the USAF "thinks". They are a very "risk averse" organization (believe it or not) and nobody is going to make an aggressive plan to do anything unless they are directly given a requirement to do so. The problem here is that Ukraine very probably will not be around to take advantage of F-16s when everything is "ready" in 2025. Granted, it is never wise to adopt a plan you know can't be executed. However, it is amazing what becomes possible when the USAF understands the problem and is given a date to meet. Obviously, the perfect is the enemy of "good enough", but figuring out what is "good enough" isn't always easy either. I firmly believe that letting the USAF go at the speed they want to go is a mistake, because they institutionally do not want to risk "failure". In a war however that is a luxury they don't have. Ukraine is in a war.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 03-08-2024

(03-07-2024, 11:24 AM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/sweden-officially-joins-nato-becoming-171925276.html

Not really "news" but it is great that all the paperwork is done and there are no more bureaucratic reasons that information and planning cannot be totally "joint" with Sweden. This does matter, as before this happened an SSO could (and arguably should) get in the way and prevent distribution of some data to Sweden that was "NATO Only". Arguably, they would just be doing their job. I am sure some data was distributed anyway., but at least now there is no reason to disallow such transfers.

I’ve read precisely nothing to suggest that further NATO expansion is on the near horizon, but I’m interested whether any of you think Ireland, Switzerland or Austria would re-evaluate their neutrality any time in the foreseeable future.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Durty Nelly - 03-08-2024

(03-08-2024, 02:55 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  

(03-07-2024, 11:24 AM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/sweden-officially-joins-nato-becoming-171925276.html

Not really "news" but it is great that all the paperwork is done and there are no more bureaucratic reasons that information and planning cannot be totally "joint" with Sweden. This does matter, as before this happened an SSO could (and arguably should) get in the way and prevent distribution of some data to Sweden that was "NATO Only". Arguably, they would just be doing their job. I am sure some data was distributed anyway., but at least now there is no reason to disallow such transfers.

I’ve read precisely nothing to suggest that further NATO expansion is on the near horizon, but I’m interested whether any of you think Ireland, Switzerland or Austria would re-evaluate their neutrality any time in the foreseeable future.

I live in Ireland.  The Irish military is very small.  It has done UN peace keeping missions for many years.  There is no appetite here to increase its military or join NATO.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 03-08-2024

What a great piece of insight from a local. Thanks.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-08-2024

(03-08-2024, 03:58 PM)Durty Nelly Wrote:  

(03-08-2024, 02:55 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  

(03-07-2024, 11:24 AM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/sweden-officially-joins-nato-becoming-171925276.html

Not really "news" but it is great that all the paperwork is done and there are no more bureaucratic reasons that information and planning cannot be totally "joint" with Sweden. This does matter, as before this happened an SSO could (and arguably should) get in the way and prevent distribution of some data to Sweden that was "NATO Only". Arguably, they would just be doing their job. I am sure some data was distributed anyway., but at least now there is no reason to disallow such transfers.

I’ve read precisely nothing to suggest that further NATO expansion is on the near horizon, but I’m interested whether any of you think Ireland, Switzerland or Austria would re-evaluate their neutrality any time in the foreseeable future.

I live in Ireland.  The Irish military is very small.  It has done UN peace keeping missions for many years.  There is no appetite here to join NATO.

IMO there is absolutely no desire in Switzerland to join NATO either. They have little capability (or desire) to project power. They also wouldn't be the first nation hit by any Russian attack. All being in NATO would do is force them to be ready to fight outside of their borders, which they are not prepared to do.
Austria is prohibited by treaty (Austrian State Treaty) from joining NATO. While such things do often get ignored these days, I doubt this one would be, as one of the treaty signatories was the USSR (along with the US and the UK).

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-10-2024

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-guided-bomb-inflicts-devastation-053410901.html

Russia has successfully copied the JDAM. Their weapon is slightly heavier (because of it's construction) but contains about the same quantity of explosive. The idea of using Patriots to kill the Russian aircraft dropping these weapons is a non-starter. That isn't what the Patriot was designed to do and Patriots are not intended to be deployed far forward. There aren't enough Patriots in the world to do that job and if you place them far forward they can be destroyed by conventional artillery. Keeping those Russian aircraft away is an air force job. Ukraine virtually has no air force. Thus the need for F-16s.

Ukraine has been supplied with JDAMs, but have not used them particularly successfully. There are lots of contributing factors to this problem. First, the bombs are jury rigged onto platforms that are not designed to operate them. Second, there aren't very many platforms available to carry the bombs and those that are do so at great risk, as escorts and SEAD are not available due to the same lack of platforms. Third, the Russians have deployed effective GPS jammers near their important targets that defeat/degrade the JDAM guidance. Ukraine has no effective way to destroy these jammers. To use JDAMs effectively, Ukraine needs enough delivery platforms designed to carry the weapon and enough escort aircraft to suppress Russian air defenses and destroy the GPS jammers. If the Ukrainians had those weapons during their summer offensive, the Russians in their fixed hardened positions would have received the treatment Ukrainians now are receiving in theirs.

This also is an example of giving the Russians time to learn. The US developed the original JDAMs in the 1980s. Russia is only now doing the same, as they realize from experience it is the only way to strike prepared defenses without losing too many aircraft.  There is often talk about how NATO is learning a lot about Russian capabilities from this war. While that is undoubtedly true, Russia is also learning a lot about Russian capabilities and in many cases adopting new strategies and new techniques to eliminate deficiencies they have. By not giving the Ukrainians the means to win relatively quickly, we are "immunizing" the Russian military by exposing it to a "non-lethal"  dose of NATO/US weaponry and allowing them to develop and deploy "antibodies". The US has repeatedly made this mistake in previous conflicts, and we are doing it again. Dumb beyond words.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - rogpodge - 03-10-2024

None of the countries mentioned will join NATO. The 5% of GDP military spending requirement is a non-starter in those countries. The Swiss already have compulsory military service, and one of the most advantageous geographic advantages in the world, so they have no incentive to join a defensive pact. 

As noted above, the Austrians would rather not break any treaties. 

Why would the Irish want to do anything with the UK? Again, they aren't positioned to build up a military.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-10-2024

(03-10-2024, 01:10 PM)rogpodge Wrote:  None of the countries mentioned will join NATO. The 5% of GDP military spending requirement is a non-starter in those countries.

I think you meant 2%, but you are correct, none of these countries want to spend that money.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 03-11-2024

(03-08-2024, 12:02 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(03-08-2024, 10:41 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Probably a large part of the problem is that Ukraine doesn't have many pilots they can spare to be out of the country training and not flying combat missions.

I doubt that. Ukraine lost a lot of aircraft on the ground at the beginning of the war. They have relatively few "legacy" aircraft remaining that are able to fly. Probably what they do lack is first-line pilots that are fluent (even minimally) in English. However, it isn't necessary (or even advantageous) to send your "best" pilots to learn the F-16. It is a different aircraft and relatively inexperienced pilots may actually learn it faster because they have nothing to "unlearn". Both the Germans and the Poles found this to be true as they transitioned to Western aircraft. Eventually Poland stopped even trying to transition pilots. It was easier to train "new grads". Ukraine has the bodies. The training path may be long because the pilots lack experience, but willing pilots are available. Even if you have to start them in T-38s, it can be done.

Quote:Ukraine needs artillery ammo. F16s would be nice to have.

Totally agree that right now Ukraine needs artillery ammunition much more than it needs anything else. This ammunition is needed to help stop Russian advances right now, today. It also has the advantage that it can be supplied immediately and have effect immediately. I think we all agree that the hold-up of this vital element makes no sense at all unless the West (and the US) intends to totally give up on Ukraine.

However, the F-16s are now unfortunately more than a "nice to have". There are two things that make this true. First, the Russian Air Force is actually starting to fight. This started back in the summer when Ukraine was trying to break through in the south. Helicopters and subsequently aircraft launching glide bombs became a big problem. It wasn't on a scale that was "battle winning" but was big enough that coupled with strong defensive positions Ukraine was not able to maintain an offensive. Recently, around Avdiivka the Russian Air Force became quite active, flying over 200 sorties in one day. Ukraine responded by shooting down a few Russian aircraft. That has deterred the Russian Air Force a bit, but they are still bombing much more aggressively than at any time in the past. Even if Ukraine gets back to something like parity in artillery, the newly active Russian Air Force will be a serious problem, and the more they fly, the better they will get. Ukraine needs to make that not happen, and to do so, they need an Air Force. Missiles won't cut it. IMO the only reason this war didn't end real fast was that the Russian Air Force didn't show up for a couple of years. If it starts doing so (as it appears it is), it is game over for Ukraine unless they have an answer. The only answer even vaguely available is the F-16s. This was Ukraine's stated reason for wanting them.

The second reason the F-16s are not a "nice to have" is very "real" but also partly psychological. Ukraine has pointed out the the offensive they undertook last summer was without the benefit of air superiority, or really any air support at all. In modern war, you need to be able to bomb your opponent to quickly make breeches in the defense that you can exploit (if you want to fight like NATO). Artillery generally can't do that because creating such an artillery concentration (in these days of drone recon) takes time and is impossible to hide. It gives the defense time to prepare. It also has limited range so the opponent can build a second line that artillery cannot reach. Ukraine needs an air force to ever have any hope of driving the Russians out of Ukraine. This is especially true if Russia is able to use their air force to defend their fortified front line. The psychological part of this is that the Ukrainian troops and people believe it to be true that they need this air force. If there is no way to develop a credible air force, the troops and people will simply give up, as there is no path to victory. The F-16s are at least a hope of future success, if not sooner then later. If it becomes clear that path has failed or will not be sustained, the results on morale will be IMO dire.

This article spells out exactly what Goose refers to above, the need to have pilots that are a blank slate. Apparently Canada is training two such pilots and has plans to train more.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ukrainian-air-force-pilots-getting-nato-standard-training-at-london-ont-flight-school-1.7136872
Also rather interesting is the ongoing squabble between France and some of the other NATO countries about actually putting boots on the ground. France claims they were referring to possible mine clearing personnel, not combat personnel.  As one might suspect the Baltic States are more or less all in on the concept, and Poland seems to be more inclined that way, and the Czech Republic has apparently stated that NATO nations putting troops in Ukraine does not violate any existing rules. 
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/03/11/7445858/#:~:text=The%20President%20of%20the%20Czech%20Republic%2C%20Petr%20Pavel%2C%20is%20convinced,not%20violate%20any%20international%20norms.
Poland says it is not unthinkable.
I can understand the Baltic States and Poland coming to the conclusion that it is either fight Russia now or fight them later.  Not that I am in favor of such a risky action.  But the world currently has too many flash points for anyone to feel really comfortable.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-11-2024

(03-11-2024, 06:28 AM)GK3 Wrote:  This article spells out exactly what Goose refers to above, the need to have pilots that are a blank slate. Apparently Canada is training two such pilots and has plans to train more.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ukrainian-air-force-pilots-getting-nato-standard-training-at-london-ont-flight-school-1.7136872

Great that this is happening. Too bad it isn't 38 today. Canada should IMO step up and pay for it. At least the money would be spent in Canada. One unfortunate fact the article mentions is that Ontario Canada has many days where the weather is bad (horrible in some cases) and therefore you can't fly training missions. Most of Europe has the same issue. New Mexico doesn't have that problem. The US needs to step up way beyond the meager numbers of Ukrainians currently being trained. It is also an interesting fact that these Ukrainians are being trained to NATO standards in an aircraft designed in and used by the Warsaw Pact :-). Obviously all modern electronics and such.

Quote:Also rather interesting is the ongoing squabble between France and some of the other NATO countries about actually putting boots on the ground. France claims they were referring to possible mine clearing personnel, not combat personnel.  As one might suspect the Baltic States are more or less all in on the concept, and Poland seems to be more inclined that way, and the Czech Republic has apparently stated that NATO nations putting troops in Ukraine does not violate any existing rules. 
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/03/11/7445858/#:~:text=The%20President%20of%20the%20Czech%20Republic%2C%20Petr%20Pavel%2C%20is%20convinced,not%20violate%20any%20international%20norms.
Poland says it is not unthinkable.
I can understand the Baltic States and Poland coming to the conclusion that it is either fight Russia now or fight them later.  Not that I am in favor of such a risky action.  But the world currently has too many flash points for anyone to feel really comfortable.

IMO this is all theater. All the parties know that NATO only requires its members to "respond appropriately" if one of them is attacked. If you send troops to a war the rest of NATO has no obligation to help you fight it. In particular, all the potential participants know the US is a "hard no" on such an action. People often threaten outrageous responses when they are unable or unwilling to execute an effective alternative.

It is undoubtedly true there are way too many "flash points" in the world and particularly in Ukraine. This also shows the danger of the US surrendering it's "first among equals" status in NATO. Without the US to be the "adult", actions like are being discussed above become entirely possible, even likely. The Baltic States may indeed decide their only hope is a general war and therefore start one. TBH, I believe that if things get bad enough Ukraine will figure out some kind of "provocation" that they can execute and then blame on the Russians. This may be used to stampede NATO into doing something drastic, like direct intervention. If you think you have no choice, you do risky things.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 03-11-2024

NYT on F16s for Ukraine

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/world/europe/ukraine-f16-pilots.html

Quote:The jets are ready, and the flight instructors are waiting, at a new training center in Romania that was created to teach Ukraine’s pilots to fly the F-16 warplane. But there’s a catch: The Ukrainian pilots have yet to arrive, despite declarations last summer that the center would play a crucial role in getting them into the air to defend their country from increasingly deadly Russian strikes.

It’s still unclear when Ukrainian pilots will begin training at the center, at the Fetesti air base in southeast Romania, which NATO allies also are using to get schooled on the fighter jets. But the delay is a window into the confusion and chaos that has confronted the military alliance’s rush to supply the F-16s.

That is not to say that Ukraine’s pilots are not being prepared. Twelve pilots so far — fewer than a full squadron — are expected to be ready to fly F-16s in combat by this summer after 10 months of training in Denmark, Britain and the United States.

But by the time the pilots return to Ukraine, as few as six F-16s will have been delivered out of about 45 of the fighter jets that European allies have promised.

......

By normal standards, the training of Ukraine’s pilots on the sophisticated Western jets has proceeded at lightning speed, compressing years of classroom learning, simulations and flight exercises into months.

Even so, it is moving more slowly than Ukraine or its allies had hoped, as pilots trained on Soviet-era planes and tactics have had to get up to speed on the English language and Western military practices to make effective use of the F-16s.

........

But American officials have warned that the F-16s alone would not be decisive in the war, and that, at any rate, the training would take a considerable amount of time.

“There aren’t very many Ukrainian pilots to be able to pilot those aircraft,” Jake Sullivan, the White House national security adviser, told ABC News last month, defending the Biden administration’s delay in approving plans to send F-16s to the war. “It’s not about whether or not F-16s could possibly have been on the battlefield in the spring of last year.”

.......

The Ukrainian pilots’ training began last August at Skrydstrup Air Base in southern Denmark, but their deficiencies in language skills and knowledge of Western flying techniques slowed things down. Not until January were the Ukrainian pilots ready to fly, Danish officials said.

........


Like the Ukrainian pilots, Romanian trainees at the base were skilled at flying Soviet- and Russian-made jets when they began the Western courses in November. But unlike the Ukrainians, Romania’s pilots already spoke English and were familiar with NATO operating standards.

.......

About 50 Ukrainian technicians are being trained in Denmark to support and repair the jets and handle their weapons packages, given that the F-16 is so complex that it generally takes eight to 14 people to maintain each one. Officials said Western defense contractors would have to accompany the jets into Ukraine, and remain with them, until there were enough Ukrainian crews to maintain them properly — a process that could take years.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-11-2024

(03-11-2024, 09:50 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  NYT on F16s for Ukraine

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/world/europe/ukraine-f16-pilots.html

Quote:The jets are ready, and the flight instructors are waiting, at a new training center in Romania that was created to teach Ukraine’s pilots to fly the F-16 warplane. But there’s a catch: The Ukrainian pilots have yet to arrive, despite declarations last summer that the center would play a crucial role in getting them into the air to defend their country from increasingly deadly Russian strikes.

It’s still unclear when Ukrainian pilots will begin training at the center, at the Fetesti air base in southeast Romania, which NATO allies also are using to get schooled on the fighter jets. But the delay is a window into the confusion and chaos that has confronted the military alliance’s rush to supply the F-16s.

That is not to say that Ukraine’s pilots are not being prepared. Twelve pilots so far — fewer than a full squadron — are expected to be ready to fly F-16s in combat by this summer after 10 months of training in Denmark, Britain and the United States.

The fact there are no Ukrainian pilots training at Fetesti yet is almost certainly due to the base not being ready to begin training them. Standing up an entirely new training center is a difficult process. The school was officially opened on 13 November 2023 and the first class is 7(!) Romanian pilots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoAF_86th_Air_Base. It is clear this operation (cobbled together from disparate sources many of which have limited or no F-16 expertise) is not going to be training large classes of pilots anytime real soon.

Quote:

Quote:But by the time the pilots return to Ukraine, as few as six F-16s will have been delivered out of about 45 of the fighter jets that European allies have promised.

......

By normal standards, the training of Ukraine’s pilots on the sophisticated Western jets has proceeded at lightning speed, compressing years of classroom learning, simulations and flight exercises into months.

Even so, it is moving more slowly than Ukraine or its allies had hoped, as pilots trained on Soviet-era planes and tactics have had to get up to speed on the English language and Western military practices to make effective use of the F-16s.

........

But American officials have warned that the F-16s alone would not be decisive in the war, and that, at any rate, the training would take a considerable amount of time.

It is certainly true that the "conversion training" the "experienced" Ukrainian pilots are undergoing in the US is NOT being done at warp speed. There are good reasons for this. First, as the article points out, these pilots are in large measure not fluent English speakers. Second, they are "converting" from jets that are nothing like the F-16s and will be using tactics and methods totally unlike their previous experience. Teaching a student that is fluent in English and who has flown an F-4 for years is a lot easier task. Third, the F-16 is (as one of the Ukrainians said) a "Swiss Army knife". It does air-to-air, CAS, SEAD, etc. and carries lots of disparate weapons loadouts. The Ukrainian pilots are coming from aircraft the were designed to do one thing. You learned that specialty and nothing more. Now, they have a much bigger syllabus to master. The USAF isn't going to let any half-trained pilots out of their flight school. You will master the syllabus, period. If the Ukrainians can complete the program in "normal" time, that would be fast considering the degree of difficulty. This is the scenario I think we are seeing play out. What will happen at the European schools I have no idea, but I suspect it will not be good.

The US and it's allies are indeed ensuring the introduction of the F-16 into the battle will not be "decisive" because they are training an entirely inadequate number of pilots and are not ensuring that the supply of F-16s will be ready for the few that are being trained. The force will be committed "piecemeal" in small numbers. This is of course a well-known recipe for military failure. At best we will be giving the Russians time to prepare for the threat when it does arrive. Yes, there are limitations on what is "possible", but the US is in no way up against the stops in that regard. I am sure the USAF didn't want to start with a "full class" of Ukrainians until they had done a "test" with a small number. Yes, that approach would be "nice", but it is way too slow. No point in implementing a plan that doesn't meet the need.

Quote:

Quote:“There aren’t very many Ukrainian pilots to be able to pilot those aircraft,” Jake Sullivan, the White House national security adviser, told ABC News last month, defending the Biden administration’s delay in approving plans to send F-16s to the war. “It’s not about whether or not F-16s could possibly have been on the battlefield in the spring of last year.”

Because the national security advisor doesn't want to talk about why we didn't start this training effort two years ago at the start of the war, "just in case".  As I said back then, worst case Ukraine ends up with a lot of qualified airline pilots.

Quote:

Quote:The Ukrainian pilots’ training began last August at Skrydstrup Air Base in southern Denmark, but their deficiencies in language skills and knowledge of Western flying techniques slowed things down. Not until January were the Ukrainian pilots ready to fly, Danish officials said.

........


Like the Ukrainian pilots, Romanian trainees at the base were skilled at flying Soviet- and Russian-made jets when they began the Western courses in November. But unlike the Ukrainians, Romania’s pilots already spoke English and were familiar with NATO operating standards.

.......

About 50 Ukrainian technicians are being trained in Denmark to support and repair the jets and handle their weapons packages, given that the F-16 is so complex that it generally takes eight to 14 people to maintain each one. Officials said Western defense contractors would have to accompany the jets into Ukraine, and remain with them, until there were enough Ukrainian crews to maintain them properly — a process that could take years.

The statement it takes 8 to 14 people to maintain each one is true only by a very broad definition of "true". There are specialists that work on particular parts of the aircraft. Each jet needs access to such a specialist, but not 24/7 or even 8 hours a day. When you need one, you need one, but "several" aircraft can share the same people. Just to be clear, "Western" defense contractors accompany most USAF foreign deployments too. The Ukrainians undoubtedly will need more "help" of this kind, because they lack experienced maintainers that have "seen that before" and know what to do. This is going to be a big problem for a while. It isn't correct that they need to "remain with them until there are enough Ukrainian crews". There will be "enough" at the start, numbers wise,  but their lack of experience will require outside advice until they become comfortable with the jet.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 03-11-2024

Wishcasting IMHO. 

Ukraine is sending 50 year olds into infantry assault squads. I don't think they have spare pilots and maintenance crew who speak English sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting to be trained.

And I'd suggest reading the article. It goes into more about Fetesti.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-11-2024

(03-11-2024, 12:27 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Wishcasting IMHO. 

Ukraine is sending 50 year olds into infantry assault squads. I don't think they have spare pilots and maintenance crew who speak English sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting to be trained.

I agree, Ukraine doesn't have anybody who wants/is willing to fight sitting around twiddling anything. Manpower is one of their main current military and political challenges. That doesn't mean there are no 19-22 year old people who would be willing to go learn to fly jets. Some of those might be recruits who were in the Ukrainian air force for "basic flight training" but were subsequently sent to fight as infantry because there was no way to continue their training. The Ukraine certainly had a training pipeline before the war started. Find those guys and send them to Luke or Morris or Holloman or JBSA. Some of those might even be younger people who fled the country but still want to help Ukraine. They may not be willing to be an 11B but will gladly be pilots. These people will take time to train because they will need initial flight training and transition to jets like the two in Canada are doing. I think the Ukrainian military believes they can't win without an air force, so they will find a way. It isn't by itself a big manpower drain. A typical F-16 squadron will have a total of around 100 personnel, including pilots, maintenance crew, and support staff (and 12-15 jets). That is less than a company. If they can't find that many, they are doomed anyway. One thing that IMO needs to be made clear is that this is both a short and longer term requirement. Don't insist that everybody be a fully qualified MIG/Sukhou pilot. As has been pointed out, that can be a hindrance.

Quote:And I'd suggest reading the article. It goes into more about Fetesti.

A bit more, but not much more. IMO the only thing it says that is particularly "interesting" (and that illustrates the startup issues) IMO is

Quote:“That’s up to the governments and the contracts that support all that,” said Col. Bill Thomas, a retired U.S. Air Force officer who is overseeing a Lockheed Martin training program for the Romanian pilots at the Fetesti base. “We’re still waiting on all the approvals.”

I read that as Lockheed wants to get paid and so do all the other "players", like EADS (though God knows what they contribute). There is also the little matter that the 7 Romanian pilots have not "graduated" yet. The "normal" F-16 syllabus takes 9 months to learn. They started in November, so they have a bit of a way to go :-). I don't see the course taking "shortcuts" with the first graduates.
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/world/2023/11/13/romania-opens-f-16-pilot-training-hub-for-nato-allies-ukraine.

https://www.luke.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/358711/train-f-16-pilots-lukes-mission/ is perhaps a bit dated but it details the path from beginning flight training to being F-16 qualified. Another is https://theaviationist.com/2024/01/21/viper-pilot-training/. Holloman trains 180 F-16 pilots a year. It takes 22 months from start to finish. The war in Ukraine has so far lasted 24+. They could have started with complete novices and said pilots would be ready now.

---

TrumpCard - TrumpCard - 03-12-2024

Is anyone hearing whether Speaker Johnson is likely to put an aid supplemental to a floor vote (after the FY ‘24 budget is done)? I thought it was a good sign that Biden put it first in the SOTU and that Johnson seemed to be nodding during that portion of the speech, but I’ve heard nothing favorable or unfavorable since then.

---