OT: Pick a Fighter for Ukraine

[Raellus]

Inspired by this article, and recent discussion in the Putin's War thread...

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/45018/just-pick-a-fighter-to-start-training-ukrainian-pilots-on-now

Setting aside in-kind replacements for Ukraine's current fighter fleet, what would be the best Western fighter with which to relatively quickly reequip the UAF fighter force?

-

[swaghauler]

The Mig 29 because they can already service and fly it. Give them ALL of NATO's PACT fighters and give our NATO PARTNERS F16s or F15s for their contribution to Ukraine's fight.

[pmulcahy11b]

They already have (or more probably had) the MiG-29, and I think small numbers of the base Su-27 and Su-25. Their mainstay fighter was the MiG-29. So most of their fighter pilots already know how to fly it, and will just have to be trained on any possible mods or upgrades they're not used to.

I think the original plan was good: trade Poland's Mig-29s for late-Block F-16Cs and Ds. (The Poles decided to throw an unnecessary complication into the works, but...). Then give the former Polish MiGs to Ukraine, along with some ordnance. Simple.

[Raellus]

My dudes, I agree, but your responses ignore the poll question.

Setting aside in-kind replacements for Ukraine's current fighter fleet, what would be the best Western fighter with which to relatively quickly reequip the UAF fighter force?

Emphasis added.

If you're going to play the game, ya gotta follow the rules. ;)

-

[pmulcahy11b]

@Swag, I agree, but your response ignores the poll question.



Emphasis added.

-

It can take as much as a year for a pilot to be trained to proficiency on a new type of aircraft. Barring check flights and joyrides, none of the aircraft in the poll will be usable by Ukraine's pilots until the war is well over. So sorry, I have to ignore the poll rules in favor of what's possible.

[Raellus]

It can take as much as a year for a pilot to be trained to proficiency on a new type of aircraft. Barring check flights and joyrides, none of the aircraft in the poll will be usable by Ukraine's pilots until the war is well over. So sorry, I have to ignore the poll rules in favor of what's possible.

Fair enough. Did you read the article? It probably does a better job of establishing the premise than the OP did.

-

[swaghauler]

My dudes, I agree, but your responses ignore the poll question.



Emphasis added.

If you're going to play the game, ya gotta follow the rules. ;)

-

And you're ignoring the fact that 4 NATO countries (including the US with 3 dozen flying) fly the Mig 29 and one of them built Migs. Poland's Mig 29s ARE "Western Fighters" as far as I'm concerned.

[Raellus]

And you're ignoring the fact that 4 NATO countries (including the US with 3 dozen flying) fly the Mig 29 and one of them built Migs. Poland's Mig 29s ARE "Western Fighters" as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not ignoring anything. I agree with you. I've said so.

The poll asks respondents to pick a fighter other than the MiG29/SU-27. That's the premise of the article I linked. If you don't want to read it, cool. If you still want to pick the MiG29/SU-27, cool. Fair play. I'm not telling anyone what to think. I'm just clarifying the poll premise and parameters in case there was some sort of misunderstanding.

-

[pmulcahy11b]

Fair enough. Did you read the article? It probably does a better job of establishing the premise than the OP did.

-

OK, let scroll down and find it. I'll admit I didn't read the whole thread. But I think my point is valid.

[pmulcahy11b]

And you're ignoring the fact that 4 NATO countries (including the US with 3 dozen flying) fly the Mig 29 and one of them built Migs. Poland's Mig 29s ARE "Western Fighters" as far as I'm concerned.

I wonder just how many non-US aircraft they have out there at Nellis...

[pmulcahy11b]

OK, I read the article. Unlike most of The Drive's articles, I thoroughly disagree with this one. And there's no way a pilot will gain even the tiniest level of proficiency in a modern fighter in 2-3 weeks, unless he was already proficient on a version of the same aircraft. (Hell, it took me almost three months to become proficient enough to solo in a glider.) And I reiterate my point.

[Raellus]

OK, I read the article. Unlike most of The Drive's articles, I thoroughly disagree with this one. And there's no way a pilot will gain even the tiniest level of proficiency in a modern fighter in 2-3 weeks, unless he was already proficient on a version of the same aircraft. (Hell, it took me almost three months to become proficient enough to solo in a glider.) And I reiterate my point.

That 2-3 weeks thing was from a UAF Tweet. Here's what the article author said about training:

"Regardless of the outlandish claims that some are putting forward, including the Ukrainian Air Force itself, this process will take many months or even, in some cases, years to complete. "

-

[pmulcahy11b]

OK, this is turning into a tiff, and IIRC you're an Admin. I withdraw to a neutral corner, and pull my invisibility cloak around me.

[pmulcahy11b]

OK, uncloaking a moment. How many usable airfields (or even straight sections of decent road that don't have debris all over them) are there left in Ukraine? Or aircraft-worthy support facilities? Jet fuel/POL? Something to shoot at the enemy? That's just a few things you need to support any decent air operations (unless we give the Ukrainians surplus Harriers or F-35Bs). Otherwise this whole discussion (or whatever ones are taking place IRL) is academic.

Recloaking. I may even stick my tongue out and say "Nyahh, Nyahh" if you notice me.:p

[Raellus]

I'm sorry, Paul. I was not trying to be argumentative. I was just trying to clarify the OP and the premise of the article. I respect your opinion, even when it differs from mine (which is not the case in this instance). I apologize if any my posts came across as combative. That was never the intent.

-

[pmulcahy11b]

Sounds good. I was getting a bit d***ish myself.

[Raellus]

This piece is pretty long, but it gives some good insight into what UAF fighter pilots are dealing with.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/45019/fighting-russia-in-the-sky-mig-29-pilots-in-depth-account-of-the-air-war-over-ukraine

-

[cawest]

i had to go with the F-16. there are just to few gripens in operations. plus there is a good chance that a few of the pilots had a least a check ride in a F-16

[pmulcahy11b]

OK, here's a related question: it's late 2023. Ukraine finally expelled the Russians in the Summer of 2022, and in much of the country, the mess is being cleaned up and rebuilt, including the Kyiv Air Force Base.

What aircraft would you recommend to the Ukrainians to rebuild their Air Force?

Keep in mind that, in all probability, the Russians will be back sooner or later, and the security guarantees the Ukrainians are trying to negotiate with some NATO countries will probably fall through (that's my guess, anyway).

[kato13]

OK, here's a related question: it's late 2023. Ukraine finally expelled the Russians in the Summer of 2022, and in much of the country, the mess is being cleaned up and rebuilt, including the Kyiv Air Force Base.

What aircraft would you recommend to the Ukrainians to rebuild their Air Force?

Keep in mind that, in all probability, the Russians will be back sooner or later, and the security guarantees the Ukrainians are trying to negotiate with some NATO countries will probably fall through (that's my guess, anyway).

F-16 (my original answer) and Mig-29 I think Poland is going to keep the closest relationship and matching units would help with cross training.

[Targan]

Absolutely flood western Ukraine with F-16s. I mean like to the point where Ukrainian civilians start to complain that "I just wanted to drop into the corner store but there are all these F-16s in the way". Darken the skies with F-16s, like carrier pigeons.

[Nyrond24]

Mig 29, they can fly without retraining.

[Tegyrius]

My vote is for the F-16, despite not personally being a fan of it. It's common, multirole, and there are likely to be a bunch on the market in the coming years as more current operators adopt the (sigh) F-35. Also, one non-NATO alliance proposal I've seen discussed is the introduction of Ukraine into the Visegrad Group, and the F-16 is the only listed fighter currently operated by Visegrad Group members, so commonality there would be an additional selling point. While the Visegrad Group is not a militar alliance per se, it does engage in rather a lot of defense cooperation.

Going beyond the poll's parameters (because apparently that's the theme of this thread), I also would consider the Gripen a candidate. While its disadvantages in cost and ubiquity have been amply discussed in another current thread, it has the political advantage of coming from another non-NATO nation, which may be important if Ukraine clings to its ostensible neutral posture in the postwar years (and it's also in Visegrad Group member service).

- C.

[Raellus]

Going beyond the poll's parameters (because apparently that's the theme of this thread), I also would consider the Gripen a candidate. While its disadvantages in cost and ubiquity have been amply discussed in another current thread, it has the political advantage of coming from another non-NATO nation, which may be important if Ukraine clings to its ostensible neutral posture in the postwar years (and it's also in Visegrad Group member service).

Oh, it's definitely within the poll parameters. It was mentioned in the article and included amongst the poll options. The Gripen would probably be the most politically acceptable option to Moscow, coming, as it would be, from a nominally neutral nation. This could be important, as Putin will probably baulk at an infusion of US-made fighter aircraft.

Another benefit of the Gripen is that it's designed to operate from ad hoc airstrips like highways, and to be maintained by conscripts. Given the tactics that the UAF is using in the current conflict (see Post #17 in this thread), those capabilities could be a boon in a future one.

I'd be happy to see Ukraine get significant numbers of any of the western fighter types mooted (except for the Mirage 2000, which is the least capable and closest to obsolescence).

-

[pmulcahy11b]

e.

I'd be happy to see Ukraine get significant numbers of any of the western fighter types mooted (except for the Mirage 2000, which is the least capable and closest to obsolescence).



-

Substitute Rafale for Mirage 2000. But Rafales are more expensive than Typhoons, which are more expensive than Gripens, which are more expensive than F-16s.

[Raellus]

By now, we all know that Ukraine will soon be receiving some ex-NATO F-16s and, fairly recently, France announced that it will be donating Mirage 2000s.

And now Super Etendards, of all combat aircraft, from Argentina, of all countries? I don't think anyone saw that one coming. Would you classify the Super Etendard as a fighter?

https://www.twz.com/sea/argentinian-super-etendard-strike-jets-planned-for-transfer-to-ukraine-report

-

[ToughOmbres]

Absolutely flood western Ukraine with F-16s. I mean like to the point where Ukrainian civilians start to complain that "I just wanted to drop into the corner store but there are all these F-16s in the way". Darken the skies with F-16s, like carrier pigeons.

Absolutely. If we have to pick a Western platform send significant numbers of F-16's. Penny packets of different types of western equipment mixed with Ukraine's legacy Soviet systems is such a mixed blessing for their logistics....

Enough have to be sent to make an impact.

[ToughOmbres]

The Mig 29 because they can already service and fly it. Give them ALL of NATO's PACT fighters and give our NATO PARTNERS F16s or F15s for their contribution to Ukraine's fight.

Given the poll's parameters I voted for the F-16. If I had my choice your suggestion makes more practical sense from my standpoint-they are already familiar with it. In an idea world we would expedite and facilitate more East Bloc hardware with upgrades for them.

[ToughOmbres]

By now, we all know that Ukraine will soon be receiving some ex-NATO F-16s and, fairly recently, France announced that it will be donating Mirage 2000s.

And now Super Etendards, of all combat aircraft, from Argentina, of all countries? I don't think anyone saw that one coming. Would you classify the Super Etendard as a fighter?

https://www.twz.com/sea/argentinian-super-etendard-strike-jets-planned-for-transfer-to-ukraine-report

-
Applause for Argentina.

"Single seat strike fighter" according to the prolific Ray Bonds The Illustrated Directory of Modern Weapons.



250 and 400 kg free fall bomb loads and capable to carrying the Exocet anti-ship missile.

At the risk of wishing ill on others (particularly the poor conscripts) I can't think of another fleet (Russia's Black Sea Fleet) more deserving of a visit from an Exocet. Particularly after all of the misery they have inflicted on Ukraine.

[Vespers War]

By now, we all know that Ukraine will soon be receiving some ex-NATO F-16s and, fairly recently, France announced that it will be donating Mirage 2000s.

And now Super Etendards, of all combat aircraft, from Argentina, of all countries? I don't think anyone saw that one coming. Would you classify the Super Etendard as a fighter?

https://www.twz.com/sea/argentinian-super-etendard-strike-jets-planned-for-transfer-to-ukraine-report

-

They can carry Matra Magic air-to-air missiles, but if they were being given a US designation it'd probably start with an A, not an F. In my book, that's perfectly fine because Ukraine needs air-to-ground aircraft as well as air-to-air fighters. With 85+ F-16, plus some parts donors and whatever the US gives, their next need is that strike role.

Their current best-guess inventory (not including training aircraft) is 72 fighters (47 MiG-29 and 25 Su-27) and 30 strike aircraft (14 Su-24 and 16 Su-25). Add in the F-16 and Mirage 2000-5 and you're probably approaching 175-200 fighters...and 30 strike aircraft.

When the 2000-5 donation was announced, I thought it would be a good opportunity to also donate some 2000D to support that strike role, particularly since they can carry Scalp/Storm Shadow and Hammer rocket-propelled bombs, both of which are being provided to Ukraine. France is upgrading 55 of the 86 aircraft, and donating whatever's still useful out of the other 31 would help Ukraine augment its air-to-ground capability.

[Raellus]

The War Zone article intimates that the Super Etendard donation is more a debt offset/trade balancing act for Argentina than a genuine effort to help Ukraine stand up to Russian aggression. I'm kind of surprised that Ukraine didn't respond, "no thank you", like they reputedly did to alleged US offers of A-10 Thunderbolt IIs. As it stands, the Ukrainians don't have enough pilots for their "new" F-16s (and even newer Mirage 2000s, presumably), why would they allocate more time and precious human capital to gearing up to operate an obsolescent combat aircraft system? AFAIK, no one's announced the donation of Exocets to Ukraine. Without those, the Super Etendard has little bite.

I totally agree, though, that Mirage 2000 strike-optimized variants would be a much better fit for Ukraine's need for additional stand-off, precision weapons deployment platforms.

-