Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Jacob]

Continued intense fighting in Kharkiv, with some new evacuations of nearby villages.

I've seen it reported that the Mirage is roughly equivalent to the F16 in terms of capabilities, so getting them will be useful if not exactly a war winner. Given Macron is talking about starting to train pilots this summer, when could we expect to see them in action? Late 2025?

Also, a thing I don't quite get. Sweden was about to deliver Gripen to Ukraine, but then that was put on pause because the allies "want to focus on the F16 deliveries." But now the Mirage is being thrown into the mix.

Is it that the Gripen deliveries and relevant pilot training is basically good to go, so there's a temporary pause. Basically Ukraine will get F16, and then Gripen shortly thereafter? And then the Mirage some time later down the line?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Continued intense fighting in Kharkiv, with some new evacuations of nearby villages.

I've seen it reported that the Mirage is roughly equivalent to the F16 in terms of capabilities, so getting them will be useful if not exactly a war winner. Given Macron is talking about starting to train pilots this summer, when could we expect to see them in action? Late 2025?

Also, a thing I don't quite get. Sweden was about to deliver Gripen to Ukraine, but then that was put on pause because the allies "want to focus on the F16 deliveries." But now the Mirage is being thrown into the mix.

Is it that the Gripen deliveries and relevant pilot training is basically good to go, so there's a temporary pause. Basically Ukraine will get F16, and then Gripen shortly thereafter? And then the Mirage some time later down the line?

Could it be that Sweden has received intel about Hungarian foul play in regards to the Gripen? Just speculating obviously.

[Josquius]

Hungarian foul play how so?

From what I understand the gripen does seem to be a much better option for ukraine than the f16 and considering Swedens huge engagement it is odd nothing has happened.

[Jacob]

Yeah, what kind of foul play are you envisioning?

The official statement from Sweden is that they're delaying the Gripen deployment due to requests from allies, to not interfere with the F16 roll-out.

[Threviel]

One thing I read was that Sweden is willing to give Gripens without any limitations on their use, whilst the (idiot) Americans demand that US equipment not be used in Russia. Gripens blowing up things in Russia were deemed unacceptable to the Americans in this interpretation and thus was not sent.

[grumbler]

One thing I read was that Sweden is willing to give Gripens without any limitations on their use, whilst the (idiot) Americans demand that US equipment not be used in Russia. Gripens blowing up things in Russia were deemed unacceptable to the Americans in this interpretation and thus was not sent.

Don't believe everything you read, especially when the author is trying to hammer home the idea that Americans are idiots.  What you read sounds like absolute bullshit.  Training in the Gripen is going to take at least a year for basic proficiency, and another six months at least for tactics and formation flying/combat.  That is likelier a bigger deterrent than a nation of idiots.

[grumbler]

For those with some time, Ward Carrol interviewed the well-informed Justin Bronk of the RUSI about the situation in Ukraine and specifically about the obstacles to the deployment of F-16s.

For those of you without 45 minutes to spare, my summary of the F-16 bit is:

1. Training pilots takes a long time, because you have to essentially start from scratch.  As the Former Warsaw Pact air forces found out, it is easier to train brand new pilots than retrain current pilots, who operate in a completely different system now (much, MUCH more reliant on ground controllers to task them with everything down to, in complex situations, specific button-pushing.  Experienced pilot trained in the Soviet system fall back on that training under stress, even after training in the more pilot-initiative-based NATO tactics, and wait for orders that are not going to come. 

2.  No NATO country would employ F-16s in the current threat environment in Ukraine, because the risks are so high.  The F-16 will give Ukraine a much better ability to use the Western weapons it is getting (especially the HARM - High Speed Antiradiation Missile, from what I've seen elsewhere) but any NATO country would require their missions to have jamming/ECM aircraft and advanced fighter escorts before employing F-16s anywhere in that environment.

3. Adding F-16s to the mix in Ukraine is going to highly stress the Ukrainian air defense system, and not only in terms of having another IFF issue.  The Russians are going to be highly motivated to destroy these planes on the ground and attack their support systems.  This will create another high-value targets that the Ukrainians have to defend, when they don't even have enough assets to protect what they already have.

4.  The over-emphasis on the F-16 as the solution to Ukrainian problems is going to make each loss a morale-boost for the Russians and a morale hit for the Ukrainians.  The F-16 cannot not meet the expectations that the F-16 boosters in Ukraine and in much of the popular press have created.  This will be even worse early in the deployment, when the F-16s won't be available in sufficient numbers to make much of a difference, but the political and PR pressure to use them will likely force their employment under even more disadvantageous circumstances.

It seems that the idiot Americans were likely correct to doubt about the wisdom of providing Ukraine F-16s in the midst of a war.

As an aside, Bronk argued that the situation for the Ukrainians this summer will be dire. The Russians, by extending the front and increasing their attack tempo (at horrific costs) have forced the Ukrainians to transfer a significant number of their training personnel back to combat units.  If the Ukrainians can make it through the summer they likely will end the year in the best position they've been in since the war started, but they have to make it through the summer first.

[Threviel]

One thing I read was that Sweden is willing to give Gripens without any limitations on their use, whilst the (idiot) Americans demand that US equipment not be used in Russia. Gripens blowing up things in Russia were deemed unacceptable to the Americans in this interpretation and thus was not sent.

Don't believe everything you read, especially when the author is trying to hammer home the idea that Americans are idiots.  What you read sounds like absolute bullshit.  Training in the Gripen is going to take at least a year for basic proficiency, and another six months at least for tactics and formation flying/combat.  That is likelier a bigger deterrent than a nation of idiots.

Ohh, the idiot thing is all mine. I find that policy (the weird hangup on using US supplied weapons inside Russia policy that I tried referring to) idiotic and reprehensible. The rest I give little credibility, your explanation below sounds far far more credible, two different planes is too much and rather dozens of F-16s than eight or whatever low number the Swedish air force can spare Gripens.

[grumbler]

Ohh, the idiot thing is all mine. I find that policy (the weird hangup on using US supplied weapons inside Russia policy that I tried referring to) idiotic and reprehensible. The rest I give little credibility, your explanation below sounds far far more credible, two different planes is too much and rather dozens of F-16s than eight or whatever low number the Swedish air force can spare Gripens.

I get it. Social media has trained you to conclude that "I don't understand it, therefor it is idiotic and reprehensible."  I'm just noting that your approach will not get you anywhere near the truth of a real-world understanding of issues.  MAGAts have the same problem as you.

[Threviel]

Ohh, the idiot thing is all mine. I find that policy (the weird hangup on using US supplied weapons inside Russia policy that I tried referring to) idiotic and reprehensible. The rest I give little credibility, your explanation below sounds far far more credible, two different planes is too much and rather dozens of F-16s than eight or whatever low number the Swedish air force can spare Gripens.

I get it. Social media has trained you to conclude that "I don't understand it, therefor it is idiotic and reprehensible."  I'm just noting that your approach will not get you anywhere near the truth of a real-world understanding of issues.  MAGAts have the same problem as you.

You are a guy I respect, explain to me how that policy makes sense?

[grumbler]

You are a guy I respect, explain to me how that policy makes sense?

I am not a mind reader nor do I have the information that US decision-makers have, but I can see a rationale that explains their decision-making satisfactorily to me:  Joe Biden is the President of the United States, and his duty is to serve the interests of the citizens and nation of the US.  It is in the interests of the US to help its allies and frustrate its enemies, but only in such a way as to not jeopardize US interests.

It is not in the interest of the US to see the war in Ukraine escalate.  Escalation, though, is far more in the purview of Russia than Ukraine.  So US policy should be to deter escalation by punishing it when it happens, but only proportionately.  US escalation that exceeds Russian escalation merely prompts further Russian escalation in order to "level the playing field."  Moreover, every US escalation by definition reduces the number of escalatory steps the US has remaining.  So, the Biden administration is only reacting to Russian escalation in a way that relates directly to that escalation.  The Russians open a new front around Kharkiv?  The US allows its weapons to be used on Russian territory around Kharkiv.  The Russians launch SAMs as SSMs from around Belgorad, the US allows US weapons to be used to destroy SAM sites in the Belgorad region.

Joe Biden is a cautious politician.  More cautious than I wish he was, but my wishes don't matter in this.  What his administration is doing is keeping its escalatory arrows in the quiver as much as they can, so their existence can help deter Russian escalation.  If the US completely took the gloves off the firing team, it would have no more proportional responses to Russian escalation left.  All it would have is disproportionate escalation, which nobody wants.

I can't say that this is the Biden administration's thinking, but I've worked in that arena and I could certainly see his advisors thinking along these lines (on a hypothetical basis, I have seen that very reasoning presented to US high-level decisionmakers in a nuclear targeting scenario - "leave them something to lose").  I also can't say that I completely agree with this line of reasoning, nor that I agree that the US escalatory actions have truly been proportional.  But if you are looking for a reason more plausible than "they are all just idiots," then what I am describing meets your requirements.

[Josquius]

I thought it was established pilots getting f16 training?
Or are they doing as recommended and starting fresh?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Yeah, what kind of foul play are you envisioning?

The official statement from Sweden is that they're delaying the Gripen deployment due to requests from allies, to not interfere with the F16 roll-out.

Was just thinking along the lines that Orban might have passed along any and all info on the Gripen the Russians either long ago or very recently since -if I understood correctly- Hungary flies the jet.
Based on nothing really, more something that crossed my mind as potentially plausible

[Threviel]

Thanks grumbs, very good answer that actually makes sense from a US perspective. 

From my Swedish perspective its sheer idiocy, Russia only responds to force and maximum force is what is needed. Letting Russia play its silly games just prolongs the war and the suffering. Our politicians seem to agree since we've sent twice as much per capita as the US without any limitations set on the equipment. But in absolute terms it's of course borderline irrelevant compared to the American aid, so we can afford to be less responsible also.

[crazy canuck]

Grumbler, thank you for that summary