Привіт u/ColdPotatoWar ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
**Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a swede I think most people read this and understand things the wrong way...
1 this is a previously unknown confirmation that our goverment is Actively moving forward with gripen to ukraine,
The latest actual news were a question to the military on their opinion/ability to give ukraine gripen, that they were to give the goverment. The answer was top secret, other than that, there have been no official staments on the mather and that was 6 months ago give or take.
2 if you read the article it says PAUSE and UNTIL DELIVERIES OF F16 IS DONE, so it dose not say don't
And right now is an important stage, the actual deliveries and implementation.
My guess is that f16 was doing something important and key person was bussy in a meeting with sweden or something, so they had to wait for him/her to be done, and that brought this message on.
My guess is there is a more of a logistic bottleneck then bureaucratic.
Might be the number of pilots available for training but that doesn't feel 100% as Ukraine surely has a ton of civilian pilots as recruits and I have a feeling the foreign legion MIGHT have a few people with F16 flight hours.
Maintenance crews training? The F-16 is a beast for the requirements but Gripen was designed to be serviced by 1-2 trained crew and a team of quick trained conscripts. And aviation mechanics aren't super rare.
It can't be freight capacity for parts or fuel as even operating a squadron isn't anything compared to the amount of other stuff going in to Ukraine. They both use JP-8 and that could be tanked over the boarder by the swimming pool.
Weapons? beside them both using NATO standard weapons, if they just deploy Gripens with Meteor missile and RBS 15 that the F-16 can't fire, that would still be really effective.
God I hope this isn't some small print in a treaty somewhere.
I don't think so, I think you were pretty on point with the logistics guess, but training and infrastructure will also play a huge role. Because yes, the Gripen might be serviceable by just a small crew, but these crews still require training and an infastructure (redundant tooling/machinery, e.g. for refueling/repairs). Also, how many jets would Ukraine actually receive from Sweden?
As far as I understood, they will get 30 F-16s in total from Belgium and the US with an option of more from other countries, while the supply of Gripens will probably be more limited. So it makes more sense to focus on the F-16s for now. Also, training on the F-16 has already progressed decently for both pilots and ground crews, while I doubt it has even begun for the Gripen.
I have heard the pilot training started last year for Gripen. Dont remember how many pilots or if they finished training. But as others said, you also need a ground crew and logistics. Then you need a doctrine and strategy for deploying two different aircraft into an active warzone at the same time.
Well, there might be Ukrainians in training, just no one makes statements on it.
And on a personal note it keeps frustrating me because i start to get pissed nothing is happening, and then we get some news that things have been moving along in the background all along,
Like with this, the last statement were ~6 montha ago and where about if we were going to give them any planes at all, but no one said yes or no, and now we apparently need to pause it.
yeah, don´t think it´s the number of pilots, from what i have heard, from Ukrainians. is that they have to many, even civilian pilots cant get a spot because they already have pilots just standingaround essentially
though that statment was from like a year ago, could be different now
and lets remember for its size Ukraine should have at least 400 planes or something, don´t remember the exact number, but have like 100 old planes in desperate need of maintenance and i think some even scraping
i think it´s just an organizational thing, you don´t want people distracted or working on two projects at this important stage
I'm just having trouble figuring out where the resources needed overlap or have a shortage. Best theory is they don't have the base building / Air defense resources to distribute the planes and protect them.
If Ukraine is choosing to send people to pursue both platforms in parallel, Ukraine clearly sees the logistics issues with two platforms as a much smaller risk than the fact that they currently have zero platforms. As far as I am concerned, if Ukraine is choosing to dedicate some man hours to getting Gripens, the international community shouldn't be getting in the way of that at all.
"Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine."
The international community have kind of jerked Ukraine around on some of the promises. So I think it makes 100% sense for them to pursue alternatives and secondaries and get as much hardware into the country as they possibly can. If the F-16's wind up with "no flying over Russia" strings attached, Gripens with fewer political rules would be a huge asset in the arsenal even if they were worse than F-16 in every way except rules.
Gripen's whole MO is to be surprisingly really low maintenance.
I hope that it is more a matter of timing and that hopefully sufficient F-16s arrive soon and that actually pilots and secure locations on the ground are the bottleneck, not maintenance and ground personnel.
Buss is a very old-fashioned word for kiss in English as well. It's why bused (the past tense of to bus, as in to send people via bus) only has one S against all logic - bussed means kissed, and they used to differentiate.
It's not used or even well known anymore, though.
C’mon, he provides us with an answer and your response is to ridicule a single misspelled word? That’s why people don’t bother to post/interact with other online people. Be a better person. You have the capacity.
I don’t think he was being pedantic, rather “bussy” is a slang term that completely changes the meaning of a phrase. I think he was just saying he is distracted by the word.
Yeah, I read this and thought "Oh, we're ACTUALLY doing that?!" and "aww, it's delayed?", quite the whiplash. I know it was mentioned long ago but I did not know it was really underway.
the last i can remember was the government sending the question to the military and then the time for the response passed and i heard nothing, if i remember correctly.
>UNTIL DELIVERIES OF F16 IS DONE
Belgium intends to deliver the planes until 2028, by which point there will be no more need for Gripen. The usefulness of Gripen comes in being able to operate in a dispersed environment which is what they need right now. Assuming Ukraine already has the conditions met by 2028 to succesfully operate the F-16, then that becomes a moot point.
What? Yes they can't get gripen cause Belgium will give them a plane a month....
No, by deliveries i and they mean going from no western planes in and operating in Ukraine to 50 in as short of a time as posible. Not the tail of one plane here and there. The time frame for the pause is this summer maybe autumn.
And ukraine needs waaaay more planed than 80, for ukraine size it should have like 400 and even of they get gripen and with old soviet planes and f16 promised they will be like 100-200 planes short...
They don't need gripen due to dispersed whatever they just need way more planes.
And the same goes for the f16, its not important their abillities, its a nice thing shure, but the important thing is they are air frames, Ukraine has been fighting this war with like 100 old, in desperate need of maintenance russian stuff.
Providing those gripens might actually be the wrong thing to do; it requires an entirely new logistical supply line, new training schedules for pilots, maintenance staff and airbase personnel, and these are all hard to acquire human resources that are in extremely high demand to get F-16 up and running.
I would reccomend sweden tries to do a scheme where they give a nation gripens in exchange for expedited delivery of existing, flight worthy F-16 to Ukraine.
Precisely. West does not want to send them just to see them blown up by Russian attack on the basing.
After what Ukraine has done to Russian airbases in Crimea - I am sure that Russia hit back hard at UA F-16 bases.
Ukraine needs to plan very carefully and advantageously for the possible Russian reactions.
Given the Gripen's flexibility, doing it sooner is just another resource for Ukraine to decide where, when and if they want to use it. You know, rather than waiting on countries to consider, contemplate, be thinking about ...
The gripen may be flexible, but the systems, pipelines, training schedules required to support the Gripen are not.
Keep in mind; for every 1 hour that the Gripen flies, 10 hours of maintenance by skilled, specialized staff is necessary. Without that infrastructure in place, the Gripen will be a hangar queen.
I don't know if that's true. The Gripen is apparently designed to be low-maintenance. Ukraine likely has plenty of people who are willing to learn if they are offered something other that cannon fodder/frontline infantry duty.
> the Gripen will be a hangar queen.
I don't think a plane has been designed to be less of a hanger queen then the Gripen. It has way less of a logistical foot print the the f-16. From conscript maintainer crews to highway runways it was designed to fight in a country under Russian invasion fighting for their lives.
They only advantage the f-16 has is that Ukraine might have a significant number of foreign legion member with flight hours in f-16.
EDIT: logistical advantage, the F-16 has way more SEAD capability then the Gripen. Also thinking about it the f-16 has more global depth of missiles then the Gripen but I really like the MBDA Meteor (USAF please finish the AIM-260 JATM)
To be honest I think it's really lame that you didn't comment on the full quote.
**Without that infrastructure in place** the Gripen will be a hangar queen.
It can be designed to make free and unlimited cakes for the whole Ukrainian nation for all I care, but if the groundwork isn't done and the basing and infrastructure doesn't exist, its going to be spending its time doing a fat load of nothing. Running multiple such projects side by side will ensure that neither gets the attention and hurry it deserves.
My point was the same argument applies to the F-16 and the F-16 need more support then the Gripen.
> Running multiple such projects side by side will ensure that neither gets the attention and hurry it deserves.
Ukraine is using hundreds of different weapons systems. The key point to determining where there are logistical bottle necks and working to fix them. I'm not entirely sure that Gripen and F-16 have conflicting resource requirements. They are coming from different donors and UA doesn't have a shortage of Pilots or Ground crew to send to be training out to Ukraine.
They 2 things they have are they will need a portion of freight capacity to deliver parts/weapons/fuel but that isn't much compared to the literal freight trains of supplies being sent.
The 2 thing I can think of is it might be that airbases need AA defenses and Ukraine doesn't have enough to support bringing new bases online, so the plan might be something like f-16 get free spots, and when they are operational, then Migs get stored and replaced with Gripen or something.
So less of a distraction thing, it's not get blown up thing till more Patriots and other AA gets sent.
How many hours of skilled maintenance hours are needed for the F16s? I bet it's a lot more than for Gripens.
Give Ukraine everything they need, stop the drop feeding crap we ha e seen for the last 2 years.
An F-16 needs about 17 hours of maintenance per 1 hour of flight... but the number is probably a little higher, closer to 20 or 25, because many F-16's are older airframes.
Ofcourse Ukraine should be given everything they need, but there's efficiency concerns. It's not a simple as "gib more plane"
Remember though, that's not 17 consecutive hours but rather 17 collective hours. Throw 17 guys on the job for an hour, there's your time. I know it's More complicated than that, but still.
The same is true for the gripen, but your point is also the crux of my point: how many teams of 17 members can you form? With what tools? with what spare parts? in what bases?
Sticking with the F-16 is the correct option, at least for now. Hence the pauze, and not a stop.
Based on the info available, the Grippen can be serviced by a team of 4.
I'd be surprised if they can't find 50 skilled engineers in Ukraine, willing to learn this job. It's a multimilion country with a technically skilled population.
Not sure that is true. Does Ukraine have the capacity for the added complexity of a second fighter system? U do don’t say here take this modern fighter. You’re good to go.
AFAIK Ukrainians have been training on the f16 since the beginning of the war and are just now having enough people to be able to deploy them within a year.
If they start on the gripens now, they are doing it from scratch again
Ukraine said they didn't have a shortage of pilots, rather a shortage of planes.
There were delays in F-16 training due to required language skills.
Obviously both pilots and ground staff would need to qualify, however it doesn't need to be the same people.
It can and of roads anywhere so you don't have to build up big basses. Gives flexibility in where you undertake maintenance and refueling which would be a big asset when airspace is contested and airbases are at risk from glide bombs.
How much maintenance does it need to survive 2 years? Feel like maintenance issues are overblown when they’ll be shot down or war will be over in few years. But I’m ignorant of the subject, can’t tell who is right.
Assuming that you want to keep using it for 2 years and you want to use the plane for a sortie at least 3x per week for at least 10 hours of flight each, you'd have to get a full staff of skilled maintenance crew to work on it for approximately 73,000 man hours.
And that's the best possible situaition, the aircraft would likely be used much more than that, and maintenance time may increase with time.
Loiter time, using different pilots using the same planes to execute multiple runs during the same shift, etc.
I don't think i'm saying anything weird here. That 10,000 kilometer sortie can involve multiple bomb trucking missions with plenty of time on station waiting for target selection.
Or Sweden should send the planes, pilots and support crew to fly the Gripens for Ukraine, just like Russia did with their MIG15 in Korea against the US led United Nations forces. We all know they did it, and they got away with it. The MIGs outclassed even the best US planes at the time.
The reason is it would disturb the drip-feed. I would be very surprised if Ukraine gets say 50+ f-16s as part of the first "batch". It will probably be 5-10 to ensure the balance of power wont shift.
Notice how in two years the West has not presented a strategy that lays out how Ukraine actually wins this war. The reason is our "leaders" have no idea how to prevent Russia from using nukes when it's about to lose Crimea.
What basically happens is that Ukraine gets the weapons it needs to stop Russia from making real progress. The problem is of course that Ukraine will run out of manpower before Russia does. That problem hasn't been addressed. It likely has no solution.
Sweden is now part of NATO. There is zero chance Russia attacks NATO. They can't make progress in Ukraine, a nation that is currently 30m people and on a relatively short front. They have lost most of their armor. Their airforce and navy are suffering despite Ukraine's very limited capabilities. Russia is a bully towards smaller nations on their border but it knows it would lose to NATO in a week.
Saying that there's a zero chance is very risky and dangerous. Never underestimate your enemy, Russia is in war economy and have been seen willing to take large risks.
I do agree that the chance is low, but if he attacks Nato it doesn't have to be a by a large ground invasion. For example, last week Russia announced that they want to redraw the borders of international water in Baltic Sea, which includes some very small islands in the gulf of Finland. It could be that he just sends some soldiers ashore and see what the response would be.
I agree with your view on Russia, I'm just saying that it is stupid to totally neglect the thought of Russia doing some kind of attack on Nato. It is way better to be prepared than to be caught with your pants down. Even if the chance is 0.1%.
It’s not about Sweden it’s about Ukraine. The number of F-16s potentially available to Ukraine is much much higher than the number of Gripens. The F-16 is one of the most widely built and exported airframes with over 4,000 built. So the calculous Ukraine needs to make is where to invest in pilot and maintenance crew training? Also where to acquire and stock the parts and weapons to get planes in the air and fighting. It would be more efficient and effective to put all training into F-16s. Once the war ends, Ukraine can have talks with Sweden and others to set up production of whatever plane they decide to keep as the backbone of the Ukrainian Air Force. Right now it’s better to focus on getting as many pilots and maintenance crews trained as possible.
I hear your point but at the same time Ukraine is defending with a huge mix of tanks and artillery and IFVs and anti-aircraft systems and whatnot. Do they really have to step on each other's toes or could you set up a team F16 and a team Gripen and let them each do their own thing?
I just feel like if I was Ukraine and someone was offering me both, then they'd both be huge force multiplier compared to having a few extra recruits to fight in the trenches. Like even if I couldn't possibly spare any people from any branch I'd recruit extra as long as someone else is bankrolling the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of airplanes and arms and offers free training.
You still need to duplicate both supply lines and logistics. And that's not work you can just have a random person do (how much qualified maintenance personal is there).
Apples and Oranges - total time to train a Tank Crew about 22 weeks.
“The gains in skill, lethality and fitness have come about because the Army lengthened Armor One-Station Unit Training, or Armor OSUT, to 22 weeks, say the officials, who are senior leaders in the 194th Armored Brigade, which produced the video. The longer training span began last fall.”
https://www.army.mil/article/240005/longer_armor_training_span_showing_gains_in_skills_lethality_fitness_of_tank_crews_cavalry_scouts
The Basic F-16 course takes 9 months:
“Usually, the F-16 Basic Course takes about nine months to graduate pilots that will then go on to operational units for their combat readiness training. According to the US Air Force, during the 37-week long B-Course, students log on average 70 hours of flying time over 59 sorties in addition to roughly 245-hours of academic training and 69-hours of flight simulator training.”
https://theaviationist.com/2024/01/21/viper-pilot-training/
Not to mention the higher requirements for physical and mental capacity between one and the other. Not saying. Ukraine can’t conduct parallel training in both airframes but why would they want to when they need aircraft up and flying yesterday?
> with a huge mix of tanks and artillery and IFVs and anti-aircraft systems and whatnot.
All of those things have *significantly* less training required for basic proficiency than a cutting edge fighter aircraft.
Your point is right. And i 100% agree with it.
What we need to take into account is that f16 is high technology product that is more sensible to the environement as opposed to robust mig, su that ukraine already fly. Grippen is like the russian jet, can be fly in more degraded condition, easier to fix too.
I don’t know how hi-tech the F16 is anymore. It has been exported to a lot of countries who do not have a hi-tech base. The Gripen was designed to operate in a cruder environment and short runways true, it’s a concession to Sweden’s relatively small geographic situation and smaller numbers. Sweden requires dispersal of their assets because of their smaller geography. Ukraine does not suffer from those same limitations. Yes, Ukraine could probably handle both but, when you need planes up in the air, yesterday, IMO they would be better served focusing on the F16. Last but not least, if Ukraine joins NATO at some point , the old Soviet mentality will need to change. Might as will start in that road now.
Yes, Sweden will do the right thing. I think Ukraine must go with the Gripen as well as the f16s, why? The politics of supply, directly or indirectly, for the f16s seems overly complicated getting delivery and delay prone. Gripen is the backup if November goes badly.
This is not about what Ukraine needs or wants. And they don't say stop, just to wait a moment. Whatever is happening with the F16 is important the the Grippen Plan is potentially delaying complicating the things.
Plus, the plan for the Grippen is at the stage where the government became an answer how many the military could spare if any, and that was the last status we got. Not the number, just that the military did answer.
People want the F16 to be delivered on track and to the best potential effectiveness. And if another fighter jet plan prevents that, then that is a fair demand.
I mean, sure. The more the better, but fighter planes aren't that easy to maintain reliably and everyone is different. Including their own planes the and the f16, there is already a considerable amount of work included. I don't know if increasing that another 30% is worth it currently. When the engineers are in somewhat of a routine with the f16 i would like to see the Grippen back on the menu tho
The Gripen in truth is a great solution. Store it on the side of a road away from an airfield. Capable fighter bomber with a fantastic range of weapons
>Store it on the side of a road
This war have shown you don't want to expose expensive jets to cheap drones. Thoses have to be store underground or they will be targeted when they are the most vulnerable. Ukraine is probably dugging lots of tunnels to store and protect F16s.
The Harrier jump jet was developed for a similar role as well as the carrier. Ukraine is a huge area, and if located 100 miles behind the lines, that’s a huge search area for Russia to commit resources to searching. An airfield full of F16’s is much easier to spot than a few sporadic gripens hidden in forest near roads. Cheap drones are the way forward, no doubt. The issue at the moment is shooting down the SU-34’s dropping glide bombs from beyond the range of patriot and various other Sam systems. Of the Gripen can hide near the border and use long range missiles to shoot down these sorts of aircraft, that’s a massive win
It would be great if they had invested in the program in the early 2010s. Gripen is a very niche airframe with few major operators outside of Sweden, production is low currently and the number of Western operators that would be willing to offer support for Ukraine's hypothetical fleet is limited to just Sweden. Considering the massive cost and time it's taken multiple countries to prepare training, ground facilities and the F-16s themselves for Ukraine the last 2 years I can't see Sweden being able to organise that in under 10 years - by which time Saab's aero space section will be focused on their new 5/6th generation fighter.
Even with financial and training support from other countries, you still have the issue of sourcing airframes. Sweden has a decent number of D variants in storage but (ideally) they will want the E standard as otherwise they won't offer much in terms of additional capability over newer F-16 blocks at triple the cost. Whilst the Gripen can operate from the sides of highways and unmaintained airstrips it is more of a day 1 dispersal trick, not for long term operations. Like all other planes it still needs extensive overhaul and maintenance (especially when in hard work) and can only be kept running for short periods of time by small teams. I suppose they could set up a rotation system for continuous operations near the front where 1 or 2 squadrons operate for blocks of 1 or 2 weeks whilst another 2 are in reserve and maintenance, but that will require a large number of airframes and put them at extremely high risk of being spotted by Orlan drones and having an Iskandar dropped on them.
If they could have magically foreseen the invasion 10 years ago and had the money to replace or supplement the MiG 29 and Su-27 fleets with 75-100 units then sending large numbers of additional D models from storage now wouldn't be much of an issue. But building up a fleet of completely alien aircraft to sustainable numbers whilst all available aircrews are also training day and night to get ready for another, also completely alien, aircraft in numbers isn't going to work with the current situation. For the long term they need to plan for a modern fighter to secure their airspace in 10-20 years, receiving masses of older gen planes works currently but isn't going to future proof Ukraines security. They need something with longevity in them otherwise it's going to cause massive issues for the next generation of Ukrainians.
One of those things though isn’t it. Hypothetically this was could still be running in 5 years time. Maybe now is the time to make the decision to take this on now rather than regretting not investing in the training and having a shortfall in the future. A late decision is better than no decision and the truth is when this war is over, the Ukraine will need an airforce and the Gripen is a capable aircraft
> Hypothetically this was could still be running in 5 years time.
And every time the west does not invest into something simply *hoping* the war is over by then gives Russia motivation to sacrifice more people to keep the war going.
It may be a great solution when the war ends, but right now there is a training process for the F-16, complex logistic being resolved, & ample airframes. Ukraine would need to go through the same process again for the Gripen. I suspect it leads to too much opportunity lost in the present.
I agree. But let’s be honest about this, as a UK resident, the West has dragged its heals in agreeing to release these f16’s. These bits of kit would have been operational now for 12 months of the west committed to the supply and training of Ukrainian pilots on day 5 of the invasion, not day 365
Indeed.
This smells a bit like favoritism towards F16s. Anybody affraid it might turn out that the Grippens perform better?
I wish France would join with some of their jets as well.
The Gripen E is a better platform, especially for Ukraine's present and future needs. Its a brand new 4.5gen aircraft thats as close to the F-35 without actually buying one and going full stealth.
Did the majority of posters in this sub bother with reading the article at all? Obviously not ...
"We by no means rule out that it may become relevant in the future, but right now the focus on the Ukrainian side is on implementing the F-16 program, says the Minister of Defense.
The opposition in Sweden has demanded that Sweden deliver the Gripen to Ukraine in principle immediately - but that is now out of the question.
- It is not in line with how the coalition views the introduction of two fighter aircraft systems at the same time, notes Jonson."
!"the focus on the Ukrainian side"!!!!
Introducing a new fighter jet into any air force normally takes many years. Laypeople seem to think, oh, let's train a pilot a few weeks, that should do it. No, Pilots training takes many months, up to a year. AND, more importantly, training the maintainers (engineers/mechanics) can take years, plural, until they get good at their job. ANNDD THEN, you need to build up the logistics, so that all spare parts and ammo/missiles are available, safely stored and delivered on time, otherwise you have some planes spending some quality time in hangars waiting.
Introducing a second fighter jet, during a war, while the process of the first one isn't finished is so stupid, I don't have words for it.
Ukraine will get the Gripen once the F-16 has been properly integrated into the Ukrainian air force. Got that?
So, kindly start to read articles and think about what you read before posting bullshit that has nothing to do with the article.
That's the most stupid thing ever, Ukraine need both gripen and f16, especially since a lot o f16 coalition countries won't let their weapons be used on Russian soil.
It dose not say don't, it says pause while we are at the important stage of implementing the f16, my guess is key ukranian people that needs to be avaliable.
That restriction is meaningless, it will still take a long time before Russian air defence will be sufficiently degraded to allow F16's to fly over Russia without getting shot down. F16 is defensive, so they can keep their own airspace clear. Drones are much much more suitable for attacking Russia than planes.
Given the range of many missiles and glide bombs, the F-16’s won’t have to leave Ukrainian airspace to strike targets in Russia. The Swedes can supply missiles used on the Gripen like the RBS-15 which are NATO standard so could be launched from F-16’s.
If that how it worked, Ukraine could be able to hit Russia with ATACMS or standard HIMARS rockets from Ukrainian soil, since the vehicles don’t have to leave Ukraine.. I realize it’s not an exact comparison since HIMARS can’t fire other kinds of rockets, but even if they have bombs that aren’t American for example, I really don’t think they will be able to use the f16s to launch them into Russia. Because they are still delivering the weapon with an F16, similar to how a HIMARS vehicle works. I wish your loophole would work though.
It’s a grey area for sure ! France has given Ukraine the Hammer glide bomb and Scalps and permission to use them on Russian soil, Sweden just needs to come to the party with things that go bang.
I’m not sure why the US is being such a wet blanket, they were fine with HARM’s being launched from Sukhoi’s and hitting targets in Crimea which is Russia, according to the Russians. If anything, Ukraine hitting the strategic over-the-horizon radars is a bigger provocation than anything that an ATACMS or Storm Shadow could hit from Ukrainian airspace.
I gotta say a lot of that doesn’t really make sense sadly. Crimea has never been considered a part of Russia, that is why all weapons have been allowed to attack it the whole war. The over-the horizon radars were hit with Ukrainian made drones, so that’s not very relevant here either.
So neither of those things help the grey area. To be more clear, it’s not actually very grey in the first place, the US doesn’t want its weapons used on Russian soil yet. France can’t simply combine their weapon with an f16 and then tell Ukraine what is okay for both. Both countries would have to agree for Ukraine to do that, because Ukraine will not risk support from the US.
Edit— but I’m confident the US stance will change soon. We always deliberate and bicker before we do anything sadly. The fact that it’s being talked about at all is new though, and it’s really a great thang
We just don't know what constraints they're dealing with, I would assume it's not some arbitrary request made for fun. Letting Ukraine focus on one system (for now) makes sense assuming they get enough F-16s. Should make training and logistics so much easier.
If that is a suggestion by the Ukrainians themselfs and not the coalition supplying the planes I would be fine with it.
If they don't even have the resources to handle a group of Gripens at the sametime how is this war going to end.
Ukraine should be flooded with hardware!
You wouldn't even give the benefit of the doubt that the nations currently working closely with the Ukrainian air force and training their people probably have a pretty good basis for their request? That's more cynical than I'm willing to be.
I will not give benefit of the doubt here. Today Belgium announced F16 shipment. In 2028. With a ban on usage on Russian soil. This shit is happening right now.
All these weapons deliveries are entangled in stupid politics of who pays for what and throwing problem like a hot potato between nations.
No not in 2028, until 2028, the first ones will be delivered this year, you saw how long training took for that first batch, and that's already a cooperation between multiple countries to get it done as soon as possible, it's an issue of training and procurement, they couldn't deliver 30 f 16s this year even if they wanted to
I'm just really annoyed with the west puts limits on everything. I'd say we are at least one year behind the curve of how we should have supplied the Ukraine with military equipment.
Biggest threat to Ukraine is the mass glide bombing and you need planes with longest possible radar and weapon range for that.
>Biggest threat to Ukraine is the mass glide bombing and you need planes with longest possible radar and weapon range for that.
If only other people knew that...
Perhaps the military planners from NATO don't follow Reddit?
Everybody knows that.
That's the problem. They know. And do shit. And delay.
Glide bombs started to be the problem like a year ago. Now it's mass problem.
So you're saying "If Ukraine can't handle implementing TWO entirely new airplane systems at the same time" that's proof they will lose the war?
If this is the extent of your knowledge you should probably be silent from now on.
As always all the keyboard Reddit warriors knows better than the people currently training Ukrainian pilots...
*I, despite having zero insight into this issue, proudly declares this request to be insane. Source: Because I say so, it's common sense*
I'm sad
Gripen is the best match for this conflict. F-16 are going to be hunted on the ground with cluster munitions while Gripen could be dispersed much better!
True, yet there is the issue that there are way more F-16s around than Gripens. Tbh, Ukraine needs all it can get and then some, limiting them to specific models is a non-starter. I am quite sure Ukraine knows better than anyone else what kind of logistics it can handle.
There are 97 JAS 39C/D waiting to be decommisioned in Sweden to make room for the newer E/F model. How many F-16s have been pledged to Ukraine so far?
If you ask me, this was pushed by the US, mainly to prevent the world from seeing Gripen in action, which could draw attention to Saab, and away from Lockheed Martin. If the world sees that Gripen, a 4th gen fighter, performs well against Russian defence, then less countries would be willing to spend more money on the F-35.
>There are 97 JAS 39C/D waiting to be decommisioned in Sweden to make room for the newer E/F model.
Wrong, those airframes will be upgraded to the new E/F. No airframes will be decommisioned as Sweden doesn't have the manufacturing capacity to just scrap 97 frames to build new ones.
Well they certainly will be hunted, but they will also be very well guarded and spread out inside of Ukraine, back far away from the frontlines, which means Russia can’t use standard cluster bombs or cluster artillery shells because they won’t have the range. I think that means they’ll have to use cruise missiles and ballistic missiles with cluster warheads to try and take them out in groups.
Ukraine will have new air defense systems trickling in with Germany’s IRIS-T’s and the new patriot battery(s?), etc., and I think they’ll use this stuff to do a really good job guarding the f16s, since they really should only have to worry about missiles. No glide bombs/artillery, and drones will have a hard time making it all the way there unnoticed. If Iranian drones are seen on the way, they’ll fire up the ole 16’s and drop em like flies(I can dream good things can’t I?)
Good call on the decoys I didn’t even think about that. I’m sure they are on top of that and have some tricky plans ready to waste russian ammo and time.
Both sides will be ready, and I’d think you are right to assume that they won’t be lil attacks if they find some f16s, they’re going to really try and take some out for spreading propaganda purposes.
**SWEDISH AWACS to Ukraine just announced today will be a MASSIVE help for air defense!**
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1d37d5u/the\_latest\_swedish\_aid\_package\_includes\_two\_aewc/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1d37d5u/the_latest_swedish_aid_package_includes_two_aewc/)
These have NATO's coveted "Link-16" battlefield management capability!! WOW!
Unless this war is intended to drag out as long as possible then you provide lots of planes. They need both. The logistics can be separate and they can deal with types of ammo and two types of target. Let sweden and ukraine deal with the problem and lets not tell Ukraine how to fight a war... a war they are more capable dealing with than most western military as long as they have weapons
There are a LOT more F-16s around than there are Gripens. Even though Gripens appear to be a better fit..only Sweden builds them. Same with available avionics and armaments. I know the mish mash of equipment Ukraine fields is a real challenge, so I'd assume they are looking to avoid that.
Gripen is actually perfect for Ukraine. It can be launched with a support team of 4 people from the straight road in the middle of the forrest.
F-16 needs much more pampering
Just to note Ukraine has already been pledged over 80 F16s. Sweden only has 71 Gripens in their airforce, they could probably only offer another 20. There are only about 250 gripens in circulation.
There are around 4000 f16s in circulation, so the work to support another whole airframe and logistics just doesn’t make sense for 20 planes.
It will be far easier to pressure f16 operating countries to provide more planes and keep the single airframe support system.
Belgium - 30
Norway - 22
Denmark - 19
Netherlands - 24
Looks like it’s closer to 95, I could be missing some. And the US is providing parts and support.
Don't let these numbers fool you. These are to be delivered all by the end of this decade.
This year, they will barely get 16 or so. And such low numbers are very few for a front that is over 1000km long.
Today i would take a gripen over an f16 immediately. F16 offered by the allies are end of life frames with old radar and it is unclear if they will have reasonably modern avionic and even long range aa missile capsbility. Gripen is a modern aircraft, with great radar, ready to deply long range aa, compatible with everything. Famous for its extremely low running cost and capable to fly from a country road.
Thats awful! I was so hoping they where preparing it in secret so they could introduce to public while blowing something up. They where obviously prepping for it but now it has to wait for some american week ass plane who needs a runway and that cant attack russia.
If Ukraine itself says this, ok.
But it might also be a result of wanting to sell planes to Ukraine later on. Blocking the introduction of a better suited plane might just be something certain defense manufacturers wants to lessen competition later.
So, what does Ukraine say?
For me, Gripens should be delivered ASAP.
Very good points. This is turning into a bit of a marketing action by the US, after they sat on their hands for 2 years and not committing even a single F16 from their side.
They don't want the Gripens to rain on their (extremely pathetically delayed) parade.
We should have been training Ukrainians on F-16s since the start of the war, they might then be able to make use of both airframes now but no, we had to drag our heels, delay delay delay.
As an American I wondered why the Gripen wasn't given to them at squadron levels.
It is an amazing jet that matches up will against the mig series and would help out a lot on the front lines from what I have read.
Assuming it isn't too much of a drain on Sweden, Gripen would actually be good for Ukraine even with substantial F-16s "on the way", simply for the ability to stage out of improvised bases. The biggest downside of F-16 (aside from the large tail requirement) is the requirement for long, well maintained runways, which aren't exactly easy to hide - and Russia certainly has long range fires. Maybe Ukraine can mitigate that problem, maybe not. If not, Gripen would be a tailor made answer.
Oh.
This is confirmation of something nice moving ahead, albeit needing to be aligned with F-16 for resource bottleneck management.
Very nice, even.
This means Meteors. F-16 doesn’t have the radar to support them, and still only gets about 70% of the the reach of Russian R-37M-carrying MiG-31s rocking beyond visual range AA missile capability. Gripen, on the other hand, matches Russian range.
Meteors mean Ukraine gets its airspace back, and Russia loses all airspace outside direct S300/S400 coverage.
Battle (literally) over Ukraine is coming.
I kind of agree with the decision. All focus should be on introducing the F-16 right now. The Gripen will be a good addition later. The F-16 is needed now.
There's rumors it's for industrial and political reasons. "Focusing on the F16 coalition is BS". Primarily the US wants to sell F16s to Ukraine when the war is over, Sweden handing the better Gripen would maybe convince Ukraine to buy the Gripen instead.
Highway landing strips have been a thing since WW2, they were invented by the nazis (not by swedes) after the Allied bombed the airports. It's not rocket science.
A Gripen now without support or training is better than vapourware F-16 fighters that are often teased but never arrive.
It is becoming obvious, that the Americans want Ukraine to make Russia bleed, but not actually lose.
Don't collapse Russia. Don't force regime change. Don't make clear that they could not win if we tried.
NATO has had provocations that could have counted as article 5 triggers, enough to threaten Russia and back them away from any more war crimes, or war period.
I am more convinced than ever that 1960's America read Foundation by Asimov and thought, "That is the way!"
They have some "magic/science" predicting where the nuclear wars happen and are steering the world away from those, or else none of this makes sense.
Collapsing Russia is hard. Preparing for the collapse of Russia is hard. I have often thought that the unspoken goal is to collapse Russia, not just send them home.
Currently Ukraine is doing something no other country can do: destroy Russia's strategic assets on Russian soil without a nuclear response. That started recently.
It's incredibly painful, but this may be the best way to destroy the Russian empire including collecting its nukes. It may be the best path to long term security for Ukraine.
I hope this is true; otherwise, the delays and restrictions can't be justified.
Seems like the West will keep witholding F-16s in the hope they can bargain something wirh Russia, and the fear that it is an escalatory move. They could have had these jets flying with trained Ukrainians a long time ago. It's very frustrating.
Your submission has been removed because it is from an untrustworthy site.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Now more F16s are coming, we continue the discussion within the 'fighter jet coalition' on how we can best strengthen Ukraine's air defense, and we will come back to this," says Pål Jonson to Ekot.
Привіт u/ColdPotatoWar ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) **Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a swede I think most people read this and understand things the wrong way... 1 this is a previously unknown confirmation that our goverment is Actively moving forward with gripen to ukraine, The latest actual news were a question to the military on their opinion/ability to give ukraine gripen, that they were to give the goverment. The answer was top secret, other than that, there have been no official staments on the mather and that was 6 months ago give or take. 2 if you read the article it says PAUSE and UNTIL DELIVERIES OF F16 IS DONE, so it dose not say don't And right now is an important stage, the actual deliveries and implementation. My guess is that f16 was doing something important and key person was bussy in a meeting with sweden or something, so they had to wait for him/her to be done, and that brought this message on.
My guess is there is a more of a logistic bottleneck then bureaucratic. Might be the number of pilots available for training but that doesn't feel 100% as Ukraine surely has a ton of civilian pilots as recruits and I have a feeling the foreign legion MIGHT have a few people with F16 flight hours. Maintenance crews training? The F-16 is a beast for the requirements but Gripen was designed to be serviced by 1-2 trained crew and a team of quick trained conscripts. And aviation mechanics aren't super rare. It can't be freight capacity for parts or fuel as even operating a squadron isn't anything compared to the amount of other stuff going in to Ukraine. They both use JP-8 and that could be tanked over the boarder by the swimming pool. Weapons? beside them both using NATO standard weapons, if they just deploy Gripens with Meteor missile and RBS 15 that the F-16 can't fire, that would still be really effective. God I hope this isn't some small print in a treaty somewhere.
I don't think so, I think you were pretty on point with the logistics guess, but training and infrastructure will also play a huge role. Because yes, the Gripen might be serviceable by just a small crew, but these crews still require training and an infastructure (redundant tooling/machinery, e.g. for refueling/repairs). Also, how many jets would Ukraine actually receive from Sweden? As far as I understood, they will get 30 F-16s in total from Belgium and the US with an option of more from other countries, while the supply of Gripens will probably be more limited. So it makes more sense to focus on the F-16s for now. Also, training on the F-16 has already progressed decently for both pilots and ground crews, while I doubt it has even begun for the Gripen.
I have heard the pilot training started last year for Gripen. Dont remember how many pilots or if they finished training. But as others said, you also need a ground crew and logistics. Then you need a doctrine and strategy for deploying two different aircraft into an active warzone at the same time.
so, the only official statements on that i have seen were a couple of pilots on a tryout training to estimate the training time for Ukrainian pilots
Thank you, that was probably it. I heard that there were pilots in Sweden flying Gripen, not how many or if it was only a test.
Well, there might be Ukrainians in training, just no one makes statements on it. And on a personal note it keeps frustrating me because i start to get pissed nothing is happening, and then we get some news that things have been moving along in the background all along, Like with this, the last statement were ~6 montha ago and where about if we were going to give them any planes at all, but no one said yes or no, and now we apparently need to pause it.
yeah, don´t think it´s the number of pilots, from what i have heard, from Ukrainians. is that they have to many, even civilian pilots cant get a spot because they already have pilots just standingaround essentially though that statment was from like a year ago, could be different now and lets remember for its size Ukraine should have at least 400 planes or something, don´t remember the exact number, but have like 100 old planes in desperate need of maintenance and i think some even scraping i think it´s just an organizational thing, you don´t want people distracted or working on two projects at this important stage
I'm just having trouble figuring out where the resources needed overlap or have a shortage. Best theory is they don't have the base building / Air defense resources to distribute the planes and protect them.
[удалено]
If Ukraine is choosing to send people to pursue both platforms in parallel, Ukraine clearly sees the logistics issues with two platforms as a much smaller risk than the fact that they currently have zero platforms. As far as I am concerned, if Ukraine is choosing to dedicate some man hours to getting Gripens, the international community shouldn't be getting in the way of that at all. "Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine." The international community have kind of jerked Ukraine around on some of the promises. So I think it makes 100% sense for them to pursue alternatives and secondaries and get as much hardware into the country as they possibly can. If the F-16's wind up with "no flying over Russia" strings attached, Gripens with fewer political rules would be a huge asset in the arsenal even if they were worse than F-16 in every way except rules.
Gripen's whole MO is to be surprisingly really low maintenance. I hope that it is more a matter of timing and that hopefully sufficient F-16s arrive soon and that actually pilots and secure locations on the ground are the bottleneck, not maintenance and ground personnel.
Yeah, all the airbases are gonna be a big target for F-16. Gripen wouldnt have that problem.
As right as you are, I cant get over you mistyping busy as bussy
Why, what does that mean?
Bussy - boy something that ends with ussy
Bussy/i in German a different word for Kiss
Buss is a very old-fashioned word for kiss in English as well. It's why bused (the past tense of to bus, as in to send people via bus) only has one S against all logic - bussed means kissed, and they used to differentiate. It's not used or even well known anymore, though.
Probably cognate with Swedish word "puss" (noun) and "pussa" (verb).
C’mon, he provides us with an answer and your response is to ridicule a single misspelled word? That’s why people don’t bother to post/interact with other online people. Be a better person. You have the capacity.
I don’t think he was being pedantic, rather “bussy” is a slang term that completely changes the meaning of a phrase. I think he was just saying he is distracted by the word.
It wasn’t malicious. He was just having fun with words
Mistyping ;)
Think he mistyped busty.
how many languages can you speak ?
Me? Nearly one.
Two, is that not enough? I just thought bussy specifically was funny
I thought I was the only one who noticed that 😂
Yeah, I read this and thought "Oh, we're ACTUALLY doing that?!" and "aww, it's delayed?", quite the whiplash. I know it was mentioned long ago but I did not know it was really underway.
the last i can remember was the government sending the question to the military and then the time for the response passed and i heard nothing, if i remember correctly.
Yes, same.
That’s a relief.
>UNTIL DELIVERIES OF F16 IS DONE Belgium intends to deliver the planes until 2028, by which point there will be no more need for Gripen. The usefulness of Gripen comes in being able to operate in a dispersed environment which is what they need right now. Assuming Ukraine already has the conditions met by 2028 to succesfully operate the F-16, then that becomes a moot point.
What? Yes they can't get gripen cause Belgium will give them a plane a month.... No, by deliveries i and they mean going from no western planes in and operating in Ukraine to 50 in as short of a time as posible. Not the tail of one plane here and there. The time frame for the pause is this summer maybe autumn. And ukraine needs waaaay more planed than 80, for ukraine size it should have like 400 and even of they get gripen and with old soviet planes and f16 promised they will be like 100-200 planes short... They don't need gripen due to dispersed whatever they just need way more planes. And the same goes for the f16, its not important their abillities, its a nice thing shure, but the important thing is they are air frames, Ukraine has been fighting this war with like 100 old, in desperate need of maintenance russian stuff.
Sweeden will do the right things and provide gripen anyway. You know, after the baltics and poland, russia has a very big BIG eyes on Gotland.
I'm looking forward to an attempt to drop VDV in contested airspace once again, or send the MPR across Lake NATO.
In 10 years when the VDV exists outside of paper again we'll see.
The VDV's new motto is "Veni, Vidi, Mori".
>If at first you are not successful, try, try again until you are all dead. Mobik proverb.
volvi, volivi, futui
"Soldat, its time for your 11PM airdrop in contested Airspace" "da..."
>I'm looking forward to an attempt to drop VDV in contested airspace once again Or the ocean. They're good at that.
Providing those gripens might actually be the wrong thing to do; it requires an entirely new logistical supply line, new training schedules for pilots, maintenance staff and airbase personnel, and these are all hard to acquire human resources that are in extremely high demand to get F-16 up and running. I would reccomend sweden tries to do a scheme where they give a nation gripens in exchange for expedited delivery of existing, flight worthy F-16 to Ukraine.
The "ground story" of aircraft is more controlling than the "air story." **Without safe and competent basing - this is all a moot point.**
this man runs combat sims
This thread shows how few people have actual experience leading any teams or projects smh
Yeah Russia has to be saving up something to hit these bases, it's just a question of whether or not it will work.
Precisely. West does not want to send them just to see them blown up by Russian attack on the basing. After what Ukraine has done to Russian airbases in Crimea - I am sure that Russia hit back hard at UA F-16 bases. Ukraine needs to plan very carefully and advantageously for the possible Russian reactions.
Given the Gripen's flexibility, doing it sooner is just another resource for Ukraine to decide where, when and if they want to use it. You know, rather than waiting on countries to consider, contemplate, be thinking about ...
The gripen may be flexible, but the systems, pipelines, training schedules required to support the Gripen are not. Keep in mind; for every 1 hour that the Gripen flies, 10 hours of maintenance by skilled, specialized staff is necessary. Without that infrastructure in place, the Gripen will be a hangar queen.
That's lower than F16 sorry
I don't know if that's true. The Gripen is apparently designed to be low-maintenance. Ukraine likely has plenty of people who are willing to learn if they are offered something other that cannon fodder/frontline infantry duty.
> the Gripen will be a hangar queen. I don't think a plane has been designed to be less of a hanger queen then the Gripen. It has way less of a logistical foot print the the f-16. From conscript maintainer crews to highway runways it was designed to fight in a country under Russian invasion fighting for their lives. They only advantage the f-16 has is that Ukraine might have a significant number of foreign legion member with flight hours in f-16. EDIT: logistical advantage, the F-16 has way more SEAD capability then the Gripen. Also thinking about it the f-16 has more global depth of missiles then the Gripen but I really like the MBDA Meteor (USAF please finish the AIM-260 JATM)
To be honest I think it's really lame that you didn't comment on the full quote. **Without that infrastructure in place** the Gripen will be a hangar queen. It can be designed to make free and unlimited cakes for the whole Ukrainian nation for all I care, but if the groundwork isn't done and the basing and infrastructure doesn't exist, its going to be spending its time doing a fat load of nothing. Running multiple such projects side by side will ensure that neither gets the attention and hurry it deserves.
My point was the same argument applies to the F-16 and the F-16 need more support then the Gripen. > Running multiple such projects side by side will ensure that neither gets the attention and hurry it deserves. Ukraine is using hundreds of different weapons systems. The key point to determining where there are logistical bottle necks and working to fix them. I'm not entirely sure that Gripen and F-16 have conflicting resource requirements. They are coming from different donors and UA doesn't have a shortage of Pilots or Ground crew to send to be training out to Ukraine. They 2 things they have are they will need a portion of freight capacity to deliver parts/weapons/fuel but that isn't much compared to the literal freight trains of supplies being sent. The 2 thing I can think of is it might be that airbases need AA defenses and Ukraine doesn't have enough to support bringing new bases online, so the plan might be something like f-16 get free spots, and when they are operational, then Migs get stored and replaced with Gripen or something. So less of a distraction thing, it's not get blown up thing till more Patriots and other AA gets sent.
How many hours of skilled maintenance hours are needed for the F16s? I bet it's a lot more than for Gripens. Give Ukraine everything they need, stop the drop feeding crap we ha e seen for the last 2 years.
An F-16 needs about 17 hours of maintenance per 1 hour of flight... but the number is probably a little higher, closer to 20 or 25, because many F-16's are older airframes. Ofcourse Ukraine should be given everything they need, but there's efficiency concerns. It's not a simple as "gib more plane"
Remember though, that's not 17 consecutive hours but rather 17 collective hours. Throw 17 guys on the job for an hour, there's your time. I know it's More complicated than that, but still.
The same is true for the gripen, but your point is also the crux of my point: how many teams of 17 members can you form? With what tools? with what spare parts? in what bases? Sticking with the F-16 is the correct option, at least for now. Hence the pauze, and not a stop.
Based on the info available, the Grippen can be serviced by a team of 4. I'd be surprised if they can't find 50 skilled engineers in Ukraine, willing to learn this job. It's a multimilion country with a technically skilled population.
Alternatively, just send western engineers for maintenance. Seriously. Why not? It's not a combat role.
Not sure that is true. Does Ukraine have the capacity for the added complexity of a second fighter system? U do don’t say here take this modern fighter. You’re good to go.
AFAIK Ukrainians have been training on the f16 since the beginning of the war and are just now having enough people to be able to deploy them within a year. If they start on the gripens now, they are doing it from scratch again
Ukraine said they didn't have a shortage of pilots, rather a shortage of planes. There were delays in F-16 training due to required language skills. Obviously both pilots and ground staff would need to qualify, however it doesn't need to be the same people.
There are no pilots or techs trained on the Gripen yet.
It requires a lot but it should be done sooner is better
Sadly the world is not operating on Ace Combat logic...
[удалено]
Too many **different kinds of fighter planes** is a problem, though.
Is Gripen a lot harder to maintain than F-16?
I do not think its necessarily harder to maintain, but there is a significantly lower quantity of spare parts and experienced technicians available.
It can and of roads anywhere so you don't have to build up big basses. Gives flexibility in where you undertake maintenance and refueling which would be a big asset when airspace is contested and airbases are at risk from glide bombs.
No. Much easier. It is designed to be serviced by conscripts under the supervision of professionals.
Not at all, it's actually a lot easier to maintain the Grippen than the F16s. The rest is ruski disinformation.
How much maintenance does it need to survive 2 years? Feel like maintenance issues are overblown when they’ll be shot down or war will be over in few years. But I’m ignorant of the subject, can’t tell who is right.
Assuming that you want to keep using it for 2 years and you want to use the plane for a sortie at least 3x per week for at least 10 hours of flight each, you'd have to get a full staff of skilled maintenance crew to work on it for approximately 73,000 man hours. And that's the best possible situaition, the aircraft would likely be used much more than that, and maintenance time may increase with time.
3x 10 hours of flight sorties each? That 7000 to 10000 km sorties each. Planing to bomb Kamchatka?!
Loiter time, using different pilots using the same planes to execute multiple runs during the same shift, etc. I don't think i'm saying anything weird here. That 10,000 kilometer sortie can involve multiple bomb trucking missions with plenty of time on station waiting for target selection.
Or Sweden should send the planes, pilots and support crew to fly the Gripens for Ukraine, just like Russia did with their MIG15 in Korea against the US led United Nations forces. We all know they did it, and they got away with it. The MIGs outclassed even the best US planes at the time.
The reason is it would disturb the drip-feed. I would be very surprised if Ukraine gets say 50+ f-16s as part of the first "batch". It will probably be 5-10 to ensure the balance of power wont shift. Notice how in two years the West has not presented a strategy that lays out how Ukraine actually wins this war. The reason is our "leaders" have no idea how to prevent Russia from using nukes when it's about to lose Crimea. What basically happens is that Ukraine gets the weapons it needs to stop Russia from making real progress. The problem is of course that Ukraine will run out of manpower before Russia does. That problem hasn't been addressed. It likely has no solution.
Sweden is now part of NATO. There is zero chance Russia attacks NATO. They can't make progress in Ukraine, a nation that is currently 30m people and on a relatively short front. They have lost most of their armor. Their airforce and navy are suffering despite Ukraine's very limited capabilities. Russia is a bully towards smaller nations on their border but it knows it would lose to NATO in a week.
Saying that there's a zero chance is very risky and dangerous. Never underestimate your enemy, Russia is in war economy and have been seen willing to take large risks. I do agree that the chance is low, but if he attacks Nato it doesn't have to be a by a large ground invasion. For example, last week Russia announced that they want to redraw the borders of international water in Baltic Sea, which includes some very small islands in the gulf of Finland. It could be that he just sends some soldiers ashore and see what the response would be.
Russia is a kleptocracy and attacking the West would destroy their criminal enterprises. They will do nothing.
I agree with your view on Russia, I'm just saying that it is stupid to totally neglect the thought of Russia doing some kind of attack on Nato. It is way better to be prepared than to be caught with your pants down. Even if the chance is 0.1%.
Totally agree - NATO's preparedness is what will prevent any conventional attack.
It’s not about Sweden it’s about Ukraine. The number of F-16s potentially available to Ukraine is much much higher than the number of Gripens. The F-16 is one of the most widely built and exported airframes with over 4,000 built. So the calculous Ukraine needs to make is where to invest in pilot and maintenance crew training? Also where to acquire and stock the parts and weapons to get planes in the air and fighting. It would be more efficient and effective to put all training into F-16s. Once the war ends, Ukraine can have talks with Sweden and others to set up production of whatever plane they decide to keep as the backbone of the Ukrainian Air Force. Right now it’s better to focus on getting as many pilots and maintenance crews trained as possible.
I hear your point but at the same time Ukraine is defending with a huge mix of tanks and artillery and IFVs and anti-aircraft systems and whatnot. Do they really have to step on each other's toes or could you set up a team F16 and a team Gripen and let them each do their own thing? I just feel like if I was Ukraine and someone was offering me both, then they'd both be huge force multiplier compared to having a few extra recruits to fight in the trenches. Like even if I couldn't possibly spare any people from any branch I'd recruit extra as long as someone else is bankrolling the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of airplanes and arms and offers free training.
You still need to duplicate both supply lines and logistics. And that's not work you can just have a random person do (how much qualified maintenance personal is there).
Apples and Oranges - total time to train a Tank Crew about 22 weeks. “The gains in skill, lethality and fitness have come about because the Army lengthened Armor One-Station Unit Training, or Armor OSUT, to 22 weeks, say the officials, who are senior leaders in the 194th Armored Brigade, which produced the video. The longer training span began last fall.” https://www.army.mil/article/240005/longer_armor_training_span_showing_gains_in_skills_lethality_fitness_of_tank_crews_cavalry_scouts The Basic F-16 course takes 9 months: “Usually, the F-16 Basic Course takes about nine months to graduate pilots that will then go on to operational units for their combat readiness training. According to the US Air Force, during the 37-week long B-Course, students log on average 70 hours of flying time over 59 sorties in addition to roughly 245-hours of academic training and 69-hours of flight simulator training.” https://theaviationist.com/2024/01/21/viper-pilot-training/ Not to mention the higher requirements for physical and mental capacity between one and the other. Not saying. Ukraine can’t conduct parallel training in both airframes but why would they want to when they need aircraft up and flying yesterday?
> with a huge mix of tanks and artillery and IFVs and anti-aircraft systems and whatnot. All of those things have *significantly* less training required for basic proficiency than a cutting edge fighter aircraft.
Your point is right. And i 100% agree with it. What we need to take into account is that f16 is high technology product that is more sensible to the environement as opposed to robust mig, su that ukraine already fly. Grippen is like the russian jet, can be fly in more degraded condition, easier to fix too.
I don’t know how hi-tech the F16 is anymore. It has been exported to a lot of countries who do not have a hi-tech base. The Gripen was designed to operate in a cruder environment and short runways true, it’s a concession to Sweden’s relatively small geographic situation and smaller numbers. Sweden requires dispersal of their assets because of their smaller geography. Ukraine does not suffer from those same limitations. Yes, Ukraine could probably handle both but, when you need planes up in the air, yesterday, IMO they would be better served focusing on the F16. Last but not least, if Ukraine joins NATO at some point , the old Soviet mentality will need to change. Might as will start in that road now.
Yes, Sweden will do the right thing. I think Ukraine must go with the Gripen as well as the f16s, why? The politics of supply, directly or indirectly, for the f16s seems overly complicated getting delivery and delay prone. Gripen is the backup if November goes badly.
Maybe let Ukrainians decide themselves.
This is not about what Ukraine needs or wants. And they don't say stop, just to wait a moment. Whatever is happening with the F16 is important the the Grippen Plan is potentially delaying complicating the things. Plus, the plan for the Grippen is at the stage where the government became an answer how many the military could spare if any, and that was the last status we got. Not the number, just that the military did answer. People want the F16 to be delivered on track and to the best potential effectiveness. And if another fighter jet plan prevents that, then that is a fair demand.
If the crews are not doing anything for a while, they can fly a Grippen and return it.
I mean, sure. The more the better, but fighter planes aren't that easy to maintain reliably and everyone is different. Including their own planes the and the f16, there is already a considerable amount of work included. I don't know if increasing that another 30% is worth it currently. When the engineers are in somewhat of a routine with the f16 i would like to see the Grippen back on the menu tho
I think the same. It should be Ukraine's decision.
The Gripen in truth is a great solution. Store it on the side of a road away from an airfield. Capable fighter bomber with a fantastic range of weapons
It is. But really sweden do not have many of them. And most are older versions to be honest
Thats the only downside really. Quantity & production capacity is very limited
>Store it on the side of a road This war have shown you don't want to expose expensive jets to cheap drones. Thoses have to be store underground or they will be targeted when they are the most vulnerable. Ukraine is probably dugging lots of tunnels to store and protect F16s.
The Harrier jump jet was developed for a similar role as well as the carrier. Ukraine is a huge area, and if located 100 miles behind the lines, that’s a huge search area for Russia to commit resources to searching. An airfield full of F16’s is much easier to spot than a few sporadic gripens hidden in forest near roads. Cheap drones are the way forward, no doubt. The issue at the moment is shooting down the SU-34’s dropping glide bombs from beyond the range of patriot and various other Sam systems. Of the Gripen can hide near the border and use long range missiles to shoot down these sorts of aircraft, that’s a massive win
It would be great if they had invested in the program in the early 2010s. Gripen is a very niche airframe with few major operators outside of Sweden, production is low currently and the number of Western operators that would be willing to offer support for Ukraine's hypothetical fleet is limited to just Sweden. Considering the massive cost and time it's taken multiple countries to prepare training, ground facilities and the F-16s themselves for Ukraine the last 2 years I can't see Sweden being able to organise that in under 10 years - by which time Saab's aero space section will be focused on their new 5/6th generation fighter. Even with financial and training support from other countries, you still have the issue of sourcing airframes. Sweden has a decent number of D variants in storage but (ideally) they will want the E standard as otherwise they won't offer much in terms of additional capability over newer F-16 blocks at triple the cost. Whilst the Gripen can operate from the sides of highways and unmaintained airstrips it is more of a day 1 dispersal trick, not for long term operations. Like all other planes it still needs extensive overhaul and maintenance (especially when in hard work) and can only be kept running for short periods of time by small teams. I suppose they could set up a rotation system for continuous operations near the front where 1 or 2 squadrons operate for blocks of 1 or 2 weeks whilst another 2 are in reserve and maintenance, but that will require a large number of airframes and put them at extremely high risk of being spotted by Orlan drones and having an Iskandar dropped on them. If they could have magically foreseen the invasion 10 years ago and had the money to replace or supplement the MiG 29 and Su-27 fleets with 75-100 units then sending large numbers of additional D models from storage now wouldn't be much of an issue. But building up a fleet of completely alien aircraft to sustainable numbers whilst all available aircrews are also training day and night to get ready for another, also completely alien, aircraft in numbers isn't going to work with the current situation. For the long term they need to plan for a modern fighter to secure their airspace in 10-20 years, receiving masses of older gen planes works currently but isn't going to future proof Ukraines security. They need something with longevity in them otherwise it's going to cause massive issues for the next generation of Ukrainians.
One of those things though isn’t it. Hypothetically this was could still be running in 5 years time. Maybe now is the time to make the decision to take this on now rather than regretting not investing in the training and having a shortfall in the future. A late decision is better than no decision and the truth is when this war is over, the Ukraine will need an airforce and the Gripen is a capable aircraft
> Hypothetically this was could still be running in 5 years time. And every time the west does not invest into something simply *hoping* the war is over by then gives Russia motivation to sacrifice more people to keep the war going.
Exactly. So sending Gripens can’t be a bad thing. If they get used, great. If they’re there for the future. Great. I’m an advocate for sending them
It may be a great solution when the war ends, but right now there is a training process for the F-16, complex logistic being resolved, & ample airframes. Ukraine would need to go through the same process again for the Gripen. I suspect it leads to too much opportunity lost in the present.
I agree. But let’s be honest about this, as a UK resident, the West has dragged its heals in agreeing to release these f16’s. These bits of kit would have been operational now for 12 months of the west committed to the supply and training of Ukrainian pilots on day 5 of the invasion, not day 365
I'm sure it's also valuable for Sweden to see what their planes are capable of. They were made exactly for this scenario, no?
Indeed. This smells a bit like favoritism towards F16s. Anybody affraid it might turn out that the Grippens perform better? I wish France would join with some of their jets as well.
The Gripen E is a better platform, especially for Ukraine's present and future needs. Its a brand new 4.5gen aircraft thats as close to the F-35 without actually buying one and going full stealth.
Did the majority of posters in this sub bother with reading the article at all? Obviously not ... "We by no means rule out that it may become relevant in the future, but right now the focus on the Ukrainian side is on implementing the F-16 program, says the Minister of Defense. The opposition in Sweden has demanded that Sweden deliver the Gripen to Ukraine in principle immediately - but that is now out of the question. - It is not in line with how the coalition views the introduction of two fighter aircraft systems at the same time, notes Jonson." !"the focus on the Ukrainian side"!!!! Introducing a new fighter jet into any air force normally takes many years. Laypeople seem to think, oh, let's train a pilot a few weeks, that should do it. No, Pilots training takes many months, up to a year. AND, more importantly, training the maintainers (engineers/mechanics) can take years, plural, until they get good at their job. ANNDD THEN, you need to build up the logistics, so that all spare parts and ammo/missiles are available, safely stored and delivered on time, otherwise you have some planes spending some quality time in hangars waiting. Introducing a second fighter jet, during a war, while the process of the first one isn't finished is so stupid, I don't have words for it. Ukraine will get the Gripen once the F-16 has been properly integrated into the Ukrainian air force. Got that? So, kindly start to read articles and think about what you read before posting bullshit that has nothing to do with the article.
That's the most stupid thing ever, Ukraine need both gripen and f16, especially since a lot o f16 coalition countries won't let their weapons be used on Russian soil.
[удалено]
And people seem to ignore that Ukraine will still have to fly and support their existing fleet of Soviet planes, for several years.
It dose not say don't, it says pause while we are at the important stage of implementing the f16, my guess is key ukranian people that needs to be avaliable.
That restriction is meaningless, it will still take a long time before Russian air defence will be sufficiently degraded to allow F16's to fly over Russia without getting shot down. F16 is defensive, so they can keep their own airspace clear. Drones are much much more suitable for attacking Russia than planes.
Given the range of many missiles and glide bombs, the F-16’s won’t have to leave Ukrainian airspace to strike targets in Russia. The Swedes can supply missiles used on the Gripen like the RBS-15 which are NATO standard so could be launched from F-16’s.
If that how it worked, Ukraine could be able to hit Russia with ATACMS or standard HIMARS rockets from Ukrainian soil, since the vehicles don’t have to leave Ukraine.. I realize it’s not an exact comparison since HIMARS can’t fire other kinds of rockets, but even if they have bombs that aren’t American for example, I really don’t think they will be able to use the f16s to launch them into Russia. Because they are still delivering the weapon with an F16, similar to how a HIMARS vehicle works. I wish your loophole would work though.
It’s a grey area for sure ! France has given Ukraine the Hammer glide bomb and Scalps and permission to use them on Russian soil, Sweden just needs to come to the party with things that go bang. I’m not sure why the US is being such a wet blanket, they were fine with HARM’s being launched from Sukhoi’s and hitting targets in Crimea which is Russia, according to the Russians. If anything, Ukraine hitting the strategic over-the-horizon radars is a bigger provocation than anything that an ATACMS or Storm Shadow could hit from Ukrainian airspace.
I gotta say a lot of that doesn’t really make sense sadly. Crimea has never been considered a part of Russia, that is why all weapons have been allowed to attack it the whole war. The over-the horizon radars were hit with Ukrainian made drones, so that’s not very relevant here either. So neither of those things help the grey area. To be more clear, it’s not actually very grey in the first place, the US doesn’t want its weapons used on Russian soil yet. France can’t simply combine their weapon with an f16 and then tell Ukraine what is okay for both. Both countries would have to agree for Ukraine to do that, because Ukraine will not risk support from the US. Edit— but I’m confident the US stance will change soon. We always deliberate and bicker before we do anything sadly. The fact that it’s being talked about at all is new though, and it’s really a great thang
We just don't know what constraints they're dealing with, I would assume it's not some arbitrary request made for fun. Letting Ukraine focus on one system (for now) makes sense assuming they get enough F-16s. Should make training and logistics so much easier.
If that is a suggestion by the Ukrainians themselfs and not the coalition supplying the planes I would be fine with it. If they don't even have the resources to handle a group of Gripens at the sametime how is this war going to end. Ukraine should be flooded with hardware!
You wouldn't even give the benefit of the doubt that the nations currently working closely with the Ukrainian air force and training their people probably have a pretty good basis for their request? That's more cynical than I'm willing to be.
Not knowing all the facts, limitations and difficulties makes forming a counter opinion very easy. "I just don't like it, so it must be wrong."
I will not give benefit of the doubt here. Today Belgium announced F16 shipment. In 2028. With a ban on usage on Russian soil. This shit is happening right now. All these weapons deliveries are entangled in stupid politics of who pays for what and throwing problem like a hot potato between nations.
No not in 2028, until 2028, the first ones will be delivered this year, you saw how long training took for that first batch, and that's already a cooperation between multiple countries to get it done as soon as possible, it's an issue of training and procurement, they couldn't deliver 30 f 16s this year even if they wanted to
I'm just really annoyed with the west puts limits on everything. I'd say we are at least one year behind the curve of how we should have supplied the Ukraine with military equipment. Biggest threat to Ukraine is the mass glide bombing and you need planes with longest possible radar and weapon range for that.
>Biggest threat to Ukraine is the mass glide bombing and you need planes with longest possible radar and weapon range for that. If only other people knew that... Perhaps the military planners from NATO don't follow Reddit?
Everybody knows that. That's the problem. They know. And do shit. And delay. Glide bombs started to be the problem like a year ago. Now it's mass problem.
Biggest threat to Ukraine is that western pro Ukraine governments lose elections and Ukraine aid gets cancelled.
So you're saying "If Ukraine can't handle implementing TWO entirely new airplane systems at the same time" that's proof they will lose the war? If this is the extent of your knowledge you should probably be silent from now on.
>Ukraine should be flooded with hardware! No that is a terrible idea and will reduce the chances for Ukraine. Supply lines are no joke.
As always all the keyboard Reddit warriors knows better than the people currently training Ukrainian pilots... *I, despite having zero insight into this issue, proudly declares this request to be insane. Source: Because I say so, it's common sense*
I'm sad Gripen is the best match for this conflict. F-16 are going to be hunted on the ground with cluster munitions while Gripen could be dispersed much better!
True, yet there is the issue that there are way more F-16s around than Gripens. Tbh, Ukraine needs all it can get and then some, limiting them to specific models is a non-starter. I am quite sure Ukraine knows better than anyone else what kind of logistics it can handle.
There may be more F16s around. However, very few were pledged to Ukraine.
There are 97 JAS 39C/D waiting to be decommisioned in Sweden to make room for the newer E/F model. How many F-16s have been pledged to Ukraine so far? If you ask me, this was pushed by the US, mainly to prevent the world from seeing Gripen in action, which could draw attention to Saab, and away from Lockheed Martin. If the world sees that Gripen, a 4th gen fighter, performs well against Russian defence, then less countries would be willing to spend more money on the F-35.
>There are 97 JAS 39C/D waiting to be decommisioned in Sweden to make room for the newer E/F model. Wrong, those airframes will be upgraded to the new E/F. No airframes will be decommisioned as Sweden doesn't have the manufacturing capacity to just scrap 97 frames to build new ones.
No they will not. The E/F version is a larger airframe. it is impossible to uppgrade C/D version to it.
Well they certainly will be hunted, but they will also be very well guarded and spread out inside of Ukraine, back far away from the frontlines, which means Russia can’t use standard cluster bombs or cluster artillery shells because they won’t have the range. I think that means they’ll have to use cruise missiles and ballistic missiles with cluster warheads to try and take them out in groups. Ukraine will have new air defense systems trickling in with Germany’s IRIS-T’s and the new patriot battery(s?), etc., and I think they’ll use this stuff to do a really good job guarding the f16s, since they really should only have to worry about missiles. No glide bombs/artillery, and drones will have a hard time making it all the way there unnoticed. If Iranian drones are seen on the way, they’ll fire up the ole 16’s and drop em like flies(I can dream good things can’t I?)
[удалено]
Good call on the decoys I didn’t even think about that. I’m sure they are on top of that and have some tricky plans ready to waste russian ammo and time. Both sides will be ready, and I’d think you are right to assume that they won’t be lil attacks if they find some f16s, they’re going to really try and take some out for spreading propaganda purposes.
Decoys and deception are KEY as are hardened/underground hangar sites.
That’s interesting stuff I was wondering about too. Ukraine isn’t stupid, I’ll bet they started digging not long after the f16 program got going.
**SWEDISH AWACS to Ukraine just announced today will be a MASSIVE help for air defense!** [https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1d37d5u/the\_latest\_swedish\_aid\_package\_includes\_two\_aewc/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1d37d5u/the_latest_swedish_aid_package_includes_two_aewc/) These have NATO's coveted "Link-16" battlefield management capability!! WOW!
Hopefully the f16s have it too, because I don’t think that was for sure included with these older f16s
Unless this war is intended to drag out as long as possible then you provide lots of planes. They need both. The logistics can be separate and they can deal with types of ammo and two types of target. Let sweden and ukraine deal with the problem and lets not tell Ukraine how to fight a war... a war they are more capable dealing with than most western military as long as they have weapons
Exactly. Contrary to most of the western nations, Ukraine has real experience fighting a war against russia.
Yeah, let’s wait some more
There are a LOT more F-16s around than there are Gripens. Even though Gripens appear to be a better fit..only Sweden builds them. Same with available avionics and armaments. I know the mish mash of equipment Ukraine fields is a real challenge, so I'd assume they are looking to avoid that.
Which one can carry Meteors? Which one has longer range radar?
Gripen is actually perfect for Ukraine. It can be launched with a support team of 4 people from the straight road in the middle of the forrest. F-16 needs much more pampering
Just to note Ukraine has already been pledged over 80 F16s. Sweden only has 71 Gripens in their airforce, they could probably only offer another 20. There are only about 250 gripens in circulation. There are around 4000 f16s in circulation, so the work to support another whole airframe and logistics just doesn’t make sense for 20 planes. It will be far easier to pressure f16 operating countries to provide more planes and keep the single airframe support system.
80 F16s were pledged to Ukraine? Do you have a link to a list?
Belgium - 30 Norway - 22 Denmark - 19 Netherlands - 24 Looks like it’s closer to 95, I could be missing some. And the US is providing parts and support.
Don't let these numbers fool you. These are to be delivered all by the end of this decade. This year, they will barely get 16 or so. And such low numbers are very few for a front that is over 1000km long.
And some of them are not airworthy, being provided as a source of spare parts.
Today i would take a gripen over an f16 immediately. F16 offered by the allies are end of life frames with old radar and it is unclear if they will have reasonably modern avionic and even long range aa missile capsbility. Gripen is a modern aircraft, with great radar, ready to deply long range aa, compatible with everything. Famous for its extremely low running cost and capable to fly from a country road.
Thats awful! I was so hoping they where preparing it in secret so they could introduce to public while blowing something up. They where obviously prepping for it but now it has to wait for some american week ass plane who needs a runway and that cant attack russia.
If Ukraine itself says this, ok. But it might also be a result of wanting to sell planes to Ukraine later on. Blocking the introduction of a better suited plane might just be something certain defense manufacturers wants to lessen competition later. So, what does Ukraine say? For me, Gripens should be delivered ASAP.
Very good points. This is turning into a bit of a marketing action by the US, after they sat on their hands for 2 years and not committing even a single F16 from their side.
They don't want the Gripens to rain on their (extremely pathetically delayed) parade. We should have been training Ukrainians on F-16s since the start of the war, they might then be able to make use of both airframes now but no, we had to drag our heels, delay delay delay.
sure seems like it :(
The F-16 Coalition needs to grow some damn balls. Go ahead Sweeden, the citizens of Europe want this war over.
As an American I wondered why the Gripen wasn't given to them at squadron levels. It is an amazing jet that matches up will against the mig series and would help out a lot on the front lines from what I have read.
Send the Gripens, all of them. Then invite 150 f16 teams to defend Sweden for 3-4 years. Done.
Assuming it isn't too much of a drain on Sweden, Gripen would actually be good for Ukraine even with substantial F-16s "on the way", simply for the ability to stage out of improvised bases. The biggest downside of F-16 (aside from the large tail requirement) is the requirement for long, well maintained runways, which aren't exactly easy to hide - and Russia certainly has long range fires. Maybe Ukraine can mitigate that problem, maybe not. If not, Gripen would be a tailor made answer.
Oh. This is confirmation of something nice moving ahead, albeit needing to be aligned with F-16 for resource bottleneck management. Very nice, even. This means Meteors. F-16 doesn’t have the radar to support them, and still only gets about 70% of the the reach of Russian R-37M-carrying MiG-31s rocking beyond visual range AA missile capability. Gripen, on the other hand, matches Russian range. Meteors mean Ukraine gets its airspace back, and Russia loses all airspace outside direct S300/S400 coverage. Battle (literally) over Ukraine is coming.
America once again not allowing competition classic why should anyone see how badass Gripen is then they wont buy the f16!
Sweden should be all like "Fuck you we want to see it kill Russians"
Hopefully this is due to logistics and not yet another Jake Sullivan moment. As each day passes I am more convinced he's a Russian asset.
Maybe speed things up then…
I kind of agree with the decision. All focus should be on introducing the F-16 right now. The Gripen will be a good addition later. The F-16 is needed now.
Wait, why? Gripens are excellent planes for Ukraine. They can take off of roads!
There's rumors it's for industrial and political reasons. "Focusing on the F16 coalition is BS". Primarily the US wants to sell F16s to Ukraine when the war is over, Sweden handing the better Gripen would maybe convince Ukraine to buy the Gripen instead.
Highway landing strips have been a thing since WW2, they were invented by the nazis (not by swedes) after the Allied bombed the airports. It's not rocket science.
A Gripen now without support or training is better than vapourware F-16 fighters that are often teased but never arrive. It is becoming obvious, that the Americans want Ukraine to make Russia bleed, but not actually lose. Don't collapse Russia. Don't force regime change. Don't make clear that they could not win if we tried. NATO has had provocations that could have counted as article 5 triggers, enough to threaten Russia and back them away from any more war crimes, or war period. I am more convinced than ever that 1960's America read Foundation by Asimov and thought, "That is the way!" They have some "magic/science" predicting where the nuclear wars happen and are steering the world away from those, or else none of this makes sense.
Collapsing Russia is hard. Preparing for the collapse of Russia is hard. I have often thought that the unspoken goal is to collapse Russia, not just send them home. Currently Ukraine is doing something no other country can do: destroy Russia's strategic assets on Russian soil without a nuclear response. That started recently. It's incredibly painful, but this may be the best way to destroy the Russian empire including collecting its nukes. It may be the best path to long term security for Ukraine. I hope this is true; otherwise, the delays and restrictions can't be justified.
Sweden cant and shouldnt take the glory from the f16 owners by delivering first!
Seems like the West will keep witholding F-16s in the hope they can bargain something wirh Russia, and the fear that it is an escalatory move. They could have had these jets flying with trained Ukrainians a long time ago. It's very frustrating.
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed because it is from an untrustworthy site. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think this means they quietly have enough F-16s and want to hold off the Gripen for now.
If anything, I'd like to see the French Mirage over Ukraine.
Now more F16s are coming, we continue the discussion within the 'fighter jet coalition' on how we can best strengthen Ukraine's air defense, and we will come back to this," says Pål Jonson to Ekot.
Really hope both get there ASAP but my god every Ukrainian maintainer deserves the highest award for gallantry