It won't be just ten, and presumably (if a sensible policy is followed) they won't be used, or even based where the Russians can strike their airfields, until a significant force is developed and ready to go.

Whether anyone's yet thought sufficiently about missile defence of the airfields, I don't know.

The US doesn’t deploy those assets unless it’s safe. They prob don’t want to give the Russians a chance to test their drones out agains f16s either

Imagine the Russians learn how to counter a fighter jet with a commercial drone??

Ukraine will probably be deploying them very shortly after they are ready. Ukraine isn't in a position to sit on assets because they are afraid of losing them.

10 is a good estimate for how many Ukraine will have this summer/end of year.

There are experts who claim that another Ukrainian offensive is possible, but I personally don't see it. Ukraine has really messed up their mobilization, it finally happened way too late. I also think that this mobilization will be the final amount that Ukraine is able to muster.


I personally think the most likely outcome is both sides wear themselves out. This results in a frozen conflict or a meaningless truce and we do this all again after 10 or so years.

Does Russia have a history of doing that?

Yes

Sounds about right.

decent article by CNN (this is happening more and more often lately) on the new Ukrainian draft law.

the picture is really bleak for us, the law isn't necessarily going to achieve what we hope and it's an ulterior significant cost paid by Ukrainian citizens

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/25/e...ntl/index.html

That will be the first batch. Don't know the systems fit on these ex-Dutch and Danish aircraft (or whether the US is secretly approving upgrades for them), but they should add a fair bit of capability. For one thing, the US has been supplying the AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missile for years, but when this is carried by obsolescent Ukrainian MiGs the pilot needs an iPad on his knee to make the missile work and its modes are restricted. After an initial period of success in destroying Russian radars, the Russians are now able to detect a HARM launch and switch off, so the missile has to home on 'last known position', which seldom results in a decisive hit. The F-16 should improve matters.

It's notable, and a little surprising, that the Russians have never so far been able to impose complete air supremacy over Ukraine or wipe out the Ukrainian air force, even as things stand. (Western anti-air missile systems, and the fact that the Russians can't afford to replace lost jets, probably have a lot to do with that.) Ukraine of course wants 150 F-16s, which they're unlikely to get, but the number available may be of significant use. The long delivery time will be mainly due to pilot and ground-crew training (and possibly covert upgrades).

I totally agree with you, I was asking about the first batch because we are likely to see them very soon and that will give a lot of info about how the rest of the planes will be used. I think I read somewhere that Ukraine can expect something like 60 F16s donated, although that might have gone down. That is going to be much later, probably 2026 at the earliest though. Ukraine is also planning to purchase some, honestly I'm not sure if that's worth it.

F16s will add a lot of capability, especially if they get access to something like SLAM-ER (or whatever equivalent is actually being produced). Whoever is helping Ukraine with the migs is pretty much just welding the missiles on. F16 will have a lot of capabilities and be extremely useful... eventually.

Obviously I don't think f16s will be sat on because it's too dangerous to fly, but I do think that the pilots will begin with shooting down missiles from the relative safety of being far from the front lines, with some limited HARM, ad and a2a ambushes.

Although Ukraine has been taking some extreme risks lately, so if they're in a position where they have to be extremely risk tolerant then it's possible that f16s are going to be performing far more dangerous missions soon after we see them. On top of that risk tolerance, the risk tolerance itself has already led to some (imo) extremely stupid losses from things like using artillery for shoot and scoot, which once again might mean f16s need to be used in more dangerous situations because the previous risky missions have increased the need for airstrikes.

https://archive.is/RsmGJ

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/26/w...northeast.html

Good news on the front of NATO countries military expenses.

The Russian threat (and perhaps Trump requests to fulfill obligations?) has pushed many countries to increase defense spending, with several now over the 2% threshold

We triangulate through Kyrghizistan to keep trading with Russia



for each country the gap is what is going to Russia