“After speaking with U.S., Ukrainian, and foreign leaders working to support Ukraine at the Munich Security Conference last month, we believe the U.S. needs to take a hard look at providing F-16 aircraft to Ukraine,” the senators wrote. “This would be a significant capability that could prove to be a game changer on the battlefield.”
The letter was organized by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.).
The senators requested Austin provide them with assessments by the end of the week on a variety of factors needed to successfully transfer F-16s to Ukraine.
Among their questions, the lawmakers asked how high Ukrainian officials are ranking fighter jets when making requests for weapons and how the F-16s might be sourced if approved — either newly produced or from current inventories. They also sought the military’s assessment of what impact F-16s would have on the conflict and how quickly Ukrainian pilots could be trained on the jets.
The group hailed reports that two Ukrainian pilots came to the U.S. for a fighter skills assessment at Tucson’s Morris Air National Guard Base, in Kelly’s home state, which they called a “critical step in gauging” their readiness to fly F-16s.
Also signing onto the letter were Democrats Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Jacky Rosen of Nevada as well as Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and Ted Budd of North Carolina.
Bipartisan efforts to convince the Biden administration to send F-16s, or facilitate other countries sending them to Ukraine, have been bolstered by assessments such as those of Gen. Christopher Cavoli, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Europe. Cavoli told lawmakers behind closed doors at the Munich Security Conference last month that sending advanced weapons, including F-16s and long-range missiles, could help bolster Ukraine’s defenses.
But top civilian officials, including Biden and White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan, say fighters aren’t an immediate battlefield need compared to other capabilities.
Pentagon policy chief Colin Kahl also defended the administration’s stance, telling the House Armed Services Committee last month that the most optimistic timeline for delivering older F-16s would be roughly 18 months, while producing newer jets could take three to six years to deliver.
“It is a priority for the Ukrainians, but it’s not one of their top three priorities,” Kahl testified. “Their top priorities are air defense systems … artillery and fires, which we’ve talked about, and armor and mechanized systems.”
The Senate letter follows a bipartisan effort in the House, spearheaded by Maine Democrat Jared Golden, to convince Biden to send Kyiv F-16s or similar aircraft.
[ad_2]
#Senators #parties #press #Austin #sending #F16s #Ukraine
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Sullivan elaborated on the president’s comments Sunday, saying the United States is “taking a very hard look at what it is that Ukraine needs for the immediate phase of the war that we’re in.” Right now, those needs include “tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, artillery, tactical air defense systems” Sullivan said — but not the advanced warplanes Ukraine has requested.
“F-16s are a question for a later time,” Sullivan said during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “And that’s why President Biden said that, for now, he’s not moving forward with those.”
When pressed by CNN’s Dana Bash about whether that means the U.S. ruling out sending F-16s later on, Sullivan reiterated Biden’s Friday comments.
“What President Biden said is what goes across the administration. And he was very clear. He said: ‘I’m ruling them out for now.’”
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) argued Sunday that the Biden administration shouldn’t wait, since Ukraine has “a window of time” to launch a successful counteroffensive that could soon close.
“When we slow-walk and slow-pace this thing, it drags it out,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”
[ad_2]
#Sending #F16s #question #time #national #security #adviser
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Penn is one of a growing chorus now urging Western countries to send Kyiv modern fighter jets ahead of an expected Russian spring offensive. Lawmakers from both parties are pressing the White House to transfer the jets, but President Joe Biden recently ruled it out — at least for now.
On Thursday night, national security adviser Jake Sullivan said the fighter planes aren’t what Ukraine needs right now.
“From our perspective, F-16s are not the key capability for that offensive. It is the stuff that we are moving rapidly to the front lines now,” he said on CNN.
“F-16s are not a question for the short-term fight,” he added. “F-16s are a question for the long-term defense of Ukraine, and that’s a conversation that President Biden and President Zelenskyy had.”
But those pushing the jets aren’t giving up without a fight. Penn was actually one of the first people to call for sending modern fighter jets to Ukraine. As far back as April, he called for a billionaire to buy two squadrons of F-15 or F-16 aircraft for Kyiv. Since then, he has made the case — publicly in TV appearances and in private by pressing members of Congress — that the seasoned Ukrainian fighter pilots should get more advanced aircraft to better protect their homeland.
One of those lawmakers is Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), who in the past has tweeted out messages lauding Penn’s support for Ukraine, including one linked to a video showing the Oscar winner giving one of his statues to Zelenskyy. “This is the best of American creative talent helping Ukraine,” Swalwell wrote in November.
A spokesperson for Swalwell confirmed that he has talked to Penn about the fighter jet situation. He could not immediately be reached for comment.
Penn said Biden’s recent trip to Kyiv to mark one year since the Russian invasion is “extremely encouraging,” but urged the administration to continue arming Ukraine, including with modern fighter jets.
“There’s no scenario where Ukraine loses this battle,” Penn said. “There’s a scenario where territory is taken, and Putin buys his way into fighting insurgents throughout a broken infrastructure of a broken country. But the Ukrainians are going to fight till the last drop of blood. And that drop of blood will be on our hands if we don’t faithfully equip them.”
The actor, whose documentary about the Ukraine conflict, “Superpower,” premiered on last week, was actually in Kyiv when Russian forces launched their attack one year ago. Penn recalled how in a meeting on the eve of the invasion, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy agreed to participate in the film.
“We went back to our hotel and closed our eyes for about two hours and all of a sudden, the missiles and rockets were coming in,” Penn said.
Despite the onslaught, Zelenskyy, who features prominently in “Superpower,” honored his promise and allowed Penn’s team in the next day to film. Penn stayed in the country for a few days before evacuating. He’s been back for a total of six visits, including most recently Feb. 13-14 to show Zelenskyy the final version of the film in person.
The Ukrainian president spoke to artists and filmmakers in a live video address at the opening of the Berlin International Film Festival on Feb. 16, where “Superpower” premiered.
While Zelenskyy was “clearly realistic” about the threat of an impending invasion when they met on Feb. 23, the Ukrainian head of state “could not possibly have known that he would so completely rise to the occasion of the actuality,” Penn said.
The next day, Zelenskyy was a changed man whose country was at war.
“It was immediately clear when he walked into the room on February 24th that we were witnessing the newfound embodiment of an historic courage and leadership,” Penn said. “The resolve was in his eyes; Zelenskyy wasn’t going anywhere.”
Penn is the latest celebrity to lend his fame to help Ukraine. This month, “Star Wars” actor Mark Hamill told POLITICO that he plans to sell signed movie posters in order to raise money to send drones to Kyiv.
Over the past year, Penn has become versed in different fighter jets after many discussions with Ukrainian and American pilots on the urgency of upgrading Kyiv’s aircraft. He recently visited Washington, D.C., with a group of Ukrainian fighter pilots, who were there lobbying the Hill. There, he also met with members of the 144th Fighter Wing with the California Air National Guard, which has a 30-year state partnership with Ukraine.
The group discussed how the U.S. could train experienced Ukrainian pilots to fly the American-made F-16 in as little as three months. Penn was particularly struck by the pilots’ argument that the jets could help defend Ukrainian cities and military positions from Russian missile attacks.
“Some of the discussion related to training, fueling, maintenance and compatible munitions — holistic training — is a distraction. You have to force-multiply by dividing the specialization of skills among squadrons. Talk to the [California] National Guard,” Penn said. “It’s about bringing in specialty squadrons to get them up and flying effectively.”
‘It changes the dynamics,” he said, referring to modern fighter jets.
During Penn’s conversations with the Ukrainian pilots, it became clear to him just how outdated their military technology is. While they were in the U.S., they even attempted to buy helmets on Amazon, he said.
The average Ukrainian soldier doesn’t even have a direct communications line to call in an airstrike, Penn said, noting that they have resorted to using their cell phones.
But even with inferior technology, “It’s amazing how toe to toe the Ukranians have been able to defend themselves against those superior aircraft,” he said.
[ad_2]
#Blood #hands #Sean #Penn #Biden #send #F16s #Ukraine
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The general’s answer goes further than previous public comments by top national security officials, who have said they haven’t ruled out sending fighter jets in the future, but also note that air defenses are the most urgent current need.
Cavoli told the lawmakers at the Munich Security Conference that the U.S. and its allies should send the most advanced weapons they can part with to Ukraine. That included advanced aircraft, drones and missiles with ranges over 62 miles (100 kilometers), such as the Army Tactical Missile System. Those weapons would do a better job positioning Kyiv to repel Moscow’s troops, Cavoli said.
The general, who serves as both the supreme allied commander for Europe and as head of U.S. European Command, argued that Ukraine needs more advanced weapons and equipment to “enhance the deep fight,” per one of five people. A second person said Cavoli believes the West should equip Ukraine to “reach further” into Russian positions within Ukraine’s border.
A spokesperson for the general didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The remarks come as the transatlantic debate on whether to provide Kyiv with advanced aircraft has intensified.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has long called for fighter jets, arguing that Ukrainian pilots are skilled enough to train on Western-made warplanes and control the skies despite Russia’s air defenses. But President Joe Biden and some European leaders have so far rebuffed that request, saying that the provision of tanks and artillery are more important for the current phase of the war.
That stance has frustrated advocates of providing Ukraine with whatever the U.S. can afford to hand over. “The F-16s are an absolute must,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters on the sidelines of the conference. He accused the White House of being “slow on everything,” adding, “what you saw with the tanks is going to happen with the jets.”
On Thursday, a bipartisan group of lawmakers sent a letter to Biden urging him to send F-16s right away, POLITICO reported.
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who met with Cavoli and Ukrainian leaders in Munich, said he supports identifying Ukrainian pilots and maintenance crews and bringing them to the United States for training.
“It is the right thing to do to come up with a plan to identify personnel to be trained, along with the maintainers and develop a syllabus” on how to operate and repair the complex fourth-generation fighter plane. Kelly was not one of the five people who confirmed that Cavoli discussed sending more advanced weapons.
Kelly, a retired Navy pilot with combat experience, added that Ukrainians are interested in using the warplane to hit Russian air defense systems from far away, which would then allow other aircraft and drones to operate more freely across the country, particularly in the east and south where the fighting is concentrated.
The British government promised to train Ukrainians on NATO-standard aircraft, but didn’t provide a timeline for when or if London would send those warplanes eastward.
“The first step in being able to provide advanced aircrafts is to have soldiers or aviators who are capable of using them,” U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said last week while standing alongside Zelenskyy. “We need to make sure they are able to operate the aircraft they might eventually be using.”
Both American and British officials continue to say that nothing is off the table.
Slovakia, meanwhile, is in talks with Ukraine about sending MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine. “The Ukrainian president asked me to deliver the MiGs. Now, because this official request has come, the process of negotiations can be started,” Slovakian Prime Minister Eduard Heger said last week. “Our MiGs can save innocent lives in Ukraine.”
Cavoli spoke with his Ukrainian counterpart this week about what other military aid Kyiv needs. Also this week, allies started training Ukrainian troops on Leopard 2 and other tanks that Germany in January approved to be sent.
Any new, modern capability the Ukrainians receive will have a major impact on the fighting this year. Russian forces have stalled out in Donbas, launching costly attacks on Ukrainian lines that can be measured in feet rather than miles, and their poorly trained conscripts- and prisoners-turned-soldiers are struggling.
“The Russians will try to launch an offensive” this spring, a NATO official said on the sidelines of the gathering. “I don’t know how effective they’re going to be. I don’t know how much different it’s going to look than what everything else has looked like. … I don’t know what else they can do.”
That doesn’t mean the Ukrainians will have an easy go of it.
“People need to be aware that this is going to be a long fight,” the official said. “This is a war. This is not a crisis. This is not some small incident somewhere that can be managed. This is not a skirmish. This is an all-out war.”
[ad_2]
#F16s #longerrange #missiles #Ukraine #beat #Russia #U.S #general #privately #tells #lawmakers
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The letter was organized by Maine Democrat Jared Golden. Also signing on were Democrats Jason Crow of Colorado and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania and Republicans Tony Gonzales of Texas and Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin.
The missive is the latest push from Capitol Hill to give Kyiv U.S.-made fighters. It also comes as supporters of Ukraine aid in both parties look to navigate a faction in the new House Republican majority that wants to curtail assistance.
The lawmakers contend that fighters — either the Lockheed Martin-manufactured F-16 or something similar — would give Ukrainian forces greater capability than ground-based artillery provided by the U.S. and other nations.
“F-16s or similar fourth generation fighter aircraft would provide Ukraine with a highly mobile platform from which to target Russian air-to-air missiles and drones, to protect Ukrainian ground forces as they engage Russian troops, as well as to engage Russian fighters for contested air superiority,” they argued.
The bipartisan push from Capitol Hill comes after a coordinated U.S.-German decision to send main battle tanks to the front lines. After some wrangling, the U.S. agreed to send Abrams tanks at a future point while Germany will donate Leopard tanks that will enter the field sooner.
But Biden appeared to reject sending F-16s to Ukraine last month, though the president later said he’d speak to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Even if Biden elected not to send U.S. F-16s, other Western nations that fly the American-made fighters could send them to Ukraine, though the U.S. would need to approve the transfer.
POLITICO reported the move has picked up steam at the Pentagon. But some argue there’s a greater need for artillery, air defenses and armor for Ukraine.
U.S.-made F-16s have been on Kyiv’s wish list for weapons since Russia’s invasion began a year ago. Lawmakers have also said the U.S. should send F-16s to Eastern European that transfer their old MiG fighters to Ukraine. That move won bipartisan support, though a weapons swap never came.
In their pitch to Biden, the lawmakers argued a decision on F-16s “must be made quickly” given the time needed to train Ukrainian pilots.
Still, they noted many Ukrainian pilots have already trained with the U.S. military in major exercises before the war and argued sending the jets “represents a sound strategic investment in bolstering Kiev’s military capability and bringing this conflict to a just conclusion.”
[ad_2]
#Democrats #Republicans #join #urge #Biden #send #F16s #Ukraine
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
But a U.S. official, when asked about Biden’s remark, said “there has been no serious, high-level discussion about F-16s.” In other words, it doesn’t appear that Biden’s pronouncement is the result of an internal policy review and instead is the current stance of the ultimate decision maker. That official spoke on condition of anonymity to reveal internal matters.
It’s also unclear from the video of the short exchange if the president’s “no” meant “never” or “not now.” The administration has said repeatedly that decisions about security assistance depend on battlefield realities in Ukraine. In a Thursday interview with MSNBC, deputy national security adviser Jon Finer said the U.S. would be discussing fighter jets “very carefully” with Kyiv and its allies.
“We have not ruled in or out any specific systems,” he added.
Another possibility is that the U.S. could approve the re-export of F-16s from third-party countries that operate them, a requirement for the transfer of the American-made warplanes.
Discussions about sending F-16s to Ukraine are gaining steam at the Pentagon, with one U.S. Defense Department official telling POLITICO last week: “I don’t think we are opposed.”
Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelenskyy, said Monday that Poland would be willing to provide its F-16s to Ukraine in coordination with NATO. Yet German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has repeatedly rejected any F-16-related requests emanating from Kyiv.
“The question of combat aircraft does not arise at all,” Scholz said in an interview with Tagesspiegel published on Sunday. “I can only advise against entering into a constant competition to outbid each other when it comes to weapons systems.”
[ad_2]
#Biden #seemingly #rejects #request #send #U.S #F16s #Ukraine
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
A contingent of military officials is quietly pushing the Pentagon to approve sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine to help the country defend itself from Russian missile and drone attacks, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions.
Ukraine has kept American-made F-16s on its weapons wish list since the Russian invasion last year. But Washington and Kyiv have viewed artillery, armor and ground-based air defense systems as more urgent needs as Ukraine seeks to protect civilian infrastructure and claw back ground occupied by Russian forces.
As Ukraine prepares to launch a new offensive to retake territory in the spring, the campaign inside the Defense Department for fighter jets is gaining momentum, according to a DoD official and two other people involved in the discussions. Those people, along with others interviewed for this story, asked not to be named in order to discuss internal matters.
Spurred in part by the rapid approval of tanks and Patriot air defense systems — which not long ago were off-limits for export to Ukraine — there is renewed optimism in Kyiv that U.S. jets could be next up.
“I don’t think we are opposed,” said a senior DoD official about the F-16s, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive debate. The person stressed that there has been no final decision.
However, Ukraine has yet to declare that fighter jets are its top priority, the official stressed, noting that the Pentagon is focused on sending Kyiv the capabilities it needs for the immediate fight.
But fighter jets may be moving to the top spot soon. Kyiv has renewed its request for modern fighters in recent days, with a top adviser to the country’s defense minister telling media outlets that officials will push for jets from the U.S. and European countries.
A top Ukrainian official said Saturday that Ukraine and its Western allies are engaged in “fast-track” talks on possibly sending both long-range missiles and military aircraft.
One adviser to the Ukrainian government said the subject has been raised with Washington, but there has been “nothing too serious” on the table yet. Another person familiar with the conversations between Washington and Kyiv said it could take “weeks” for the U.S. to make a decision on shipments of its own jets and approve the re-export of the F-16s from other countries.
“If we get them, the advantages on the battlefield will be just immense. … It’s not just F-16s: fourth generation aircraft, this is what we want,” Yuriy Sak, who advises Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov, told Reuters.
A White House spokesperson declined to comment for this story, but pointed to remarks by deputy national security adviser Jon Finer. He said the U.S. would be discussing fighter jets “very carefully” with Kyiv and its allies.
“We have not ruled in or out any specific systems,” Finer said on MSNBC Thursday.
Ukraine wants modern fighters — U.S. Air Force F-16s or F-15s, or their European equivalents the German Tornado or Swedish Gripen — to replace its fleet of Soviet-era jets. Dozens of the more modern planes will become available over the next year as countries such as Finland, Germany and the Netherlands upgrade to U.S. F-35 fighters.
Despite the age of Ukraine’s jets, Kyiv’s integrated air defenses have kept Russia from dominating its skies since the Feb. 24 invasion.
But now, officials are concerned that Ukraine is running out of missiles to protect its skies. Once its arsenal is depleted, Russia’s advanced fighter jets will be able to move in and Kyiv “will not be able to compete,” said the DoD official involved in the discussions.
Modern fighter jets could be one solution to this problem, argues a group of military officials in the Pentagon and elsewhere. F-16s carry air-to-air missiles that can shoot down incoming missiles and drones. And unlike the Patriots and National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems the West is currently sending, fighter jets can move around an area quickly to protect different targets.
“If they get [F-16] Vipers and they have an active air-to-air missile with the radar the F-16 currently has with some electronic protection, now it’s an even game,” the DoD official said.
Even if the U.S. decided not to send the Air Force’s F-16s, other Western nations have American-made fighters they could supply. For example, Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Wopke Hoekstra told the Dutch parliament last week that his Cabinet would look at supplying F-16s, if Kyiv requests them. But the U.S. must approve the transfer.
Senior Pentagon officials acknowledge that Ukraine needs new aircraft for the long term. But for now, some argue that Ukraine has a greater need for more traditional air defenses, such as the Patriots and NASAMs that the U.S. and other countries are supplying, because jets may take months to arrive.
Sending Ukraine F-16s “does not solve the cruise missile or drone problem right now,” the senior DoD official said.
Big push for training
Others say the need for fighter jets is more urgent. Ukraine has identified a list of up to 50 pilots who are ready now to start training on the F-16, according to a DoD official and a Ukrainian official, as well as three other people familiar with the discussions. These seasoned pilots speak English and have thousands of combat missions under their belts, and could be trained in as little as three months, the people said.
Many of them have already trained with the U.S. military in major exercises before the invasion. In 2011 and 2018, Americans and Ukrainians participated in military drills in the skies over Ukraine. In 2011, the Americans brought over their F-16s and taught the Ukrainian pilots, in their MiG-29s and Su-27s, how to protect a stadium in preparation for the 2012 Euro Cup.
After Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, the U.S. and Ukraine held a second joint 2018 exercise aimed at teaching Ukrainian pilots homeland defense tactics and controlling the skies. The American pilots used their F-15s to replicate Russian fighter tactics.
Ukraine is pushing the U.S. to start training its fighter pilots on the F-16s now, before President Joe Biden approves supplying the jets, according to the Ukrainian official and one of the people familiar. But there is no appetite in the Pentagon for this proposal, U.S. officials said. One alternative under discussion at lower levels is to start training Ukrainian pilots on introductory fighter tactics in trainer jets.
Ukraine has also considered contracting with private companies in the U.S. to begin training pilots, according to one of the people familiar with the matter.
It’s likely U.S. military training would not start without a presidential decision to supply American fighters. One concern for the Biden administration all along is that sending advanced weapons could be seen by Russia as an escalation, prompting Vladimir Putin to use nuclear weapons.
But officials point out that the F-16 was first built in the 1980s, and the Air Force is already retiring parts of the fleet. While sending Ukraine the stealthy American F-22s or F-35s would be considered escalatory, sending F-16s would not, they said.
“Let’s face it, a nuclear war isn’t going to happen over F-16s,” the DoD official said.
One European official agreed, saying F-16s “cannot be considered escalatory.”
“It’s simply part of the toolkit of having conventional weapons,” the person said.
Yet F-16s are complex systems that also require massive infrastructure and highly skilled technicians to operate and maintain. Training Ukrainian maintainers would likely take longer than training the pilots, and the U.S. may need to bring in contractors to do some of that instruction.
Lawmaker support
Providing F-16s is likely to win some support on Capitol Hill, where Democrats and Republicans alike have chided the administration for not moving quickly enough or for withholding certain capabilities, such as longer-range artillery. Sending Russian-made MiG fighters to Ukraine, via Eastern European countries that still fly them, won bipartisan support, though a weapons swap ultimately never came to fruition.
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who co-chairs the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, said he’s “not against” providing F-16s to Kyiv, but broadly favors providing Ukraine with “whatever works.”
“You can’t half-ass a war. Putin’s not. You’ve got to meet Putin armor for armor, weapon for weapon, because there’s already an extraordinary disadvantage in number of troops,” Quigley said. “Whatever works, whatever they need, send to them.
“My message when I first started talking about this is what were once vices are now habits,” he said. “Everything we ever proposed was seen as escalatory.”
But the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.), cast doubt on the need to send F-16s into the conflict, where fighters haven’t proved pivotal.
“I’m not opposed to it,” Smith said. “It’s just not at the top of the list of anybody’s priorities who’s focused on what [weapons] the fight really needs right now.”
He noted that F-16s, much like older MiG jets debated last year, would be vulnerable to Russian air defenses and fifth-generation fighters. Instead, Smith underscored the need to supply ammunition for air defense batteries, longer-range missiles, tanks and armored vehicles.
“What we really need to be focused on is air defense, number one,” he said. “And number two, artillery.”
[ad_2]
#Pentagon #push #send #F16s #Ukraine #picks #steam
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Spurred in part by the rapid approval of tanks and Patriot air defense systems — which not long ago were off-limits for export to Ukraine — there is renewed optimism in Kyiv that U.S. jets could be next up.
“I don’t think we are opposed,” said a senior DoD official about the F-16s, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive debate. The person stressed that there has been no final decision.
However, Ukraine has yet to declare that fighter jets are its top priority, the official stressed, noting that the Pentagon is focused on sending Kyiv the capabilities it needs for the immediate fight.
But fighter jets may be moving to the top spot soon. Kyiv has renewed its request for modern fighters in recent days, with a top adviser to the country’s defense minister telling media outlets that officials will push for jets from the U.S. and European countries.
A top Ukrainian official said Saturday that Ukraine and its Western allies are engaged in “fast-track” talks on possibly sending both long-range missiles and military aircraft.
One adviser to the Ukrainian government said the subject has been raised with Washington, but there has been “nothing too serious” on the table yet. Another person familiar with the conversations between Washington and Kyiv said it could take “weeks” for the U.S. to make a decision on shipments of its own jets and approve the re-export of the F-16s from other countries.
“If we get them, the advantages on the battlefield will be just immense. … It’s not just F-16s: fourth generation aircraft, this is what we want,” Yuriy Sak, who advises Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov, told Reuters.
A White House spokesperson declined to comment for this story, but pointed to remarks by deputy national security adviser Jon Finer. He said the U.S. would be discussing fighter jets “very carefully” with Kyiv and its allies.
“We have not ruled in or out any specific systems,” Finer said on MSNBC Thursday.
Ukraine wants modern fighters — U.S. Air Force F-16s or F-15s, or their European equivalents the German Tornado or Swedish Gripen — to replace its fleet of Soviet-era jets. Dozens of the more modern planes will become available over the next year as countries such as Finland, Germany and the Netherlands upgrade to U.S. F-35 fighters.
Despite the age of Ukraine’s jets, Kyiv’s integrated air defenses have kept Russia from dominating its skies since the Feb. 24 invasion.
But now, officials are concerned that Ukraine is running out of missiles to protect its skies. Once its arsenal is depleted, Russia’s advanced fighter jets will be able to move in and Kyiv “will not be able to compete,” said the DoD official involved in the discussions.
Modern fighter jets could be one solution to this problem, argues a group of military officials in the Pentagon and elsewhere. F-16s carry air-to-air missiles that can shoot down incoming missiles and drones. And unlike the Patriots and National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems the West is currently sending, fighter jets can move around an area quickly to protect different targets.
“If they get [F-16] Vipers and they have an active air-to-air missile with the radar the F-16 currently has with some electronic protection, now it’s an even game,” the DoD official said.
Even if the U.S. decided not to send the Air Force’s F-16s, other Western nations have American-made fighters they could supply. For example, Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Wopke Hoekstra told the Dutch parliament last week that his Cabinet would look at supplying F-16s, if Kyiv requests them. But the U.S. must approve the transfer.
Senior Pentagon officials acknowledge that Ukraine needs new aircraft for the long term. But for now, some argue that Ukraine has a greater need for more traditional air defenses, such as the Patriots and NASAMs that the U.S. and other countries are supplying, because jets may take months to arrive.
Sending Ukraine F-16s “does not solve the cruise missile or drone problem right now,” the senior DoD official said.
Big push for training
Others say the need for fighter jets is more urgent. Ukraine has identified a list of up to 50 pilots who are ready now to start training on the F-16, according to a DoD official and a Ukrainian official, as well as three other people familiar with the discussions. These seasoned pilots speak English and have thousands of combat missions under their belts, and could be trained in as little as three months, the people said.
Many of them have already trained with the U.S. military in major exercises before the invasion. In 2011 and 2018, Americans and Ukrainians participated in military drills in the skies over Ukraine. In 2011, the Americans brought over their F-16s and taught the Ukrainian pilots, in their MiG-29s and Su-27s, how to protect a stadium in preparation for the 2012 Euro Cup.
After Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, the U.S. and Ukraine held a second joint 2018 exercise aimed at teaching Ukrainian pilots homeland defense tactics and controlling the skies. The American pilots used their F-15s to replicate Russian fighter tactics.
Ukraine is pushing the U.S. to start training its fighter pilots on the F-16s now, before President Joe Biden approves supplying the jets, according to the Ukrainian official and one of the people familiar. But there is no appetite in the Pentagon for this proposal, U.S. officials said. One alternative under discussion at lower levels is to start training Ukrainian pilots on introductory fighter tactics in trainer jets.
Ukraine has also considered contracting with private companies in the U.S. to begin training pilots, according to one of the people familiar with the matter.
It’s likely U.S. military training would not start without a presidential decision to supply American fighters. One concern for the Biden administration all along is that sending advanced weapons could be seen by Russia as an escalation, prompting Vladimir Putin to use nuclear weapons.
But officials point out that the F-16 was first built in the 1980s, and the Air Force is already retiring parts of the fleet. While sending Ukraine the stealthy American F-22s or F-35s would be considered escalatory, sending F-16s would not, they said.
“Let’s face it, a nuclear war isn’t going to happen over F-16s,” the DoD official said.
One European official agreed, saying F-16s “cannot be considered escalatory.”
“It’s simply part of the toolkit of having conventional weapons,” the person said.
Yet F-16s are complex systems that also require massive infrastructure and highly skilled technicians to operate and maintain. Training Ukrainian maintainers would likely take longer than training the pilots, and the U.S. may need to bring in contractors to do some of that instruction.
Lawmaker support
Providing F-16s is likely to win some support on Capitol Hill, where Democrats and Republicans alike have chided the administration for not moving quickly enough or for withholding certain capabilities, such as longer-range artillery. Sending Russian-made MiG fighters to Ukraine, via Eastern European countries that still fly them, won bipartisan support, though a weapons swap ultimately never came to fruition.
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who co-chairs the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, said he’s “not against” providing F-16s to Kyiv, but broadly favors providing Ukraine with “whatever works.”
“You can’t half-ass a war. Putin’s not. You’ve got to meet Putin armor for armor, weapon for weapon, because there’s already an extraordinary disadvantage in number of troops,” Quigley said. “Whatever works, whatever they need, send to them.
“My message when I first started talking about this is what were once vices are now habits,” he said. “Everything we ever proposed was seen as escalatory.”
But the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.), cast doubt on the need to send F-16s into the conflict, where fighters haven’t proved pivotal.
“I’m not opposed to it,” Smith said. “It’s just not at the top of the list of anybody’s priorities who’s focused on what [weapons] the fight really needs right now.”
He noted that F-16s, much like older MiG jets debated last year, would be vulnerable to Russian air defenses and fifth-generation fighters. Instead, Smith underscored the need to supply ammunition for air defense batteries, longer-range missiles, tanks and armored vehicles.
“What we really need to be focused on is air defense, number one,” he said. “And number two, artillery.”
[ad_2]
#Pentagon #push #send #F16s #Ukraine #picks #steam
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
