Except that it's not. F-16s right now would help Ukraine achieve local air superiority right now, which is exactly what they need for localized breakthroughs and subsequent exploitations.
@@psychohist F-16s in no way will enable air superiority. First of all, the first F-16s won't come until next year at the earliest. The pilots on them will be too few and too inexperienced to challenge the Russians head to head. Maybe by 2026 that becomes realistically possible.
@psychohist A handful of forty year old F-16As are not going to have any more impact on the war than Ukraine's MiG29s have. Not going to gain air superiority. Not going to shoot down Russian bombers. Lobbing JDAMs & Small Diameter Bombs is about all they offer, and Ukraine can already do that.
This confirms some of the thoughts I had that no matter how things go in the short-term, Ukraine will want and need a substantial air force to be able to defend itself.
Yeah meanwhile our country's tearing itself apart... I can't believe the outrage I've seen over this. Also I thought this deal was agreed on ages ago, just not y'know... "Public" (I.E. News channels are only telling people now in order to give them a false narrative out of chronological order.) Edit: Also I just gotta say this. my vote truly does not matter in the end. Yours can, because your state's one of those important ones for some reason I'll never truly understand. Biden's clearly willing to sacrifice public approval for Ukraine. I don't like Biden, I think he's too old, and well... you know. I'd rather him than just about any other option though... Consider your comment about Ukraine needing a substantial air force when voting time comes. If we're not in a civil war...
@@ThomasMelberStgt Ukraine's is being remade. They were at one time happy to get rid of weapons, specifically nukes. It was to their advantage at that point in time. I think the comment's saying "Ukraine will want and need to replace the old and outdated soviet trash to defend itself."
I always enjoy your sober, professional insights into the war. Also, My Ukrainian wife and her relatives thank the good people of Denmark for the significant amount of aid and for standing with Ukraine.
I'm danish and stand 100% with Ukraine, and I'm sure the rest of the danish population do so to. I hope there will be more donations from Denmark to Ukraine soon.
Tak dine landsmænd for samarbejdet med Danmark. Det er vi mange der er stolte over/glade for. To gamle handelsnationer der samarbejder om at løse de problemer de andre snakker om.
Agree Anders - great insight as always! An Air Force requires a longer perspective. The logistical tail, training, etc., will be huge. As an American taxpayer, I wished we had started this a long time ago, so the end state would be that much nearer. Also hope Gripens are in the mix.
all that tail shit can stay in Poland bar refuel/ rearm and basic maintainence like for arty and tanks... dohhhh. They could rent pilots in five minutes... so much garbage spoken.
Gripens would probably just add to the logistical difficulties without the payoff being worth it. They do have some advantages, but Sweden simply doesn't produce nearly enough to be able to donate a big enough number to make a real difference, so all you'd get is more confusion in the "Zoo" of equipment that Ukraine is already struggling with.
@@rosenstern23 Gripens seems like a more short term benefit in small numbers as a complement to F-16s for future, to fight in today's conditions as ground support for critical operations. This due to their specific design for fighting Russia from minimal infrastructure. At the same time it's a valid point of decreased financial efficiency when deploying small numbers of aircraft.
An independent European defense industry should be encouraged at a similar level of output like the US. It should be a NATO objective. Redundancy is important. There is hardly any aircraft for Ukraine besides the F-16. It could have been worse under the orange blob.
It is pleasant to hear a logical view of this fighter aircraft issue without all the usual emotions. It seems to me that very few people think in the long term. Unfortunately.
Yeah man, all we see in the U.S. is Red, Blue, and money. The amount of vitriol over this is unreasonable. People act like we're actively ignoring Hawaii by giving the F-16s... Those jets have been there for a while. The deal was finalized a while ago. Literally no resources are being siphoned for "Biden's War." Propaganda works... (edit: I also thought this was agreed on months ago... am i conflating something?)
@@zachansen8293sometimes that is when it is most important to build long term. The Russian "plan," is to wait until western support ends, and then win (how Ukraine suddenly becomes helpless if they are not getting aid is unclear). The Ukrainians getting long term support makes the Russian "plan" look less likely, which makes the people of Russia realize that the sacrifices they are making are likely for nothing. Hopefully leading to Russia leaving Ukraine sooner and reducing both Russian and Ukrainian casualties.
it must be extra challenging to maintain their existence in a war, while at the same time transition their whole logistical and equipment system, fighting doctrine, training and build a new Air Force. Each of those on their own would be a major national project.
For real, seeing the sweeping dismissal of recruitment officers was wild. Not bad, and I actually admire it in a way. It could have been more like Soviet times, one of them gets executed and the rest serve in fear. And I especially liked the idea of reforming it with combatants too hurt to fight anymore but strong enough to still serve.
Well, I kind of have a feeling they don't sleep on the job.😉😄 It's incredible how much better people perform at anything, if they are motivated. The average peace time office worker is going to spend extra time at the copier, surfing websites of private interest and so on.
With the word "decoupled" you instantly provided an insight I'd been missing. There's the war now, the war in the future, and the peace down the road. You addressed all three, and now I see the landscape better. Thanks.
When you broadcast a new clip, I am excited as a child who receives a Christmas gift! Thank you very much Anders for your comments, as always, very interesting and thought provoking.
Always thought that you had a more realistic view of the war. Then I found out what you did for a living; and now understand why that is. Thank you for sharing your observations and keep up the excellent work. Thank you!
The F-16 will boost the Ukraine's SEAD capability by quite a bit. They've been using HARM on MiG-29s, but I'm sure only at a limited capability. The F-16 would allow the complete capability of the HARM to be utilized. That will help achieve Ukrainian air superiority as much as air-to-air kills would.
I just hope they'll have achieved air superiority before the next election... I'm beginning to think the U.S. will stop supporting Ukraine soon People here don't see the bigger picture. Ukraine's not just some unnecessary country. It's a symbol at this point. A message was sent to the West, Ukraine itself proved to be incredible on their own, and then the West sent back their message. But all Americans see is Red, Blue, and Dollars. I hope I'm wrong.
The five that they are getting in the next few months won't make that much SEAD impact, if only because they will require to be off the field about half the time for maintenance.
Ukraine already has over 400 war planes that cannot use due the high advance tech from Russia to Jam them, what make you think 20 or 100 f 16 old generation fighter will do anything? come on man
Thank you for this positive analysis of building the fighter jets. I'm more than a little upset with my government on what I perceived as dragging out feet. I'm glad President Biden has made this approval for the F16. When I send my weekly email to my representatives, I am definitely going to mention your presentation and numbers. Appreciate your insights. Slava Ukraine! 🇺🇸⚖️🇺🇦
I think citizens of many countries are fed up with their governments. As an Englishman I am frustrated too. Whilst I agree with Anders long term goals they do not address the massive need for Ukraine to have some Air Power. Personally I think this should have been dealt with a long time ago. I don't see the USA, NATO or any European countries going into battle with little to no air support but somehow we expect Ukraine to do so and prosper. Its utter nonsense.
The saying "If you want peace, prepare for war" is very appropriate here. The west needs to signal to Russia that it's in for the long haul, to make Russian long-term prospects in the war less attractive than making some concessions.
How many planes? Ukraine : Yes. Much like the tanks and equipment, this transition should have started a lot sooner, rather than for whatever reason waiting for the Soviet era equipment to deplete.
I think the real benefit of providing western fighters is the weaponry that's available in large quantities. Also, the weapon integration with the airframe and targeting capabilities on the fly.
Here is something you need to understand. No nation is going to deplete its weaponry to a point it can not sustain a war. What is being sent to Ukraine is basically reserve weaponry and munitions which Ukraine is using up way more quickly than the nations providing can supply. There will be a point at which these nations will stop providing these weapons and munitions. I hazard a guess that the weaponry that will be used on the F16s will be of limited supply due to the fact that it won't be available in large quantities.
@@cplcabs If I had to guess, the F-16s will mostly be kept in the hangers until a critical moment. Once that happens, shock & awe. Edit: Also I gotta disagree with the depletion of weaponry, in the U.S. context. We *absolutely* have more jets to give. The reason we haven't, and the reason it took so long, is because of how galvanized it is here. People think Ukraine's "Biden's War." People are furious over the F-16s. They seem to think we're building them *now,* and saying "Eh, screw Hawaii." I would wager the U.S. has many more undisclosed, black budget funded jets. Our problem isn't ammo, our problem is ourselves.
@@XXMatt0040XX the time was right a month or so ago when the long awaited counter offensive started. I believe that you are partially right about people in the US being fed up with Biden's war, the same is occurring in the UK and I am one of them. I do not see why we are sending billions in money and equipment to a corrupt nation that we have little to nothing to do with whilst we need to be spending that money on our own people. I have no doubt that the US has a huge budget for things like Ukraine and have no doubt that more is being spent on Ukraine than is being disclosed. However, I think ammo is a problem. Currently the US has factories producing about 24,000 artillery shells a month and the Ukrainians are using about 7000 a day (some people estimate more). Now you may say that the ammo that will be given to Ukraine for the F16s will be much smarter than artillery shells. I may have to question that because the US is unlikely going to want to send smart weapons to Ukraine where the Russians will have an easier time of getting hold of it. In addition, the ammo for the F16s won't be produced in the thousands or even hundreds a month and are extremely expensive. The Ukrainians will go through a lot of them if they get hold of them. That said, the US have made some really daft decisions in the past such as not encrypting their preditor feed which was hacked easily by insurgents...so who knows what will happen.
@@cplcabsAll the Western countries are greatly increasing their production of weapons so that they can keep up with Ukraines needs without digging into their own reserves.
I agree with the proposition that Ukraine is, and should be, building a new Western style air force. However, the country is also in a battle for survival, so I ask Mr Nielsen "do you not think that the West should give Ukraine the aircraft it needs to allow it to defeat Russia as quickly and easily as is possible ?". Most people believe that a long drawn-out war will probably favour Russia because it has a very large numerical advantage in both men and machines, so there is an urgent need for Ukraine to have those aircraft *now* in addition to the aircraft it will need later on. The F-16 is not the silver bullet that so many people think; it is a fine aircraft, but there are much better options for the urgent tasks, like SEAD, ground attack and close air support.
A land-launched variant of the HARM missile would be very useful. It would enable Ukraine to take out SHORAD systems (like Tor and Pantsir) without having to put aircraft in harm's way.
I always watch in awe of your knowledge. The Bible say’s we should ‘Pray for those in authority’ and I can see why. Your knowledge and intellect in this awful situation shows there is reason and thinking behind the decisions that are made. Thank you for your posts and insight x
Vipers!!! Well said Anders. The great state of Alaska is protected by vipers and newer models. And it too is a large geographic area, we have a strong air force.
Anders, the vision you relay is logical and sensible. I am shocked that this is the first time I’ve heard anyone talk about this vision. Governments should share this vision with their news media.
Ukraine is in a transition to NATO equipment and at the same time several NATO countries is in a transition from F16 to F35 fighters. It's reassuring to see that finally decisions are made and it's becoming official!
Ukraine can't order my spare parts form Russia b/c Russian can't order more spare parts from Russia :-) Great seeing you on Perun!!!!! Nice to see you enjoy the outdoors.
I love how you cover such grim topics but always have a smile on your face. I know its not because you love death and war you are just a happy guy would has enthusiasm for his work and I'm sure im not alone in enjoying that.
He is almost alway like the on the Danish telly too. My guess is that it's because he is never in doubt that Ukraine WILL win in the end. But as her majesty's loyal servant, of course he cannot say so in public.
My question is why did it take a year? Transitioning them to western aircraft, notably the recently retired Dutch F-16 MLUs, was first seriously proposed then and it took until now to finally come to this no-brainer decision. Yeah, it is going to take a while to convert everything over but it takes a lot longer when they wait 12 months to pull the trigger.
The political decision was made a long time ago! So first a pilot training program was designed, mechanics and technicians educated, logistics mapped out... And of course the export license from The US obtained. It simply takes that long to transition to a new fighter plane. The F-16 was chosen because it´s the only capable plane available in sufficient numbers to make a difference in the short, medium and long term. (Short term being 1-2 years).
I think they have trained and prepared for much more time then we know, and they tell the Ukrainian goverment way before us. They also cant train all their pilots at the same time when there is an active war. They still need to man the planes they have at the moment.
@@belledetector I don't think it takes that long to make those largely administrative decisions when the resources to do so are already present in-house. They have the trainers and mechanics and equipment. These are not things that must be gathered. I suspect it just took that long because of bureaucratic and diplomatic bungling. A lack of clear leadership to move this project forward.
Thank you for your intelligent commentary. You are the best. And thank you, Denmark, for donating the F-16 aircraft. I ask my own country, WHY did it take so long.
Tak Anders. Jeg værdsætter altid din indsigt, som jeg ikke har. Ukraine bliver nødt til at vinde denne krig og jeg er sikker på de får den bedste hjælp som vi i vesten kan give.
Ukraine will join NATO. It is important that Ukraine have a compatible air force. Thank you Anders, for calm rational thought, and sharing that with us.
@bimmebeau Jenssen has already apologized and walked his comment back. He has been rebuked and will be very lucky to keep his job. Do try to keep up with the news vatnik. Parroting a scripted line, when the basis for that line is maskirovka, is hilarious
Great video. Total true story and it will happen as you told in this video. We from the Netherlands hoop to help Ukraine with this important development and if Rutte does followup Stolsenberg the number will grow quit fast. Thanks for the clear picture. Time for Putin to end this war and go home. He has lost it is just a meter of time. very costly time for Russia. Glory to Ukraine❤
Thank you! As usual, I agree 100%. I think you can be proud that you have pretty reasonable comments here in on YT, not like some other posts, I have seen in the last days here. Let me say this: Ultimately, Ukraine will have to pay for its own Air Force. So Ukraine needs its industrial East and access to Black Sea in oder to pay for its air force.
Also, we should stop using the term 'game changers' so lightly. Its often more "force multiplier" and even then more in factors like x1.2 , even x1.1 or even lower like 1.05. It does make a difference in the long run.
Thanks for the reminder. So very true. But enough force-multipliers CAN end up changing the game! A force-multiplyer is just a term for a long-term game changer.
@@ulrikschackmeyer848 I think there is a slight difference, correct me when wrong. A game changer seems more focused on a weapon as of individual importance, while force multiplier focus a bit more as a complementary item in the whole arsenal. But what matters, is indeed avoiding media hypes and addiction to some terms to spice up news or articles. But I think we can consider Himars a game changer when introduced, but now its more a force multiplier as part of an growing arsenal of diverse types of weapons. Still important, but not in current context more complementary.
allowed by whom? there are big problems with this idea: fully different logistics chains, pilot AND maintainers, huge management problems as they integrate the lawn darts, as well as they only need a few hundred land based fighters. the f18's are optimized for carrier operations, with the attendant hassle that comes with it. plus: there are a LOT of lawn darts out there: at least 4600 were made out there.
@@skip123davis _"allowed by whom?"_ Allowed by the US. When the US sells advanced planes they do so on condition that those will not be onsold without US permission or risk losing access to future purchases from the US. _"huge management problems ... as well as they only need a few hundred land based fighters."_ They need a couple of hundred airworthy planes that have a long reach. _"the f18's are optimized for carrier operations, with the attendant hassle that comes with it."_ The ones the Aussies have were not used from a carrier. I'm not sure they even have a real carrier currently. A big advantage over the F16 would be their rugged undercarriage enabling them to land and takeoff from substandard airfields and even roads. _"plus: there are a LOT of lawn darts out there: at least 4600 were made out there."_ Yeah, that is a an excellent point, and impossible to argue. Because there are some 4 times as many F16s around, their parts are much more readily available (and cheaper). This is even more a problem with the discussions I've heard over the Saab Gripen - good plane, not that many built, parts would be a problem, slow to replace.
Long term, locally produced Gripen E/F:s along with an associated tech transfer would make a lot of sense. Beside everything else "on the table" it´s a modern platform compatible with a wide range of armaments and also not just suitable, but rather made, to be used on improvised road bases. While pricy to aquire, they are very much on the cheaper side to fly compared to most if not all peer aircraft. Seeing that they are going to need a sizeable airforce, they are also going to need quite a lot of pilots, and for all of them to keep current on the systems, a lot of flight hours are going to be required.
Perhaps, but it is a non starter, as Sweden doesnt have enough to donate in large numbers, and building a factory now, would just be blown up by Russia
Yes we need to talk more about long term support and guarantees for Ukraine. This is also a great message to Putin because his only hope right now is that the West gives up support after a year or two.
@@Анна_ЮА Are you even allowed to be on RUclips? At least be careful what you say, if you say the wrong thing then Putin will make you dissapear. He doesn't like it when Russians move slightly away from the party line. Btw, the ratio of dead people in the Ukraine seems to be around 3 to 1 in favor of the Ukraine. So with the current population ratio where it is 40 mill vs 140 mill, then it is actually difficult to say whether it will be Russia or the Ukraine that will run out of soldiers first.
@@Анна_ЮА We do have so much money. The cost of supporting Ukraine isn't negligible, but it is less than 1% of most contributors GDP & a lot of the support is self serving. A lot of the materiel is pulled out of moth-ball and wouldn't ever be used unless these nations had a peer adversary - which is already Russia for most of them. Then there is lend-lease in which money goes back to the weapons industry in nations giving support, it's basically just underwritten by the government. Either way, 0.5c on a Euro going to keep Russia from being on Poland's doorstep & increasing their control of world food prices isn't a bad deal for Europe or the US. This isn't just about Ukraine, this is about the next 100 years in Europe. Ukrainians are fighting and dying today, supporting them means that a lot of Europeans won't suffer the same thing next decade, or be forced to maintain much more expensive readiness. Finland and Norway have come to understand this. It doesn't matter what your bank balance shows if someone can just take it all from you.
I feel like there's a video in here on airforce attrition. The peace size of the airforce is interesting, any start of hostilities will incur losses - and a modern airforce won't be like WW2 where new pilots and fighters could be ready in months. As a complete outsider it seems like if hostilities start, your peacetime force is the max force of your airforce, and it will be dwindling down from that point until you get to a more static phase of fighting, unless you have an extremely healthy training pipeline that is producing 10s of pilots a year - which in itself will take years to spin up.
Very few Western politicians understand that the main reason for having more people and equipment than is strictly necessary is, exactly as you say, that the lead time for replacing anything or anyone is long and that the numbers have to allow for losses which happen while replacements are found and prepared. In the UK, it takes two years to train a military pilot ab initio (from nothing) and then 9-12 months for them to become proficient on any specific type of aircraft. I once sat in a meeting where a very senior military leader tried to explain to a politician that the number of men and machines *had* to be large enough so that we could suffer three years of losses and still be effective.
Can I disagree a little? I actually thought the retired Australian F18s were a good fit-durable & generally capable-and well suited to current needs such as a platform for stand off, precision weapons like storm shadow/scalp, American and German cruise missiles (if), and JDAMS. Ukraine needs more planes to utilize those & it needs them now.
but there are more F-16s than F-18s out there, right? I thinks thats the main selling point, more planes = better, both for Ukraine (which gets more planes) and for Europe (which gets rid of its old F-16 to replace them with F35) and not to forget the US military-industrial complex...
@@peka2478 There's some nuances with different F-16 configurations, one is even autonomous. I have nothing to argue against, but it's something to consider as well. (Of course this applies to *all* aircraft too. The F-16 has just had more time in the oven so to speak)
Long term is good, but more of everything they need and pronto is what's really important. To knock out the Russian artillery, more Himars, GLSDBs, ATACMS, etc. Is needed, plus regular artillery shells. Radar jamming equipment to thwart missile and drone attacks and surveillance. F-16's for immediate long range launch platforms, later for close in support. More stinger and related missiles to knock down or ground the Russian helicopter and fighter jets. Then all the older western jets make sense from a successful breakthrough point of view, incorporating F-16'S, Grippens, F/A 18's, A-10 Thunderbolts ⚡😊.
Great analysis. The choice of aircraft for the "long term" Ukrainian airforce will be interesting - if they need an airforce of 200 or 300 planes (as Anders mentioned) then US planes would be very expensive for a country like Ukraine. Maybe they need a "pre-loved" airforce to start with.
Thanks Anders for keeping everything in perspective. I'd love to see the US send a fleet of A-10's. As soon as something can be done about Russias dwindling SAM systems.
@bimmebeau The A-10 is a flawed aircraft meant for Vietnam that had to be brute forced into a different role. Armor is losing relevancy as missiles simply slice aircraft in half instead of worrying about how well armored each half is, it's not cheap to buy as the original A-10 is severely outdated so a modern A-10C should be 50-60 million a piece, and it's tough to maintain as evidenced by the billion dollar Boeing contracts to make parts for it. Most of the anti-armor kills came from Maverick missile, which other aircraft also carry. It refuses to die because Arizona representatives make money off it. It would be near useless in Ukraine.
If Ukraine gets 200 F-16s, then it must join NATO. Ukraine with that big an air force AND the biggest and most battle hardened army in Europe would actually pose a threat to NATO if it didn't join. Hence Ukraine getting F-16s is a very strong positive signal that they will be admitted to NATO as soon as possible. Slava Ukraine. 🇺🇦🇬🇧
Understated is the importance of setting a long term buildup to make Russia understand that a frozen conflict will only strengthen Ukraine over time.
Why do you think that Russia is interested in a "frozen conflict"? It is against all possible interests of Russia
Except that it's not. F-16s right now would help Ukraine achieve local air superiority right now, which is exactly what they need for localized breakthroughs and subsequent exploitations.
F16 just as a deterrent is enough at this point to create a grey zone in the skies
@@psychohist F-16s in no way will enable air superiority. First of all, the first F-16s won't come until next year at the earliest. The pilots on them will be too few and too inexperienced to challenge the Russians head to head. Maybe by 2026 that becomes realistically possible.
@psychohist A handful of forty year old F-16As are not going to have any more impact on the war than Ukraine's MiG29s have. Not going to gain air superiority. Not going to shoot down Russian bombers. Lobbing JDAMs & Small Diameter Bombs is about all they offer, and Ukraine can already do that.
Tak, Anders. Det er godt at vide, at vi har så kompetente folk i Forsvaret som dig.
He's a real calamity
Gid der var nogen der ville stoppe korruptionen der har ført til et forhastet indkøb i et kommende diktatur.
@@NTraveller Uuhhhh..?
😂
@@mr82769 if you roll back the videos, you'll find out that failed to correctly predict anything except for the delivery of F-16. It's a failure
This confirms some of the thoughts I had that no matter how things go in the short-term, Ukraine will want and need a substantial air force to be able to defend itself.
no will join nato and stay neutral ahhahahahh
Every country needs a strong air force and air / missile defense capabilities.
Yeah meanwhile our country's tearing itself apart... I can't believe the outrage I've seen over this.
Also I thought this deal was agreed on ages ago, just not y'know... "Public" (I.E. News channels are only telling people now in order to give them a false narrative out of chronological order.)
Edit: Also I just gotta say this. my vote truly does not matter in the end. Yours can, because your state's one of those important ones for some reason I'll never truly understand. Biden's clearly willing to sacrifice public approval for Ukraine.
I don't like Biden, I think he's too old, and well... you know. I'd rather him than just about any other option though... Consider your comment about Ukraine needing a substantial air force when voting time comes. If we're not in a civil war...
@@ThomasMelberStgt Ukraine's is being remade. They were at one time happy to get rid of weapons, specifically nukes. It was to their advantage at that point in time.
I think the comment's saying "Ukraine will want and need to replace the old and outdated soviet trash to defend itself."
They need nukes to defeat Russia
I always enjoy your sober, professional insights into the war. Also, My Ukrainian wife and her relatives thank the good people of Denmark for the significant amount of aid and for standing with Ukraine.
I'm danish and stand 100% with Ukraine, and I'm sure the rest of the danish population do so to. I hope there will be more donations from Denmark to Ukraine soon.
What do Ukrainians you know ask for the most when it comes to aid?
@@iivin4233 More weapons. A lot more.
Tack Anders. Tittar alltid på dina inlägg så fort jag ser dem. Balanserat och intelligent!
I really dig this, war-talks in nature approach :)
It’s a prettier style of green screen, indeed!
Thks & I saw Big-Foot in the background waving his hands at us 1st ;)
I’m pleased , this shows a long term commitment to Ukraine from its friends 🇺🇦
At sixty-three million dollars per F-16 I'd say so.
Yeah sure, and there was a long term commitment in all the conflicts the US were involved.
Americans are tired of Endless War in foreign s***holes. We will not stand for this.@@Vikt0r66
No problème. My country Germany will pay it.
Hauptsache Putin ist weg.
So long term that Ukraine may cease to exist by then.
Thank you, Anders!
Tak Anders. Meget informerende igen. Hilsen fra Holland.
Tak dine landsmænd for samarbejdet med Danmark. Det er vi mange der er stolte over/glade for. To gamle handelsnationer der samarbejder om at løse de problemer de andre snakker om.
@@ulrikschackmeyer848 Gøre jeg!
Agree Anders - great insight as always! An Air Force requires a longer perspective. The logistical tail, training, etc., will be huge. As an American taxpayer, I wished we had started this a long time ago, so the end state would be that much nearer. Also hope Gripens are in the mix.
all that tail shit can stay in Poland bar refuel/ rearm and basic maintainence like for arty and tanks... dohhhh. They could rent pilots in five minutes... so much garbage spoken.
Gripens would probably just add to the logistical difficulties without the payoff being worth it. They do have some advantages, but Sweden simply doesn't produce nearly enough to be able to donate a big enough number to make a real difference, so all you'd get is more confusion in the "Zoo" of equipment that Ukraine is already struggling with.
In long term gripens are good idea but so are korean jets. Ukraine can service buy share parts etc them with poland.
@@rosenstern23 Gripens seems like a more short term benefit in small numbers as a complement to F-16s for future, to fight in today's conditions as ground support for critical operations. This due to their specific design for fighting Russia from minimal infrastructure. At the same time it's a valid point of decreased financial efficiency when deploying small numbers of aircraft.
An independent European defense industry should be encouraged at a similar level of output like the US. It should be a NATO objective. Redundancy is important. There is hardly any aircraft for Ukraine besides the F-16. It could have been worse under the orange blob.
You can never have enough -of both planes and pilots.
Your interview with Perun was very interesting, thanks man i'm a huge fan of your channel.
Really good video, thx !
It is pleasant to hear a logical view of this fighter aircraft issue without all the usual emotions. It seems to me that very few people think in the long term. Unfortunately.
Yeah man, all we see in the U.S. is Red, Blue, and money. The amount of vitriol over this is unreasonable. People act like we're actively ignoring Hawaii by giving the F-16s...
Those jets have been there for a while. The deal was finalized a while ago. Literally no resources are being siphoned for "Biden's War." Propaganda works...
(edit: I also thought this was agreed on months ago... am i conflating something?)
Building for the long term doesn't always work when you're currently under attack.
@@zachansen8293sometimes that is when it is most important to build long term.
The Russian "plan," is to wait until western support ends, and then win (how Ukraine suddenly becomes helpless if they are not getting aid is unclear).
The Ukrainians getting long term support makes the Russian "plan" look less likely, which makes the people of Russia realize that the sacrifices they are making are likely for nothing. Hopefully leading to Russia leaving Ukraine sooner and reducing both Russian and Ukrainian casualties.
As always you add some sober insights to the existing conversation. And that is much needed! Thank you for your efforts! 👍
just saw you on the danish national news... Nice!
Great as usual 👍👍
Great insight !
I always enjoy your videos - grounded in common sense and strategy rather than tactics
it must be extra challenging to maintain their existence in a war, while at the same time transition their whole logistical and equipment system, fighting doctrine, training and build a new Air Force. Each of those on their own would be a major national project.
For real, seeing the sweeping dismissal of recruitment officers was wild. Not bad, and I actually admire it in a way. It could have been more like Soviet times, one of them gets executed and the rest serve in fear. And I especially liked the idea of reforming it with combatants too hurt to fight anymore but strong enough to still serve.
Well, I kind of have a feeling they don't sleep on the job.😉😄 It's incredible how much better people perform at anything, if they are motivated. The average peace time office worker is going to spend extra time at the copier, surfing websites of private interest and so on.
The Russian military is at war.
The Ukrainian people are at war.
This is why the Russians are outnumbered and cannot win.
Oh thank goodness for your voice of reason. Thanks so much.
Takker så meget her fra 🇳🇴. Som vanlig er jeg litt mer opplyst etter å ha sett en dine oppdateringer. 👍
Bravo Anders and great interview with Perun
And you are spot on per usual
Tack Anders, du gör kloka och välgrundade inslag återkommande, som jag följer med glädje! Bästa hälsningar från Sverige!
Från en en del av Joint Nordic Fighter Command ock NATO. VÄLKOMMEN ÅTER - FRÅN DANMARK.
With the word "decoupled" you instantly provided an insight I'd been missing. There's the war now, the war in the future, and the peace down the road. You addressed all three, and now I see the landscape better. Thanks.
Thank you as Ukrainian for your adequate estimates and information on the war
He's a military analyst at the Danish Defense Academy and tv expert on the war in Ukraine. Top tier. Slava Ukraini 💙💛 !
Slava Ukraini!💙💛
When you broadcast a new clip, I am excited as a child who receives a Christmas gift!
Thank you very much Anders for your comments, as always, very interesting and thought provoking.
Always thought that you had a more realistic view of the war. Then I found out what you did for a living; and now understand why that is. Thank you for sharing your observations and keep up the excellent work. Thank you!
Thank You..... As Always. !!!
The F-16 will boost the Ukraine's SEAD capability by quite a bit. They've been using HARM on MiG-29s, but I'm sure only at a limited capability. The F-16 would allow the complete capability of the HARM to be utilized. That will help achieve Ukrainian air superiority as much as air-to-air kills would.
I just hope they'll have achieved air superiority before the next election... I'm beginning to think the U.S. will stop supporting Ukraine soon
People here don't see the bigger picture. Ukraine's not just some unnecessary country. It's a symbol at this point. A message was sent to the West, Ukraine itself proved to be incredible on their own, and then the West sent back their message.
But all Americans see is Red, Blue, and Dollars. I hope I'm wrong.
The F-16 would indeed be used for SEAD and air defense
The five that they are getting in the next few months won't make that much SEAD impact, if only because they will require to be off the field about half the time for maintenance.
Ukraine already has over 400 war planes that cannot use due the high advance tech from Russia to Jam them, what make you think 20 or 100 f 16 old generation fighter will do anything? come on man
air control is already a stalemate and f-16s won't change that.
Great to hear you're perspective as always
Thank you for this positive analysis of building the fighter jets. I'm more than a little upset with my government on what I perceived as dragging out feet. I'm glad President Biden has made this approval for the F16. When I send my weekly email to my representatives, I am definitely going to mention your presentation and numbers. Appreciate your insights. Slava Ukraine! 🇺🇸⚖️🇺🇦
I think citizens of many countries are fed up with their governments. As an Englishman I am frustrated too. Whilst I agree with Anders long term goals they do not address the massive need for Ukraine to have some Air Power. Personally I think this should have been dealt with a long time ago. I don't see the USA, NATO or any European countries going into battle with little to no air support but somehow we expect Ukraine to do so and prosper. Its utter nonsense.
@@neilpountney9414 You have taken the words right out of my mouth! Thank you.
The saying "If you want peace, prepare for war" is very appropriate here. The west needs to signal to Russia that it's in for the long haul, to make Russian long-term prospects in the war less attractive than making some concessions.
How many planes?
Ukraine : Yes.
Much like the tanks and equipment, this transition should have started a lot sooner, rather than for whatever reason waiting for the Soviet era equipment to deplete.
I think the real benefit of providing western fighters is the weaponry that's available in large quantities. Also, the weapon integration with the airframe and targeting capabilities on the fly.
OK except "available in large quantites".
Here is something you need to understand. No nation is going to deplete its weaponry to a point it can not sustain a war. What is being sent to Ukraine is basically reserve weaponry and munitions which Ukraine is using up way more quickly than the nations providing can supply. There will be a point at which these nations will stop providing these weapons and munitions. I hazard a guess that the weaponry that will be used on the F16s will be of limited supply due to the fact that it won't be available in large quantities.
@@cplcabs If I had to guess, the F-16s will mostly be kept in the hangers until a critical moment. Once that happens, shock & awe.
Edit: Also I gotta disagree with the depletion of weaponry, in the U.S. context. We *absolutely* have more jets to give. The reason we haven't, and the reason it took so long, is because of how galvanized it is here. People think Ukraine's "Biden's War."
People are furious over the F-16s. They seem to think we're building them *now,* and saying "Eh, screw Hawaii." I would wager the U.S. has many more undisclosed, black budget funded jets. Our problem isn't ammo, our problem is ourselves.
@@XXMatt0040XX the time was right a month or so ago when the long awaited counter offensive started.
I believe that you are partially right about people in the US being fed up with Biden's war, the same is occurring in the UK and I am one of them. I do not see why we are sending billions in money and equipment to a corrupt nation that we have little to nothing to do with whilst we need to be spending that money on our own people.
I have no doubt that the US has a huge budget for things like Ukraine and have no doubt that more is being spent on Ukraine than is being disclosed. However, I think ammo is a problem. Currently the US has factories producing about 24,000 artillery shells a month and the Ukrainians are using about 7000 a day (some people estimate more). Now you may say that the ammo that will be given to Ukraine for the F16s will be much smarter than artillery shells. I may have to question that because the US is unlikely going to want to send smart weapons to Ukraine where the Russians will have an easier time of getting hold of it. In addition, the ammo for the F16s won't be produced in the thousands or even hundreds a month and are extremely expensive. The Ukrainians will go through a lot of them if they get hold of them.
That said, the US have made some really daft decisions in the past such as not encrypting their preditor feed which was hacked easily by insurgents...so who knows what will happen.
@@cplcabsAll the Western countries are greatly increasing their production of weapons so that they can keep up with Ukraines needs without digging into their own reserves.
Insightful, as usual 👏 👌 🇬🇧
Great explanation (as usual). Thanks! 👍
Thank you Mr. Nielsen, always a pleasure to be enlightened by your explanations.
Great analysis. Very insightful, very interesting
Excellent information as usual, Anders. Thank you.
This is an excellent analysis. Your point was intuitively correct, and obvious. So obvious, I'm a bit annoyed at myself for not considering it!
On the other hand, if the US provided ATACMS . . . . Should've done it yesterday.
I agree with the proposition that Ukraine is, and should be, building a new Western style air force. However, the country is also in a battle for survival, so I ask Mr Nielsen "do you not think that the West should give Ukraine the aircraft it needs to allow it to defeat Russia as quickly and easily as is possible ?". Most people believe that a long drawn-out war will probably favour Russia because it has a very large numerical advantage in both men and machines, so there is an urgent need for Ukraine to have those aircraft *now* in addition to the aircraft it will need later on. The F-16 is not the silver bullet that so many people think; it is a fine aircraft, but there are much better options for the urgent tasks, like SEAD, ground attack and close air support.
A land-launched variant of the HARM missile would be very useful. It would enable Ukraine to take out SHORAD systems (like Tor and Pantsir) without having to put aircraft in harm's way.
Anders says himself that Russia ISN'T likely to win a long war and aren't acting like they think so themselves.
I always watch in awe of your knowledge.
The Bible say’s we should ‘Pray for those in authority’ and I can see why.
Your knowledge and intellect in this awful situation shows there is reason and thinking behind the decisions that are made.
Thank you for your posts and insight x
Damn, you are good !!!!!
Vipers!!! Well said Anders. The great state of Alaska is protected by vipers and newer models. And it too is a large geographic area, we have a strong air force.
Excellent & articulate analysis, particularly in your second language!
Anders, the vision you relay is logical and sensible. I am shocked that this is the first time I’ve heard anyone talk about this vision. Governments should share this vision with their news media.
As a nation Danes are often the quiet guys in the background. With the solid, thought-trough planning.
Excellent and illuminating analysis, as always!
Your presentations are always both balanced and thought provoking. Thank you!
Excellent analysis as always
Thanks Anders!
Brilliant analysis, Anders. Thanks!
Ukraine is in a transition to NATO equipment and at the same time several NATO countries is in a transition from F16 to F35 fighters. It's reassuring to see that finally decisions are made and it's becoming official!
As always eye opening insights on the conflict Mange tak Anders
Ukraine can't order my spare parts form Russia b/c Russian can't order more spare parts from Russia :-) Great seeing you on Perun!!!!! Nice to see you enjoy the outdoors.
Thank you.
Every little bit helps.
I love how you cover such grim topics but always have a smile on your face. I know its not because you love death and war you are just a happy guy would has enthusiasm for his work and I'm sure im not alone in enjoying that.
He is almost alway like the on the Danish telly too. My guess is that it's because he is never in doubt that Ukraine WILL win in the end. But as her majesty's loyal servant, of course he cannot say so in public.
Great interview with Perun!
Thanks. Glad you liked it.
Tak Denmark, bedankt the Netherlands!
Tack för en bra analys. Från Sverige.
Interesting and informative. I enjoy how you build 'perspective' into the thinking.
I agree with what you are saying, but it should have started a year ago. Thanks for explaining anyway,
My question is why did it take a year? Transitioning them to western aircraft, notably the recently retired Dutch F-16 MLUs, was first seriously proposed then and it took until now to finally come to this no-brainer decision. Yeah, it is going to take a while to convert everything over but it takes a lot longer when they wait 12 months to pull the trigger.
The political decision was made a long time ago! So first a pilot training program was designed, mechanics and technicians educated, logistics mapped out... And of course the export license from The US obtained. It simply takes that long to transition to a new fighter plane. The F-16 was chosen because it´s the only capable plane available in sufficient numbers to make a difference in the short, medium and long term. (Short term being 1-2 years).
I think they have trained and prepared for much more time then we know, and they tell the Ukrainian goverment way before us. They also cant train all their pilots at the same time when there is an active war. They still need to man the planes they have at the moment.
My thought exactly.
Please let me know if you get any good answers.
@@belledetector I don't think it takes that long to make those largely administrative decisions when the resources to do so are already present in-house. They have the trainers and mechanics and equipment. These are not things that must be gathered. I suspect it just took that long because of bureaucratic and diplomatic bungling. A lack of clear leadership to move this project forward.
Another excellent analysis that I fully agree with. Thank you also for the long time time perspective that is really important.
Peace through strength… 👍
Anders, you bring reality to too many whisfull thinkers. Thank you for your clear insights.
Thank you for your intelligent commentary. You are the best. And thank you, Denmark, for donating the F-16 aircraft. I ask my own country, WHY did it take so long.
Many thanks,Anders, for your perspective and analysis. Greetings from Montana, USA.
Tak for endnu en god analyse
Mange tak ❤
Tak Anders. Jeg værdsætter altid din indsigt, som jeg ikke har.
Ukraine bliver nødt til at vinde denne krig og jeg er sikker på de får den bedste hjælp som vi i vesten kan give.
Excellent. Thank you.
Ukraine will join NATO. It is important that Ukraine have a compatible air force.
Thank you Anders, for calm rational thought, and sharing that with us.
Ukraine is not going to join NATO before this war is over unless NATO gets directly involved.
Through the back door unofficially but officially accepted. World need stability ❤
@bimmebeau Jenssen has already apologized and walked his comment back. He has been rebuked and will be very lucky to keep his job.
Do try to keep up with the news vatnik. Parroting a scripted line, when the basis for that line is maskirovka, is hilarious
@@WhatAboutTheBee You are so hot. Dreaming of Russian soldiers? Be afraid of your desires, they can become a reality.
I found this video insightful, interesting and optimistic. Thank you very much Anders!
Great video. Total true story and it will happen as you told in this video. We from the Netherlands hoop to help Ukraine with this important development and if Rutte does followup Stolsenberg the number will grow quit fast. Thanks for the clear picture. Time for Putin to end this war and go home. He has lost it is just a meter of time. very costly time for Russia. Glory to Ukraine❤
down to earth analysis of the needs of the Ukrainian air force growth .
I agree. But as german, my country does make everything to help Ukraine.
Wird schon werden.💪🇺🇦
Etwas verspähtet aber jetz guter Kraft nach vorne. Danke sehr vom Dänemark
@@ulrikschackmeyer848
Thanks you.
We will make it.
Slava Ukraine 💪🇺🇦
Thank you! As usual, I agree 100%. I think you can be proud that you have pretty reasonable comments here in on YT, not like some other posts, I have seen in the last days here. Let me say this: Ultimately, Ukraine will have to pay for its own Air Force. So Ukraine needs its industrial East and access to Black Sea in oder to pay for its air force.
Also, we should stop using the term 'game changers' so lightly.
Its often more "force multiplier" and even then more in factors like x1.2 , even x1.1 or even lower like 1.05. It does make a difference in the long run.
Thanks for the reminder. So very true. But enough force-multipliers CAN end up changing the game!
A force-multiplyer is just a term for a long-term game changer.
@@ulrikschackmeyer848 I think there is a slight difference, correct me when wrong.
A game changer seems more focused on a weapon as of individual importance, while force multiplier focus a bit more as a complementary item in the whole arsenal.
But what matters, is indeed avoiding media hypes and addiction to some terms to spice up news or articles.
But I think we can consider Himars a game changer when introduced, but now its more a force multiplier as part of an growing arsenal of diverse types of weapons. Still important, but not in current context more complementary.
Really appreciate the insights. Something I hadn't considered before
They should be allowed to accept Australia's offer of their retired FA-18s.
allowed by whom? there are big problems with this idea: fully different logistics chains, pilot AND maintainers, huge management problems as they integrate the lawn darts, as well as they only need a few hundred land based fighters. the f18's are optimized for carrier operations, with the attendant hassle that comes with it. plus: there are a LOT of lawn darts out there: at least 4600 were made out there.
@@skip123davis _"allowed by whom?"_
Allowed by the US. When the US sells advanced planes they do so on condition that those will not be onsold without US permission or risk losing access to future purchases from the US.
_"huge management problems ... as well as they only need a few hundred land based fighters."_
They need a couple of hundred airworthy planes that have a long reach.
_"the f18's are optimized for carrier operations, with the attendant hassle that comes with it."_
The ones the Aussies have were not used from a carrier. I'm not sure they even have a real carrier currently. A big advantage over the F16 would be their rugged undercarriage enabling them to land and takeoff from substandard airfields and even roads.
_"plus: there are a LOT of lawn darts out there: at least 4600 were made out there."_
Yeah, that is a an excellent point, and impossible to argue. Because there are some 4 times as many F16s around, their parts are much more readily available (and cheaper). This is even more a problem with the discussions I've heard over the Saab Gripen - good plane, not that many built, parts would be a problem, slow to replace.
@@skip123davis Finland, Switzerland, Canada and Australia use F-18s as land based fighters.
that would double the number of maintainers and supply lines they'd need. Remember, planes and pilots is the cheap and easy part.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD that doesn't mean it's optimal. it means they were able to work out a deal. 18's were made structurally for carrier ops.
Thank you for your content. Your Interview with Perun was also great.
Long term, locally produced Gripen E/F:s along with an associated tech transfer would make a lot of sense. Beside everything else "on the table" it´s a modern platform compatible with a wide range of armaments and also not just suitable, but rather made, to be used on improvised road bases. While pricy to aquire, they are very much on the cheaper side to fly compared to most if not all peer aircraft. Seeing that they are going to need a sizeable airforce, they are also going to need quite a lot of pilots, and for all of them to keep current on the systems, a lot of flight hours are going to be required.
Perhaps, but it is a non starter, as Sweden doesnt have enough to donate in large numbers, and building a factory now, would just be blown up by Russia
I agree on that Sweden doesn´t have enough Gripen E/F:s produced locally in Ukraine to donate in large numbers.@@Carewolf
Smart, concise.
Yes we need to talk more about long term support and guarantees for Ukraine. This is also a great message to Putin because his only hope right now is that the West gives up support after a year or two.
It is very good that you have so much money. And get ready to send your soldiers to war when the Ukrainians run out.
@@Анна_ЮА
Are you even allowed to be on RUclips?
At least be careful what you say, if you say the wrong thing then Putin will make you dissapear.
He doesn't like it when Russians move slightly away from the party line.
Btw, the ratio of dead people in the Ukraine seems to be around 3 to 1 in favor of the Ukraine.
So with the current population ratio where it is 40 mill vs 140 mill, then it is actually difficult to say whether it will be Russia or the Ukraine that will run out of soldiers first.
@@Анна_ЮА We do have so much money. The cost of supporting Ukraine isn't negligible, but it is less than 1% of most contributors GDP & a lot of the support is self serving. A lot of the materiel is pulled out of moth-ball and wouldn't ever be used unless these nations had a peer adversary - which is already Russia for most of them. Then there is lend-lease in which money goes back to the weapons industry in nations giving support, it's basically just underwritten by the government.
Either way, 0.5c on a Euro going to keep Russia from being on Poland's doorstep & increasing their control of world food prices isn't a bad deal for Europe or the US.
This isn't just about Ukraine, this is about the next 100 years in Europe. Ukrainians are fighting and dying today, supporting them means that a lot of Europeans won't suffer the same thing next decade, or be forced to maintain much more expensive readiness. Finland and Norway have come to understand this. It doesn't matter what your bank balance shows if someone can just take it all from you.
A fine analysis
I feel like there's a video in here on airforce attrition. The peace size of the airforce is interesting, any start of hostilities will incur losses - and a modern airforce won't be like WW2 where new pilots and fighters could be ready in months. As a complete outsider it seems like if hostilities start, your peacetime force is the max force of your airforce, and it will be dwindling down from that point until you get to a more static phase of fighting, unless you have an extremely healthy training pipeline that is producing 10s of pilots a year - which in itself will take years to spin up.
Very few Western politicians understand that the main reason for having more people and equipment than is strictly necessary is, exactly as you say, that the lead time for replacing anything or anyone is long and that the numbers have to allow for losses which happen while replacements are found and prepared. In the UK, it takes two years to train a military pilot ab initio (from nothing) and then 9-12 months for them to become proficient on any specific type of aircraft. I once sat in a meeting where a very senior military leader tried to explain to a politician that the number of men and machines *had* to be large enough so that we could suffer three years of losses and still be effective.
Thanks you so very much for your information
Can I disagree a little? I actually thought the retired Australian F18s were a good fit-durable & generally capable-and well suited to current needs such as a platform for stand off, precision weapons like storm shadow/scalp, American and German cruise missiles (if), and JDAMS. Ukraine needs more planes to utilize those & it needs them now.
Wouldn't Australia keep them in reserve for some time or even bring them back to front line service?
but there are more F-16s than F-18s out there, right?
I thinks thats the main selling point, more planes = better, both for Ukraine (which gets more planes) and for Europe (which gets rid of its old F-16 to replace them with F35) and not to forget the US military-industrial complex...
@@peka2478 The fact that a huge number of F-16's are due to be replaced by F-35's make them, well, disposable.
I am pretty sure that some time in the future, we will see F 18 also.
@@peka2478 There's some nuances with different F-16 configurations, one is even autonomous. I have nothing to argue against, but it's something to consider as well. (Of course this applies to *all* aircraft too. The F-16 has just had more time in the oven so to speak)
Thanks Anders! The voice of reason sounds clear and loud. God weekend DK
Long term is good, but more of everything they need and pronto is what's really important. To knock out the Russian artillery, more Himars, GLSDBs, ATACMS, etc. Is needed, plus regular artillery shells. Radar jamming equipment to thwart missile and drone attacks and surveillance. F-16's for immediate long range launch platforms, later for close in support. More stinger and related missiles to knock down or ground the Russian helicopter and fighter jets. Then all the older western jets make sense from a successful breakthrough point of view, incorporating F-16'S, Grippens, F/A 18's, A-10 Thunderbolts ⚡😊.
Det er virkeligt interessante indlæg du laver, Anders, tak 💪👍
it is wonderful to hear your analysis planning for the Peace and I hope that such talk and actions runs a shudder down Russia's collective spine
Great analysis. The choice of aircraft for the "long term" Ukrainian airforce will be interesting - if they need an airforce of 200 or 300 planes (as Anders mentioned) then US planes would be very expensive for a country like Ukraine. Maybe they need a "pre-loved" airforce to start with.
The solution is Gripen. Cheap cost per plane, cheap cost per flight hour. Extremely capable modern plane.
Thanks Anders for keeping everything in perspective. I'd love to see the US send a fleet of A-10's. As soon as something can be done about Russias dwindling SAM systems.
@bimmebeau The A-10 is a flawed aircraft meant for Vietnam that had to be brute forced into a different role. Armor is losing relevancy as missiles simply slice aircraft in half instead of worrying about how well armored each half is, it's not cheap to buy as the original A-10 is severely outdated so a modern A-10C should be 50-60 million a piece, and it's tough to maintain as evidenced by the billion dollar Boeing contracts to make parts for it. Most of the anti-armor kills came from Maverick missile, which other aircraft also carry. It refuses to die because Arizona representatives make money off it. It would be near useless in Ukraine.
Thanks! Great videos! More "experts" should discuss it like this!
If Ukraine gets 200 F-16s, then it must join NATO. Ukraine with that big an air force AND the biggest and most battle hardened army in Europe would actually pose a threat to NATO if it didn't join. Hence Ukraine getting F-16s is a very strong positive signal that they will be admitted to NATO as soon as possible.
Slava Ukraine. 🇺🇦🇬🇧