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 I think the comment's saying "Ukraine will want and need to replace the old and outdated soviet trash to defend itself."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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
France, Spain, and Italy contribute less than Denmark and Norway in this war. So 2 countries with 10 mill people give more than 160 million from France, Italy and Spain. Embarrassing
If you are from one of these countries yourself I will not disagree with you. If your not, I will not piss off a potential ally. One of the Danes eagerly waiting to send a crate of Carlsberg to the Ukrainian pilots to make them feel welcome.
Nicely presented. I suggest also that lumbering Bonn and Washington slow walk to every decision. This is paid for in lives. I had an interesting career cutting through bureaucratic red tape. My talents were happily recruited.
I think Viggens will be transferred as well. It's like the Tank decision. The West dips its toe in the waters to guage the Russian reaction (which is usually hysterical or hyper hysterical). I think the UK offered Challengers first. Then came the Leopards & Abrams. Same with longe range missiles. Hopefully Storm Shadow will lead to ATACMs & Taurus
I assume you mean Gripen. There's only a handful Viggens left in flying condition. Most are scrapped or put in a museum. As a swede I would love it if we sent a substantial number of planes. But I don't see it happening anytime soon. Certainly not before entering NATO. The Swedish Air Force only has 96 Gripen and has to defend an area almost as big Ukraine. But maybe there could be a deal to buy back South African planes, or maybe Czech/Hungarian leased planes can be sent if those countries find an alternative. Long term decomissioned Gripen C/D could be sent as it's replaced with Gripen E/F in the SAF. And of course newly produced Gripen E/F planes could also be part of the solution for Ukraine's air force in the future.
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.
Thinking like this is what led to no F16s yet! Ukraine is asking for them since the beginning! 30 planes in a year?! Non sense! Ukrainians proved again and again their ingenuity and will! Just give them all the resources, they will make better use than any smart expert say!
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
We have 4000+ Bradleys. All EoL and about to be retired. Paid for 30 years ago. We give them at most 120 at a time and then replace losses. For 1000 miles of frontage. It's ridiculous.
@@jjhead431 If your life experience is limited to milking ol Betsy every morning, then I think your ignorance can be forgiven. Not everyone needs to understand international geopolitics, and how dependent the US econony is on a stable Europe.
Seems like another use for F-16 that could probably be quicky integrated is flying patrol missions over the western and south-western Black Sea armed with the air-launched Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles. Ukraine does have ground launched missiles, but their range out into the Black Sea is limited. F-16 (or just about any other Western style fighter bomber) could project power much further out while staying out of the range of Russian air defenses in Crimea. Also, air defense out beyond Odessa would improve a lot.
The advantage of having more planes of any description in the pipeline is that you're less wary of using the ones you've got. If you don't know that replacements are on the way, you're less likely to put Mig 29s in harm's way.
To my mind the F16s is very useful and if they could add the 75 or so FA18 from Australia I think they’d have a very useful air capability both defensive and offensive. Of course the training and logistics set up would take a year or so but at that point in time they’d have the ability to effectively compete in the air domain.
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.
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.
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❤
Loved your video as always. I see Ukraine using f-16s just the way you have described. A change I think that could make a difference in the short term is Grippens armed with meteor missiles. Sweden probably wouldn't want to give up any of their own fighters, but the Czech Republic has 12. If a deal could be made with the Czechs, I think those aircraft could begin to have an immediate impact on the war. The problem is getting the EU to sell Meteors to Ukraine. I am thinking about using the Grippens in an air-to-air role. The Meteor has a greater range than anything the Russians have and that would give Ukraine an edge. Probably forcing the Russians to stay out of range of the Meteor. Love to hear your thoughts.
The main issue is ground-based anti-air. Sure, Grippens & Meteors would be ideal for anti-air (outside F-35s), but Sweden won't ramp production enough to supply enough Grippens to "make it work". They want more Grippens for themselves & seeing Russia, they are not in the geopolitical mood to compromise on it. ^^
@@elektrotehnik94 guys, there's only one p in Gripen. I think you're right that we have too few Gripens, but I think we should risk it and give some away anyway while producing more.
Now, that sounds like a plan. I just hope and imagine that Ukraine will be able to do more with aircraft. They shouldn't be underestimated as to how they make use of what they have.
Rest assured Ukraine and the West are working very hard to build the infrastructure required to put F-16s to good use. My guess is there will be enough of them to make a difference by the time the ground firms up next summer.
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.
You say that Ukraine will join NATO, but the chief of staff to the Secretary of NATO is saying that the price of joining NATO could be Ukraine giving away its territory and people to the "tender mercies" of Russia.
@@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 I know he walked his comment back, but I am skeptical that he would have made the comment at all unless there had been some discussion along those lines behind the scenes. Possibly his comment was a trial balloon to gauge reaction. Everything following could be play-acting. Sometimes things are exactly as they appear, but sometimes they are not. As for the rest of your comment, я смеюсь над твоими фантазиями.
I don't think that people quite get why the F-16 or any comparable NATO-spec airplane is important. One is reconnaissance, with the current block F-16s having the ability to see much further than the MiG-29 and even the RAF's Su-30s. It can also carry virtually all NATO airborne armaments, and fully use them to support troops on the ground as well as take on targets in the distance (e.g. Ka-52s). Giving Ukraine these capabilities is important right now, ASAP. Not next year, not years from now.
The problem is that it's hard to build up a NATO trained air force from scratch. Sure Ukraine has pilots and ground crew but you need to create the infrastructure and support elements to be able to maintain the equipment. This type of stuff takes years to implement and the Ukrainians are going to have to do it while fighting a war.
But is they've only got a few maintenance crews WHY NOT give these crews a few planes ASAP. They don't have to have the whole shebang build out to receive the first plane!
@@ulrikschackmeyer848 Because those maintenance crews have no experience servicing the F16. Mass matters in a war and you want at least a couple of squadrons stood up at the same time with sufficient trained pilots, trained ground crews, spare parts , missile defenses, facilities and advanced long range air to air missiles.
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.
@@user-dj8cw5tj3v 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.
@@user-dj8cw5tj3v 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.
Since also NATO allies near to Ukraine such as Poland, Türkiye and Romania operate F16 fleets, and there are many available it makes sense as a standard for the coming years. Norway has recently retired a larger number of F16s as we have transitioned to F35. I think a few are sold to Romania, and at least one given to some school in Norway to tinker with, but the about 40 that are left should be donated to Ukraine. The longer range radar would not only help shooting down missiles, but also Russian bombers and attack helicopters I suppose.
God. F-16s are not what they need and not what they want. The platform for a plethora of missiles is. Why? Because they don't have enough AA capabilities and zero long-range heavy payload missiles. Give them those fcuking ATACAMs and 2 Patriot systems and nobody will mention F-16 for years.
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
You can never have enough -of both planes and pilots.
I really dig this, war-talks in nature approach :)
It’s a prettier style of green screen, indeed!
Your interview with Perun was very interesting, thanks man i'm a huge fan of your channel.
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!
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.
Takker så meget her fra 🇳🇴. Som vanlig er jeg litt mer opplyst etter å ha sett en dine oppdateringer. 👍
As always you add some sober insights to the existing conversation. And that is much needed! Thank you for your efforts! 👍
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.
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.
Peace through strength… 👍
I always enjoy your videos - grounded in common sense and strategy rather than tactics
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.
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.
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.
Great explanation (as usual). Thanks! 👍
Thank you, Anders!
Every little bit helps.
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.
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.
Insightful, as usual 👏 👌 🇬🇧
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 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!💙💛
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.
Thanks Anders!
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.
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 Mr. Nielsen, always a pleasure to be enlightened by your explanations.
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!
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.
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.
France, Spain, and Italy contribute less than Denmark and Norway in this war. So 2 countries with 10 mill people give more than 160 million from France, Italy and Spain. Embarrassing
If you are from one of these countries yourself I will not disagree with you. If your not, I will not piss off a potential ally.
One of the Danes eagerly waiting to send a crate of Carlsberg to the Ukrainian pilots to make them feel welcome.
Nicely presented. I suggest also that lumbering Bonn and Washington slow walk to every decision. This is paid for in lives.
I had an interesting career cutting through bureaucratic red tape. My talents were happily recruited.
Would you consider working, volontering for Ukraine? It sounds as if your talents are sorely needed.
My eternal gratitude, should you choose to.
just saw you on the danish national news... Nice!
Excellent & articulate analysis, particularly in your second language!
To sum up: should be mandatory to our short minded politicians to watch your assessment!!👏👏👏
I think Viggens will be transferred as well. It's like the Tank decision. The West dips its toe in the waters to guage the Russian reaction (which is usually hysterical or hyper hysterical). I think the UK offered Challengers first. Then came the Leopards & Abrams. Same with longe range missiles. Hopefully Storm Shadow will lead to ATACMs & Taurus
I assume you mean Gripen. There's only a handful Viggens left in flying condition. Most are scrapped or put in a museum.
As a swede I would love it if we sent a substantial number of planes. But I don't see it happening anytime soon. Certainly not before entering NATO. The Swedish Air Force only has 96 Gripen and has to defend an area almost as big Ukraine. But maybe there could be a deal to buy back South African planes, or maybe Czech/Hungarian leased planes can be sent if those countries find an alternative.
Long term decomissioned Gripen C/D could be sent as it's replaced with Gripen E/F in the SAF. And of course newly produced Gripen E/F planes could also be part of the solution for Ukraine's air force in the future.
@@Silk_WD yessssss!! Sorrrrrryyyy!
Excellent information as usual, Anders. Thank you.
Excellent and illuminating analysis, as always!
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.
Thinking like this is what led to no F16s yet! Ukraine is asking for them since the beginning! 30 planes in a year?! Non sense! Ukrainians proved again and again their ingenuity and will! Just give them all the resources, they will make better use than any smart expert say!
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!
Tack för en bra analys. Från Sverige.
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.
Your presentations are always both balanced and thought provoking. Thank you!
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
Thank You..... As Always. !!!
Oh thank goodness for your voice of reason. Thanks so much.
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.
Tak Denmark, bedankt the Netherlands!
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.
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
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.
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)
down to earth analysis of the needs of the Ukrainian air force growth .
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.
Interesting and informative. I enjoy how you build 'perspective' into the thinking.
Gripen E would be an absolute fit for Ukraine in the long term. Austere dispersed operation, strong EW and multi role and operating costs are very low
Long-term, there won't be many Gripen E's left.
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!
Smart, concise.
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.
Meanwhile America sits on thousands of them but doesn’t provide them. Similar to how they only gave 31 abrams that only just arrived
We have 4000+ Bradleys. All EoL and about to be retired. Paid for 30 years ago.
We give them at most 120 at a time and then replace losses. For 1000 miles of frontage.
It's ridiculous.
European problem, should be taken care of by eurpeanst
You have to train the pilots who only know Russian planes. That takes time.
@@jjhead431 If your life experience is limited to milking ol Betsy every morning, then I think your ignorance can be forgiven.
Not everyone needs to understand international geopolitics, and how dependent the US econony is on a stable Europe.
@@davidpaxOh they could be given computers loaded with Falcon BMS, it would have erased the Russian plane from their brains months ago.
Thanks! Great videos! More "experts" should discuss it like this!
As always eye opening insights on the conflict Mange tak Anders
Seems like another use for F-16 that could probably be quicky integrated is flying patrol missions over the western and south-western Black Sea armed with the air-launched Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles. Ukraine does have ground launched missiles, but their range out into the Black Sea is limited. F-16 (or just about any other Western style fighter bomber) could project power much further out while staying out of the range of Russian air defenses in Crimea. Also, air defense out beyond Odessa would improve a lot.
How do you conclude they would not be targeted over the western and south-western Black sea? They do have SU-35's in Crimea.
@stvrob6320 how many hours of flight training do those Su-35 pilots get a year? F-16 is more than a match for Su-35 in modern air combat.
brilliant idea. Let's hope so.
@@rapter229 At this time, more hours than Ukrainian pilots in F-16's.
Very good point. Extending Ukraine’s anti-shipping range would help dramatically.
Excellent. Thank you.
The advantage of having more planes of any description in the pipeline is that you're less wary of using the ones you've got.
If you don't know that replacements are on the way, you're less likely to put Mig 29s in harm's way.
To my mind the F16s is very useful and if they could add the 75 or so FA18 from Australia I think they’d have a very useful air capability both defensive and offensive.
Of course the training and logistics set up would take a year or so but at that point in time they’d have the ability to effectively compete in the air domain.
Really good video, thx !
Another excellent analysis that I fully agree with. Thank you also for the long time time perspective that is really important.
Brilliant analysis, Anders. Thanks!
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.
Great as usual 👍👍
Thank you for your content. Your Interview with Perun was also great.
They need more! I'm not above begging, please!
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.
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❤
Thanks Anders! The voice of reason sounds clear and loud. God weekend DK
proud that Danish F16s will help protect Ukrainian lives
Loved your video as always. I see Ukraine using f-16s just the way you have described. A change I think that could make a difference in the short term is Grippens armed with meteor missiles. Sweden probably wouldn't want to give up any of their own fighters, but the Czech Republic has 12. If a deal could be made with the Czechs, I think those aircraft could begin to have an immediate impact on the war. The problem is getting the EU to sell Meteors to Ukraine.
I am thinking about using the Grippens in an air-to-air role. The Meteor has a greater range than anything the Russians have and that would give Ukraine an edge. Probably forcing the Russians to stay out of range of the Meteor. Love to hear your thoughts.
A very good idea. Thank you for proposing.
The main issue is ground-based anti-air. Sure, Grippens & Meteors would be ideal for anti-air (outside F-35s), but Sweden won't ramp production enough to supply enough Grippens to "make it work".
They want more Grippens for themselves & seeing Russia, they are not in the geopolitical mood to compromise on it. ^^
@@elektrotehnik94 guys, there's only one p in Gripen. I think you're right that we have too few Gripens, but I think we should risk it and give some away anyway while producing more.
@@jesan733 Thanks for correcting me on that.
I see where Ukrainian pilots have begun testing the the JAS-39Gripen today.
Now, that sounds like a plan. I just hope and imagine that Ukraine will be able to do more with aircraft. They shouldn't be underestimated as to how they make use of what they have.
Rest assured Ukraine and the West are working very hard to build the infrastructure required to put F-16s to good use. My guess is there will be enough of them to make a difference by the time the ground firms up next summer.
How many they need? Whatever they can get!
Great analysis. Very insightful, very interesting
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 ❤
You say that Ukraine will join NATO, but the chief of staff to the Secretary of NATO is saying that the price of joining NATO could be Ukraine giving away its territory and people to the "tender mercies" of Russia.
@@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
I know he walked his comment back, but I am skeptical that he would have made the comment at all unless there had been some discussion along those lines behind the scenes. Possibly his comment was a trial balloon to gauge reaction. Everything following could be play-acting. Sometimes things are exactly as they appear, but sometimes they are not.
As for the rest of your comment, я смеюсь над твоими фантазиями.
F-16 to Ukraine !
Great to hear you're perspective as always
I found this video insightful, interesting and optimistic. Thank you very much Anders!
On the other hand, if the US provided ATACMS . . . . Should've done it yesterday.
I don't think that people quite get why the F-16 or any comparable NATO-spec airplane is important. One is reconnaissance, with the current block F-16s having the ability to see much further than the MiG-29 and even the RAF's Su-30s. It can also carry virtually all NATO airborne armaments, and fully use them to support troops on the ground as well as take on targets in the distance (e.g. Ka-52s).
Giving Ukraine these capabilities is important right now, ASAP. Not next year, not years from now.
The problem is that it's hard to build up a NATO trained air force from scratch. Sure Ukraine has pilots and ground crew but you need to create the infrastructure and support elements to be able to maintain the equipment. This type of stuff takes years to implement and the Ukrainians are going to have to do it while fighting a war.
But is they've only got a few maintenance crews WHY NOT give these crews a few planes ASAP. They don't have to have the whole shebang build out to receive the first plane!
@@ulrikschackmeyer848 Because those maintenance crews have no experience servicing the F16.
Mass matters in a war and you want at least a couple of squadrons stood up at the same time with sufficient trained pilots, trained ground crews, spare parts , missile defenses, facilities and advanced long range air to air missiles.
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.
@@user-dj8cw5tj3v
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.
@@user-dj8cw5tj3v 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.
How is our Archers doing, talking about artillery?
Great insight !
Since also NATO allies near to Ukraine such as Poland, Türkiye and Romania operate F16 fleets, and there are many available it makes sense as a standard for the coming years. Norway has recently retired a larger number of F16s as we have transitioned to F35. I think a few are sold to Romania, and at least one given to some school in Norway to tinker with, but the about 40 that are left should be donated to Ukraine. The longer range radar would not only help shooting down missiles, but also Russian bombers and attack helicopters I suppose.
And attack russian depots in Russia. Force depots back.
God. F-16s are not what they need and not what they want. The platform for a plethora of missiles is. Why? Because they don't have enough AA capabilities and zero long-range heavy payload missiles. Give them those fcuking ATACAMs and 2 Patriot systems and nobody will mention F-16 for years.
Really appreciate the insights. Something I hadn't considered before
A fine analysis
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 💪🇺🇦