Will Ukraine's acquisition of F-16s actually tip the scales of war?

Range advantage

The major difference between Russian and Ukrainian aircraft is Moscow's possession of the R-37M missile — one of the most advanced air-to-air missiles in the world. It can travel six times the speed of sound, compared to the R-27 missiles used by Ukraine, which have a speed of just four times the speed of sound.

The R-37M also has a much longer range, allowing Russian pilots to engage targets and Ukrainian aircraft from a safer distance. As a result, Ukrainian pilots who attempt to engage Russian aircraft in air-to-air combat risk losing their own aircraft.

The possession of F-16 aircraft by Ukraine requires the capability to operate, maintain, and sustain them effectively. This entails overcoming challenges associated with each of these tasks and potential obstacles.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has outlined what is required for the successful integration of F-16 aircraft into operational service.

They include securing an ample supply of spare parts, allocating funding for operations and support, establishing a storage system, providing comprehensive training to personnel, and ensuring a consistent flow of weaponry to arm the deployed aircraft. The CRS study also concludes that the introduction of F-16 aircraft is unlikely to significantly tip the balance on the battlefield.

And so, not only will Ukrainian forces need rigorous training, but its logistic infrastructure will require development. 

However, the situation is far more complex than merely training Ukrainian pilots and delivering thoroughly-tested aircraft. The jets need extensive support plans to keep them continuously airworthy, guarding against the possibility of them becoming easy targets for Russian air-to-ground missiles.

The attention to detail needed to accomplish all this may result in delays in both deploying the aircraft and getting them ready for operations, extending possibly until the end of 2023 or even beyond.

Read more: Will F-16 fighter jets reach Ukraine before it's too late?

And integrating these aircraft into a distinct battle system exposes vulnerabilities. It is not as straightforward as plug-and-play. As with any sophisticated weapon system, the aircraft have been intricately designed to fulfil specific roles within an existing and distinct military.

F-16s versus MiGs and Su jets

Expectations over the F-16 in Ukraine are high – perhaps too high.

The famous jets are lightweight, multi-role fighters, but they are not automatically suited for every mission. They were not designed for taking off and landing from rudimentary, improvised airfields or withstanding continuous shelling that can disrupt maintenance.

In Ukraine, the aircraft will face persistent risks, not least from the likelihood of debris and foreign objects entering their engines.

In air-to-air combat, the F-16s face the challenge of their Russian counterparts. Moscow has modern fighters – like the MiG-31 and Su-35 – which have the advantage of advanced radar systems, capable of detecting targets from longer distances.

The Russian jets also have long-range missiles. The R-37, known as the AA-13 "Axehead" by Nato can cover 400 kilometres at six times the speed of sound, another distinct advantage.

Nato-supplied AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles have a range of 105 kilometres and a speed four times that of sound. This implies that Russian Su-27 and MiG-29 fighters might detect and engage F-16s before Ukrainian pilots can react.

This would give Russia air superiority and Ukrainian pilots would need to avoid direct aerial combat and instead operate from behind the front lines.

This strategic shift will limit the F-16's operational capabilities and reduce its effectiveness in short-range air-to-ground missions, including the use of advanced munitions like the JDAM-ER (Joint Direct Attack Munition-Extended Range), which has been provided by the US.

Russian forces have already demonstrated the ability to disrupt and interfere with such systems through electronic jamming.

F-16s unlikely to tip the scales of war

It is unlikely that the introduction of new F-16 fighter jets will significantly shift the balance of the battlefield in the near future. It is highly improbable that Ukraine can achieve air superiority, which means that ground forces will continue to depend on existing tactics, including drones, for air support.

Nonetheless, in the long term, once Ukraine secures the necessary logistical and tactical support for the F-16 fighter jets, its capabilities will improve compared to its outdated Soviet-era alternatives. This could facilitate better integration with Nato forces in the future, as aligning Ukraine's arsenal with Nato's is considered a strategic advantage.

Steps are already being taken to enhance the F-16 fighter jets' capabilities, such as providing the AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) for ground radar suppression. Still, the long training process and strategic limitations due to Russian air defences suggest that the new aircraft will not be a game-changer in the war.

But it will make Ukrainian airspace easier to defend, and if equipped with JASSM missiles, it could also introduce a new dynamic by providing long-range strike capabilities. This could impose a higher cost on the Russian presence in Crimea, leading Ukraine to adopt more Western fighting techniques and enhance its cooperation with Nato.

Ukraine has previously acquired high-speed anti-radiation missiles (the AGM-88 HARM) for use against ground radars. These missiles have been integrated with the MacGyver system on MiG-29 aircraft, but the retrofitting process was not ideal, as Soviet-era fighters were not designed to launch American-made missiles.

Now, with updated software, F-16 aircraft will be able to use HARM more effectively, alongside other weapons designed for the F-16.

As for the air-to-air weapon systems commonly available for these aircraft, such as the AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM, which are expected to be provided by the United States and Nato, they will be useful for defending Ukraine against Russian cruise missiles, such as the KH-101 and KH-555, and Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicles, such as the Shahed 131/136.

The air-to-air systems that will be equipped on Ukrainian aircraft will help preserve the remaining stock of ground-to-air missiles (S-300) and the limited number of Patriot missiles for a longer period.

Missile supply

However, the logical next step in the evolution of Ukrainian aircraft capabilities is the US decision to supply Ukraine with the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). This is especially true given that Britain has already provided Ukraine with Storm Shadow cruise missiles, which are similar to the basic version of JASSM in terms of size, range, and surveillance capability.

Therefore, providing JASSM to Ukraine would not escalate the situation or cross Russia's "red line."

It is clear that the impact of new JASSM-armed aircraft would not be decisive in regaining control of the Crimean Peninsula "without fighting," as Oleksii Reznikov, Ukraine's defence minister has said. This would require cutting off the supply lines of Russian forces in Crimea through the Kerch Strait Bridge and ports like Sevastopol, as well as the overland route from Rostov-on-Don.

JASSM capability could give Ukraine the ability to consistently target logistical centres such as ports, ammunition depots, bridges, and command-and-control centres deep within Crimea if the US agrees to supply it.

Additionally, JASSM could serve as an alternative to the ineffective ATACMS missile that Ukraine requested, and it would add a qualitative enhancement to the British Storm Shadow systems.

Long-term training

A long training trajectory – coupled with the neutralisation of Russian air defences in at least critical sectors – could allow Ukraine to better defend its airspace and perform close-air-support missions against Russian tank columns, artillery emplacements, infantry formations, and ships in the Black Sea.

In the final analysis, the deployment of F-16 aircraft by Ukraine before the year's end remains unlikely. While these aircraft are not a panacea capable of fundamentally shifting the war's trajectory, they do hold the potential to enhance Ukraine's airspace defence rather than bestowing upon it aerial supremacy.

Their deployment, particularly if equipped with JASSM systems, would provide a strategic launchpad for extended-range weaponry, thereby introducing the prospect of a new phase of confrontation in Europe and increasing the costliness of Russian presence in the Crimean.

The ramifications of air-power supply decisions extend beyond consideration of anti-tank, artillery, armoured vehicles, and air defence considerations.

Providing F-16s to Ukraine encompasses more than just fortifying its resilience in the forthcoming phases of the conflict. It will align its armed forces, and a crucial part of them, more effectively for collaboration with Nato.

A ticking clock

The West's ongoing support for Kyiv has been met with the stark reality of the failure of the Ukrainian counter-offensive and its inability to push Russian forces beyond its borders.

Despite President Volodymyr Zelensky's repeated announcements of expanding and revising the counterattack's objectives, progress on the ground remains limited.

Formidable Russian defences have effectively thwarted Ukrainian advances. Kyiv attributes this failure to a lack of aircraft capable of challenging Moscow's control over Ukrainian airspace.

As winter looms and Western concerns mount, the absence of tangible battlefield gains raises significant doubts about persisting with the military option and sustaining Western backing.

This was the backdrop to the White House's decision to clear Denmark and the Netherlands to supply F-16s to Ukraine. It mirrored the previous provision of Leopard tanks and Patriot air defence systems and followed a cautious Western approach, wary of escalating tensions with Russia.

Dutch Foreign Minister Wopke Hoekstra called the aircraft supply a "milestone" for Ukraine's defence, a sentiment echoed by Danish Defense Minister Jacob Ellemann-Jensen.

President Zelensky confirmed the agreement on a visit to Denmark and the Netherlands. He secured 61 aircraft, 42 from the Netherlands and 19 from Denmark. Delivery will occur in stages, with the first six expected by early 2024, followed by eight more, and the remaining five in 2025.

Training of Ukrainian pilots by an 11-member alliance of Western allies is set to commence later this month.

Beyond simply supplying aircraft, the US decision signals an attempt to broaden the conflict and involve more nations. Romania's acquisition of 32 aircraft from Norway, worth $418mn, and 17 additional aircraft from Portugal, seems aligned with this strategy.

Additionally, the pilot training programme could shift from Denmark to Romania. Meanwhile, the Dutch and Danish air forces anticipate procuring more advanced aircraft as they offer their older models to Ukraine.

The broader context of European militarisation includes the US endorsement of Israel's sale of the Arrow-3 missile defence system to Germany, for $3.5bn, the most significant arms deal in Israeli history.

This dynamic shift in arms procurement stems from European countries revising their military budgets and strategies following the Ukrainian conflict, now facing similar security challenges to Israel's.

Washington's challenges and Moscow's warning

As the F-16 deal loomed, Lloyd Austin, the US secretary of defence, highlighted the significant challenges posed by Russian minefields and their hindrance to the Ukrainian counterattack.

He noted in an interview with CNN that delivering F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine could take several months. General Douglas Sims, the defence department's director of operations, warned that Western pressure on Kyiv could ultimately lead to the collapse of the offensive, rather than its success.

Sergey Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, warned that providing Ukraine with aircraft would expose Western nations to "enormous risks," escalating the conflict.

However, it is believed that Ukraine's acquisition of new fighters will not substantially impact the course of the Russian military operation until it is fully realised.

On its part, the New York Times published a report that quoted "US officials" as saying Ukraine had "misallocated" its "forces and firepower". It included suggestions that the counter-offensive's priority to the south and re-targeted to include the Sea of Azov after it got bogged down in the east.

The report said: "The main goal of the counteroffensive is to cut off Russian supply lines in southern Ukraine by severing the so-called land bridge between Russia and the occupied Crimean Peninsula. But instead of focusing on that, Ukrainian commanders have divided troops and firepower roughly equally between the east and the south."

Questions remain as the West beefs up Ukraine's aerial capabilities over this context on the ground.

Will providing jet fighters and its quadcopters turn the military confrontation into a Nato issue, after on-the-ground reinforcements support faltered? And how might the US intensify its efforts to support Ukraine, given the growing urgency to achieve success?

These questions come against the backdrop of the approaching presidential election in the US, where the war in Ukraine will likely become a hot-button issue.