[removed]

To be clear, the UK does not use F-16 fighters. Never has. It's just an incomplete headline, and should have referenced whatever UK fighter the UK is unwilling to provide to Ukraine. (Probably the Eurofighter Typhoon or its replacement, the F-35B.)

There's no way Ukraine is able to get rid of Russian AA systems. Nato doctrine annihilates those with a torrent of cruise missiles to ensure air superiority. Otherwise you're just throwing planes away to much cheaper AA missiles.

Russian and Western planes are built very differently. As an example, altitude is shown in feet in Western planes, while as Russian ones use meters. Therefore for Ukrainian pilots to transfer over to F-16s, it would be a very large and wide reaching change. In the immediate term, they're better served by getting more of the kinds of planes they're used to. And there are NATO members who have old Russian planes available, so a solution exists.

Not really.

A lot of folks have absolutely no idea how impractical sending a completely new type of aircraft is.

The huge issue isn’t that we can’t send them, it is the training pipeline.

It takes months to years to convert pilots, maintainers, infrastructure, weapons, training programs, logistical supply, etc.

My local Air National Guard is currently in month 9 of their conversion from the F-16 to F-35 right now for instance.

It is just too long to be practical and would require planning on the conflict continuing for years for these to see combat. Sending new fighters takes away pilots from current training and combat and would hamstring the Ukrainian Air Force. It always was a dumb idea and is a good thing it isn’t happening.

SEAD aircraft are an option but that doctrine took the U.S years to get right. Is it practical? Prob not but it is a solution.

[removed]

They said this same thing about the Abrams. The US planned on training Ukrainian pilots on the F-16 since July as it was included in the $880 million aid bill that passed. Ukraine is going to get F-16s and they may get them soon.

Contractors would still be a huge no go.

Especially with the fuel guzzlers that are F-16s, you either need significant upgrades (ie the export F-16Vs with CFTs to operate for meaningful periods of time as CAP).

There is also the issue of mission roles.

The F-16 is a pretty decent multi role fighter, but is really still an interceptor at heart. One, these things aren’t going to be used in ground support if they do go because they only really excel at that role in absence of air defenses or air assets.

The one argument would be SEAD/DEAD, but we have already been able to upgrade the Ukrainian MIGs for use of the HARM, the F-16 offers little more in that spectrum. They also still lack the range needed to allow for safe operation in the current anti air regime that exists.

Basically, we would send them and they would stay on the ground, just like most everything else is right now.

Is a NATO pilot allowed to fly/train with other countries even after decommissioning without NATO authorization?

The F35 is dual capable. IRC the F16 and F15 are too. They can carry nukes.

I can imagine that would be one of the reasons they're hesitant to send stuff like that. Russians see a plane that could be carrying a nuclear bomb. It's flying towards the border. They could come to the wrong conclusion, especially if it's a stealth plane, and they're worried they might lose it.

no ..but China has been doing it anyway

​

https://www.voanews.com/a/retired-raf-pilots-warned-about-training-chinese-military-pilots/6798832.html

RAF has like 4 planes these days, so not a huge surprise

hope france still end up sending the mirages

Any aircraft sold by the US to foreign governments can be "dumbed down" in capability and many are. That certainly includes the nuclear carry capability.

Regardless, I think this position has more to do with the difficulty of long-term logistics support than aircraft capability. While it is possible (and not uncommon) for F-16 units to deploy far from their home bases, long-term support is expensive and complex, and requires a ton of training for maintenance and support engineers.

When you read about a tank system or anti-aircraft missile system needing lots of training, with a fighter aircraft multiply that need by an order of magnitude. It's not that it can't be done, it's just complex and expensive, far beyond the cost of the aircraft itself.

Maybe Germany will dare us again and speed up the process :)

I personally find bidens response deliberate, and intriguing.

He made no explanations, and was very short and said "no".

And that could sometimes means he is deliberately answering the specific question precisely.

Iow, it could be possible the US is sending new f-16 to Poland and Poland is sending old ones to Ukraine, for example. I'm not saying that I think this is happening, but sometimes precise short answers can be for reasons like that.

>Any aircraft sold by the US to foreign governments can be "dumbed down"in capability and many are. That certainly includes the nuclear carrycapability.

In the case of some European allies, they often aren't.

Plenty of NATO members 'without' nukes, have nukes on loan from the US, which they are to be given in the event of a war. It's part of the nuclear sharing agreement. Goes back decades.

We could certainly 'dumb down' Ukrainian jets, but what's no point. They don't have nukes, but how are the Russians to tell from the ground?

The F16 maybe, but the F35 has stealth capability. That's an issue.

It’s amazing to me how scared Russia makes people while they spend billions. Send them the jets. Both party’s want to.

Basing nukes in a NATO country is not "loaning nukes".

Your first stament is simply incorrect as it concerns advanced fighter aircraft. There is not a single F-16 variant used anywhere in the world that has the full capabilities of their American counterparts. The same holds for any other advanced fighter platform, including the F-35. This includes nuclear carry capability.

Now, that’s completely different than other types of nuclear weapon delivery and I have no expertise in any of that.

As to whether or not the Russians know whether a given F-16 has all the capabilities of the US market aircraft: believe me, they know. But it doesn’t matter, because it’s not the “fully loaded” capabilities that the Russians are worried about, just the basic air superiority and ground attack capabilities that these aircraft afford.

Nukes aren’t the issue with the aircraft possibility, just basic force multiplication.

God I hate it when they subtly make it Ukraine’s fault that they don’t want to give something. At least have the balls to say “we don’t want to”.

I don’t know what you’d call storing nukes in a foreign country to attach to foreign planes and be dropped by foreign pilots then.

Should send over some A10s

Apparently "No 10" is kind of like saying "White House" in the US, and means the UK Prime Minister. A reference to 10 Downing Street, the address of the Prime Minister's Office.

> There is not a single F-16 variant used anywhere in the world that has the full capabilities of their American counterparts ... The same holds for any other advanced fighter platform, including the F-35. This includes nuclear carry capability.

To be clear, I sourced that statement. Relevant bit from the article:

> In essence, the nuclear sharing agreement provides for member states of the military alliance without nuclear weapons to partake in planning and training for the use of nuclear weapons by NATO. ... Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy are all part of the sharing agreement. ... This agreement — American bombs guarded by American soldiers on a German base but flown by crews and planes of Germany's military forces, the Bundeswehr — dates back to the Cold War and NATO's nuclear deterrence strategy

Italy and Germany have the tornado. Belgium only has F16s which could possibly fulfill that role and will soon have the F35. Same goes for the Netherlands. So they do or will have DCA US made aircraft.

NATO's website:

> NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture also relies on the United States’ nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe, as well as on the capabilities and infrastructure provided by Allies concerned. A number of NATO member countries contribute a dual-capable aircraft (DCA) capability to the Alliance. These aircraft are central to NATO’s nuclear deterrence mission and are available for nuclear roles at various levels of readiness. In their nuclear role, the aircraft are equipped to carry nuclear bombs in a conflict and personnel are trained accordingly. The United States maintains absolute control and custody of their nuclear weapons forward deployed in Europe, while Allies provide military support for the DCA mission

And wikipedia:

> In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Germany announced that it would buy 35 F-35 jets to replace the Tornado in its nuclear sharing role. On 10 June 2013, former Dutch prime minister Ruud Lubbers confirmed the existence of 22 shared nuclear bombs at Volkel Air Base. ... In 2022, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, reports appeared about the possible inclusion of Poland in the NATO nuclear sharing program.

That last bit is something I didn't know, but given Poland is also acquiring F35s, it makes sense.

From the article I cited:

> This agreement — American bombs guarded by American soldiers on a German base but flown by crews and planes of Germany's military forces, the Bundeswehr — dates back to the Cold War and NATO's nuclear deterrence strategy

I've posted a few additional links in this comment:

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/10q01tn/comment/j6on12v/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

TLDR: a number of NATO members get bombs from the US in the event of a nuclear war, and fly the bombing mission. Apparently Poland might also soon become part of the nuclear sharing agreement.

TBF it isn't something NATO likes to talk about too much, and most redditers didn't grow up during the cold war, so it's understandable that they would be surprised to learn this.