Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
Kind of off topic a little, but I was watching some videos about why f-16s weren't given to Ukraine sooner, and it opened my eyes up to the fact that I don't have a great grasp of modern warfare. I know air support keeps the skies safer, and lends needed support to ground forces, that part is obvious. I am understanding now, that there is much more.
I always thought that fighter jets all basically do the same things. Take a Ukrainian from a MiG, teach him to fly an f-16, and teach the maintenance crews how to maintain them, and it should be that simple.
From what I hearing, it is not nearly that simple. F-16s apparently have different weapons systems and capabilities in flight. For them to be used effectively, Ukraine has to change a lot of their strategies on the ground, and how they work in cooperation with f-16s. Everything from where air bases and shops are located, to the strategies being deployed in the field. They really made it sound like going from MiGs to f-16s would be a huge paradigm shift for the Ukrainian military. Simply training pilots to fly plains won't be enough to get the best use of the jets.
I can see why the West was reluctant at first to hand over f-16s, because it could cause problems in the short term while Ukraine has to take a step back and re-strategize, and even bigger problems if they didn't. In order to do the transfer and training properly, you have to take some people out of the war to train them in places like America, and then send them back in to train the others. The process is long and the temptation if you just sent f-16s, they would not be efficiently used using f-16s while using MiG concepts while flying them. They would be inferior in that kind of situation in fact because of the way Ukraine's military is currently set up. Almost like trying to put a square hole in a round peg. You would need to re-write a lot of plans on the ground.
|
I've read similar things, and while I'm sure this is a worthy consideration, I do wonder how much of that is "first world problems" kind of thinking. Yes it's good to get the best out of your gear, but just like the best tank is the one that actually shows up when you need it, maybe some of that talk is coming from people who haven't seen the realities of a full scale war in their lifetime.
Who knows, I'm no expert here.