Ukraine is going to be getting a few dozen F-16s in the coming months, but these are older model F-16AMs (single-seaters) and F-16BMs (two-seaters).
Both these F-16 variants have undergone the MLU (Mid-Life Upgrade), which I’ve read puts them roughly on a par with Block 50/52 F-16s (although to what extent exactly I’m not sure).
These F-16s are nowhere near as capble though as the most modern F-16V and Block 70/72 F-16 variants that are currently available.
These older F-16s are lacking in several key respects because of their age, despite having undergone the MLU:
- These F-16s don’t have an AESA radar. Upgrading them (or at least some of them) with the SABR AESA radar before delivery to Ukraine would be ideal not just because it’s an AESA radar (with all the advantages that come with such a radar), but also because of far greater detection ranges compared to the existing radars. This upgrade is vital in the face of long-range Russian air-to-air missiles such as the R-77 and R-37 missiles. Without AESA radars (and good air-to-air missiles) I can’t see these F-16s lasting long at all against Russian fighters.
I’ve also read that the existing radars wouldn’t be any use to detect and shoot down Shahed drones and cruise missiles. I’m not sure why that would be the case (maybe an issue with filtering out ground clutter?), but if true, the SABR radar should fix this issue too I think.
- These F-16s don’t carry the most modern AIM-120C8 and AIM-120D air-to-air missiles (AMRAAMs). They use older AIM-120 AMRAAM variants.
That said, if these F-16s could be fitted with Meteor missiles all the better still. Whether that’s doable though I don’t know. If it is doable, then Meteor would be a no-brainer and make these F-16s far more deadly, because unlike AIM-120 missiles (of any variant), the Meteor missile has a throttleable engine, which means it’s far harder to shake off than an AIM-120 if a pilot tries to use evasive manoeuvres.
- These F-16s don’t carry the most modern AIM-9X Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missiles. They use older AIM-9 Sidewinder variants.
I’ve read that some European F-16s carry the short-range IRIS-T missile instead. If the F-16s donated to Ukraine had IRIS-T missiles, that would be better because (a) even AIM-9X has been thwarted by Russian flares over Syria and (b) because I’ve read that IRIS-T can shoot down air-to-air missiles and SAMs, which would make the F-16s donated to Ukraine much more survivable.
-These F-16s could also do with the Legion IRST pod to passively detect Russian aircraft without having to use their radars.
- These F-16s could also do with an electronic warfare (EW) pod to make them hard to detect and engage, not just by Russian fighter jets, but also by SAM systems and SHORAD systems. My preference would be the Saab Arexis EW pod and/or the oddly named Angry Kitten EW pod, which I’ve read can adapt to previously unseen threats by using AI. I’ve read that the Arexis EW pod can be fitted to any western aircraft. I’m not sure about the Angry Kitten EW pod because it’s relatively new, but I’ve read that Reaper drones can carry it.
- Adding BriteCloud decoys to these F-16s (to decoy radar-guided air-to-air missiles and SAMs) would be a no-brainer and should be done. It would be utterly negligent not to do so. The BriteCloud decoy can be fitted to standard chaff dispensers and so is a relatively simple, yet highly effective, addition. Far more effective than chaff. If the F-16s require upgrades to their RWR and MAWS, then do that. (RWR = Radar Warning Receiver; MAWS = Missile Approach Warning System.)
- The HARM anti-radiation missile lacks range against S-300 and S-400 SAM systems, which is another reason why the F-16s donated to Ukraine need EW systems, BriteCloud decoys and IRIS-T missiles, all of which would make the F-16s much harder to detect, engage and shoot down by these SAM systems and possibly enable them to get close enough to use HARM missiles without getting shot down. (AARGM-ER would be an even better option, but I highly doubt Ukraine would get it, let alone in large numbers.)
- These F-16s could also do with JASSM and JASSM-ER missiles because of their long range, which means these missiles could be fired from safe stand-off distances without running the risk of being shot down by either Russian fighter jets or Russian SAM systems.
- If these F-16s could be fitted with the SLAM-ER missile all the better still, because this missile also has good stand-off range, and can be used against moving targets both on land and at sea.
- If Powered JDAM (PJDAM) could be launched from these F-16s all the better still, since PJDAM has a range of approx 500km, which significantly outranges S-300 and S-400 that have a max range of about 400km (although that’s against large unagile aircraft like tankers, not F-16s). The same goes for ALTIUS-600, which has an air-launched range of 440km.
If EW pods and BriteCloud decoys could be fitted to Ukrainian Sukhoi and MiG aircraft (and ideally TB2 drones as well) all the better still.
As for other aircraft that could be donated to Ukraine, the Gripen would be top of my list, especially for air-to-air missions (although it’s no slouch in other roles, including the anti-ship role).
Yes, the F-16 exists in larger numbers, but even just 6-12 Gripens would be incredibly useful to Ukraine imo.
I say that for several reasons:
- The Gripen was designed to operate from roads, which means it’s inherently much more survivable on the ground compared to aircraft operating from air bases whose locations are known.
- It carries the Meteor and IRIS-T air-to-air missiles I mentioned above.
- It carries BriteCloud decoys.
- Gripen Cs donated to Ukraine could be fitted with the Arexis EW pod.
- The Gripen is easy to maintain at the side of a road with a crew of just 6, only one of whom needs to be experienced. A Gripen can be refuelled/rearmed in just 10-20 minutes.
- The Gripen can carry (or be modified to carry) a wide-range of ordnance.
I can’t imagine that Russian pilots would want to go up against Gripens with Meteor, IRIS-T, BriteCloud decoys and the Arexis EW pod. That said, obviously SAM systems such as S-300 and S-400 would need to be taken out first, and that’s why Ukraine needs huge numbers of anti-radiation weapons with sufficient range such as a western or Ukrainian version of the Harpy (which can be ground-launched, so no aircraft is even needed).
Maybe Taiwan would be willing to sell Chien Hsiang anti-radiation loitering munitions to the US/European countries/Japan/South Korea, which could then deliver them to Ukraine?
Maybe Taiwan would be willing to build Chien Hsiang loitering munitions in Ukraine? (And maybe Ukraine would be willing to build Sea Baby and Magura USVs in Taiwan in return?)
The Chien Hsiang loitering munition has a range of 1,000km and in addition to an anti-radiation seeker, it also has an EO sensor, which means it would work against radars even if they’ve been turned off or are on the move, as well as SAM launchers, SAM command trucks and EW systems. This sort of capability, especially in large numbers, is exactly what Ukraine needs.
Other possible options:
- The KQ-58 Valkyrie drone: It’s long-ranged, stealthy, and is a runway-independent drone because it’s RATO-launched. (RATO = Rocket-Assisted Take-Off). I’ve read it can carry SDBs and ALTIUS-600s. The Valkyrie would be ideal for Ukraine and it would be a great place to test it out.
- The Reaper drone with the Self-Protection Pod (SPP) and the Angry Kitten EW pod. The SPP consists of the BriteCloud decoy to decoy radar-guided missiles and a DAIRCM system to blind IR-guided missiles.
- The Fire Scout helicopter drone: The US has retired the A & B models of the Fire Scout drone. Give them all to Ukraine.
- Jackal & Hydra drones: These are new UK drones under development that carry 2 LMM missiles and 3 Brimstone 2 missiles respectively. They’d be ideal for Ukraine to take out Russian MBTs, IFVs, and APCs. Again, Ukraine would provide an ideal place to test out these drones.