Two Ukrainian pilots are in the U.S. for training assessment on attack aircraft, including F-16s
Category: News & Politics
Via: perrie-halpern • 3 weeks ago • 116 commentsBy: Courtney Kube and Carol E. Lee
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Two Ukrainian pilots are in the U.S. undergoing an assessment to determine how long it could take to train them to fly attack aircraft, including F-16 fighter jets, according to two congressional officials and a senior U.S. official.
The Ukrainians' skills are being evaluated on simulators at a U.S. military base in Tucson, Arizona, the officials said, and they may soon be joined by more of their fellow pilots.
U.S. authorities have approved bringing up to 10 more Ukrainian pilots to the U.S. for further assessment as early as this month, the officials said.
Their arrival marks the first time Ukrainian pilots have traveled to the U.S. to have their skills evaluated by American military trainers. Officials said the effort has twin goals: to improve the pilots' skills and to evaluate how long a proper training program could take.
"The program is about assessing their abilities as pilots so we can better advise them on how to use capabilities they have and we have given them," an administration official said.
Two administration officials stressed that it wasn't a training program and said that the Ukrainians would not be flying any aircraft during their time here.
A F-16 Fighting Falcon flies during a NATO air shielding exercise in Lask, Poland on Oct. 12, 2022.Omar Marques / Getty Images file
These officials said the pilots would be using a simulator that can mimic flying various types of aircraft, and they emphasized that there had been no updates on the U.S. decision to provide F-16s to Ukraine beyond what the Pentagon's top policy official said to Congress last week.
The official, Colin Kahl, told the House Armed Services Committee that the U.S. had not made the decision to provide F-16s and neither had U.S. allies and partners.
He also said the U.S. had "not started training on F-16s" and that the delivery time line for F-16s is "essentially the same" as the training time line, about 18 months.
"So you don't actually save yourself time by starting the training early in our assessment," said Kahl, who is the under secretary of defense for policy. "And since we haven't made the decision to provide F-16s and neither have our allies and partners, it doesn't make sense to start to train them on a system they may never get."
Other U.S. defense officials have said the training could be shortened to six to nine months, depending on the pilots previous training and knowledge of fighter aircraft.
Ukrainian officials have told the U.S. and other allies that they had fewer than 20 pilots ready to travel to the U.S. to train on F-16s but haf about 30 who could be trained soon, according to American and Western officials.
Asked about the assessment of two Ukrainian pilots, a defense official described it as "familiarization event."
"It is a routine activity as part of our military-to-military dialogue with Ukraine," the official said.
"The 'familiarization event' is essentially a discussion between the Air Force personnel and an observation of how the U.S. Air Force operates. This event allows us to better help Ukrainian pilots become more effective pilots and better advise them on how to develop their own capabilities."
The defense official added that there were no immediate plans to increase the number of pilots beyond the two currently in Tucson but said "we're not closing the door on future opportunities."
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly asked the U.S. for F-16s, but President Joe Biden has resisted the requests so far. In an interview with ABC News last month, Biden said Ukraine did not need F-16s at this time, basing that assessment on the U.S. military's advice.
"I'm ruling it out for now," Biden said when asked if he would ever send F-16s to Ukraine.
Ukrainian citizens and supporters attend a demonstration of solidarity with Ukraine in Krakow, Poland, on Feb. 24.Beata Zawrzel / NurPhoto via AP file
Biden also told reporters last week that he had discussed F-16s with Zelenskyy during his visit to Kyiv on Feb. 20 but would not disclose the details of that discussion.
In his appearance before the House Armed Services Committee, Kahl said that Ukrainian officials had asked the U.S. for as many as 128 aircraft — a mix of F-15s, F-16s and F-18s.
Kahl said the U.S. Air Force estimated that Ukraine would ultimately need between 50 and 80 F-16s to replace its current air force. If the U.S. provides newly built aircraft, it would take three to six years to deliver them to Ukraine, with a slightly shorter time line of 18 to 24 months if the U.S. sent refurbished older model F-16s.
The cost to send the F-16s would be as much as $11 billion, depending on the model and number delivered.
"That would consume a huge portion of the remaining security assistance that we have for this fiscal year," Kahl said.
On Sunday, Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, said U.S. military officials told him they supported providing F-16s to Ukraine.
"I was at the Munich Security Conference, met with a lot of the high-ranking military officials, including our supreme allied commander," McCaul said on ABC News' "This Week."
"They're all in favor of us putting not only F-16s in but longer-range artillery, to take out the Iranian drones in Crimea."
But with the long timeline for delivery and training of F-16s, the huge price tag and the large Russian air force already gathering aircraft across the border from Ukraine, some US military leaders recommend focusing on weapons and equipment that Ukraine could use immediately, such as air defense systems.
"Even in our most earnest effort it will take months to get Ukrainians flying F-16s. They are beating the Russian air force with air defenses, why would we change tactics now?" a U.S. defense official said.
The Russian air force had roughly 500 aircraft, the official said, which dwarfs the Ukrainian force.
"It's just not the way to fight the Russian air force," the official added. "Even if we spend all the money and send every aircraft we can, it's just a drop in the bucket compared to the Russian air force."
Another step.
Tick...tick...tick...tick...
How do their flying skills get assessed but yet they will not be flying any aircraft?
I think that near-term British Tornados and/or Swedish Gripens are more likely than F-16's. In the meantime, I hope these two have a little time to enjoy Tucson and the area.
I hope they enjoy Tucson as well. Hope they get to see the Pima Air & Space Museum as well since it is adjacent to DM.
That's a great place, I love going there. They also host an old Air Force 1 who holds the record of having one more take-off than landing.... (wonder if anybody can guess how this happened (hint, it wasn't from crashing)).
I live two hours South of Tucson in Douglas down on the border and I drive to Tucson regularly. Many times I will take the Valencia Rd exit off I-10 just to drive by and see what's on display by the fence. They are frequently changing the line up of the large aircraft so you never know what might be seen there.
Yep, has to do with tricky Dicky. Still POTUS when it took off, Ford was sworn in while he was in the air. Not POTUS when he landed.
Remember it well
But do you know what else is special about that plane? It was used by Truman before and Truman bothered the crew so much with questions about air speed, altitude, etc that the Air Force installed a panel that can be seen if sitting at the Presidents Desk that has gauges that show all the information that Truman used to ask about.
Amazingly, some self-proclaimed progressives, view any support that helps Ukraine defend itself against the Russian bear, as dangerous and provocative. Russia started this war, targets civilians, kidnaps children, makes rape a weapon, and wastes its own conscripts, it should be beneath contempt of all forward thinking people.
So not being in support of sending billions in US military and financial aid to Ukraine in the same as condoning what Russia is doing there?
Ukraine- with probably the most corrupt government on the planet- that before the war was a hot spot for politicians to send family members and friends to earn big bucks. That outlawed the Russian language from being used on any government forms. That arrested opposition politicians and shut down opposition media. That condones (even has absorbed large portions of them into their government and military) fascist militias. Those self same fascists harassed and chased minority Ukrainians out of the country at the start of the war.
What does the US need Ukraine for again- outside of a political piggy bank for kickbacks?
If the goal was to make sure Russia wasn't a threat to NATO countries- mission already accomplished. Russian has been proven to be a military farce. They are still using WWII tactics. They haven't figured out air superiority wins wars. They don't have the means to achieve it. They are pulling conscripts off the street, giving them little to no training, and throwing them on the front lines. They are short rations, tanks (they are recommissioning moth balled tanks), weapons, and munitions. They were the number two arms seller in the world; and now they are buying from Iran, North Korea, and for Russia hopefully China soon. Their economy will take as long as their military to rebuild (if their war in Ukraine ever ends). The only reason we are not rolling into Moscow right now is Russia's nuclear arsenal; and everybody knows it.
Ukraine is not some bulwark of Democracy. They have served their purpose. Time for Zelensky to hit the negotiating table and stop hitting the US up for weapons, money, and now troops.
"Time for Zelensky to hit the negotiating table and stop hitting the US up for weapons, money, and now troops."
That's not going to happen. Russia can't be allowed to prevail. Like it or not, the US is in for the duration.
No they aren't the same. Supporting Ukraine with aid is on one end, supporting Russia on the other and you apparently are in the middle.
Corruption remains an ongoing struggle. They went from part of the corrupt USSR just over 30 years ago to private networks of ownership created by intimidation, cronyism and crime. Ten years ago, millions of citizens took to the streets in protest of their corrupt government. Shortly thereafter, Russia invaded the Donbas region. Since then, they are making incremental steps to improve. Recently six deputy ministers and five regional administrators were dismissed.
I think it is to our advantage to maintain world stability and prove that we are a dependable allie. China is watching and act according to the lessons they learn
Ukraine is a necessary buffer/roadblock to help keep Vicious Vlad from spilling his mad military dreams and/or ambitions of rebuilding the former Soviet Union into Eastern and central Europe, so it does have strategic value. He knows that NATO will invoke Article 5 of NATO if he sets one foot into said member countries.
In his deranged speech Saturday night, Trump referred to Putin as his friend. This after all the tens of thousands of dead civilians in Putin's war.
Still want to vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils ?
How off topic can you get?
When you make declarations with ''Ukraine is the most corrupt government on the planet'' it's best that you actually know what you're talking about. When living in a glass house it's best not to throw stones. The US has more than its share of corruption. Currently, in Ohio, five politicians have been indicted on $60 million dollar racketeering con. In many ways, the US has brought corruption to a fine art.
I never ever voted for him to begin with as I don't really like him much at all. I just happen to dislike Biden more so why would you think I would want to vote for either one. I voted 3rd party the last two presidential elections and depending on who the candidates are in 2024, I may do so again in 2024.
I didnt ask you if you like him, I asked you if you would call him the lesser of two evils after he called Putin his friend Saturday night.
Of course Trump is the lesser of two evils, compared to Putin
In fact, to go further off topic, Trump is a lesser evil than Biden.
I've never voted for Trump and don't intend to in the future. I understand why many have voted for them and labeling them as racists, ignorant and rednecks only encourages more future votes.
It's all nonsense. Putin feared Trump. You saw Putin invade the Crimea during the Obama years and you saw him invade Ukraine during the radical Biden years.
But he NEVER made a move when Trump was in power!
Oh my God.
Putin was waiting for Trump to get re-elected and pull the US out of NATO . That is why he was quiet during the Trump years. He would let Trump do his dirty work of destroying the western Europe coalition for him.
Trump regularly berated NATO and western Europe before and after he was elected in 2016. Putin was giving Trump the chance to come through for him.
Details, details ....
Oh that was it?
Why do I feel like I should be snuggled in bed with your theories?
Trump regularly berated NATO and western Europe before and after he was elected in 2016.
John, Trump wanted NATO members to PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!
Trump was going to pull the US out of NATO.
Trump was going to cause a world war.
Trump was going to crash the US economy and the US Stock Market.
It's amazing how much those on the left know and are just so wrong always....
It's incredibly amazing how they found 80 million votes.
The propaganda is strong in this one.
Trump was never against NATO per se. He was against member nations not paying their agreed upon fair share and therefore not screwing American taxpayers any worse than we are already getting screwed by paying more than double our share to make up for piker countries.
I guess you like getting screwed by countries like Germany, France, Canada, etc since you are allegedly a US taxpayer as well.
Honest to god, sometimes I dont know why I waste my time here , its really hopeless in terms of presenting reality to people who dont want to hear it.
You really need to read something besides the sports section.
BUT HE DIDN'T
he lost the fucking election
and never got the chance.
If he did it in his first term he never could have gotten re-elected. Even he was smart enough to know that
He was going to wait for a second term to do it?????
Do you really believe this shit????
You cant keep up Vic, you dont know what you dont know.
NT will continue to suffer through all your gaslighting bilge. Its a damn shame.
It seems all you have is propaganda and sophomoric insults.
Once again no intellectual accuracy or maturity can be gleaned from one of your comments.
Sad.
I'm way ahead of you John. You can't defend these theories about Trump, who was above all else, a good President. What you should be concerned about is the radical in disguise, who replaced him.
BTW, every president knows that most of what they will accomplish takes place in the first two years of their terms.
NT will continue to suffer through
NT has only one thing to fear: a leftwing echo chamber!
OMG ..... the projection on display in that comment is considerable.
You are wasting your time because you are trying to trap me into giving you the specific answer you want to hear and nothing else will suffice to you. You asked if I wanted to vote for him. I already said I would not vote for him, and that's under any circumstances. Whether anyone else thinks of him as the lesser of two evils is entirely irrelevant to me. I already answered your question and that is all you are going to get.
This thread has been unlocked and cleaned up from the slap fight. Knock it off. Only warning.
All true
He says the same thing about all things Democrat and President Biden.
All what?
The ones I was referring to in your comment were that BEFORE they voted for the former 'president'
Huh?
Exactly what he complained about in his manifesto he wrote in meta yesterday.
The irony is overwhelming.
That's a bit biased about progressives. There are people in both extremes that feel we should do nothing in Ukraine. They seem to have forgotten what men like Putin do. He is a monster, and if you give an inch, he will try to take a mile.
I agree. Putin really hasn’t given the world much of a choice but it wouldn’t be the first time we regretted our chosen allegiances.
USSR and Iraq come immediately to mind ... not much neat and tidy in geopolitics like this.
Putin feels about Ukraine the same was we feel about Kansas.
Lol ....speak for yourself toothless
I don't find isolationists on the far right to be surprising. I find isolationists that profess to be progressive and for democracy surprising.
We can still back Ukraine, but we must understand that he believes that Ukraine is a Russian state.
Bingo!
We can't back down just because someone believes something that isn't true. It's even more imperative today amidst such global chaos to stand up against the lies and false narratives embraced by supposed 'strong men' leaders and their sycophant supporters.
I NEVER ADVOCATED BACKING DOWN.
Give it up!
Imo when Putin first invaded Ukraine, he saw it as the new extension of the Suwalski Gap in Poland, known also as the new Fulda Gap, where he could have as he believed rolled unopposed on into Eastern and Central Europe if he chose to. Putin was thankfully proved very wrong by the Ukrainians although at significant cost in lives.
That would be like Mexico thinking Texas was theirs. Sorry no. Putin is a bully.
What is not generally known is there are movements in Mexico that promote the idea of Reconquista (literally reconquest) of parts of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California stating that said states should be returned to Mexico reasoning that those territories were stolen from Mexico, especially The Gadsden Purchase of Southern AZ and New Mexico under the Treaty of Gudalupe Hidalgo. Interesting reading for anyone interested in the history of the American Southwest. Said groups claim that the Southwest is culturally Mexico, thus they still belong to Mexico.
[deleted]
It got stuck to yours.
thread 3.1 is locked before it gets worse
[deleted]
Just what did Pat do besides laugh at John's comment?
You're getting more and more paranoid and demanding every day
Emojis confuse some into reading more than was there.
[deleted]
300 days late and 300 F-16s short.
Which aircraft were you rated on?
UH Hueys. C and H models.
I have a lot of respect for the skills that OH-58, UH-1 CH-47 and UH-60 pilots that I’ve flown with shown. While not really knowing, I think that their skill set and skill training time is different than an F-16 pilots.
Enlisted. Crew Chief.
You and your contemporaries always made me feel safe. Many thanks.
On the Huey? I flew in one to go to the Back Range behind Eielson AFB. We needed to do some RF readings on the satellite dishes they had back there
USMC E and N models for me. USN Fleet Marine Force Hospital Corpsman as medical aircrew on SAR and medevac Huey's.
Wounded were happy to see you show up.
Just tried to do what we were trained to do to the best of our abilities.
I think the Uke's should be trained on the A10's we plan on retiring anyway
or F4 Wild Weasels for HARM deliveries.
Just a thought...
Fortunately the A-10 is going nowhere in the near future.
One of the better decisions made by the DOD and Congress.
The 2023 NDAA allows the AF to retire 21 of the approx 280 in service.
The one that Joost crashed in WG in 1997 could have been salvaged but they wrote it off and parted it out for the rest of the PANG units.
He made an "aggressive turning dive" on final approach while taking his gloves off.
Clipped a few tree tops, with his landing gear which then caught the barbed wire and a bit of the cyclone fence at the end of the runway which flipped the bird onto the runway upside down crushing the cockpit but doing little damage other than the tops of the vertical stabilizers.
He did not survive. Best pilot I ever knew. Sad.
A-10s are virtually indestructible with multiple redundant systems.
They can fly on one engine or one wing.
Why get rid of the A-10? Those are awesome fighters
Technically the A10 is an attack aircraft, not a fighter. It's really too slow for air to air combat although one did shoot down two helicopters during the Gulf War marking the first air to air victory for the A10.
The Air Force wanted to get rid of the A10's as they felt it was too slow to survive in a modern battlefield.
Problem as I see it is they really don't have an airframe that can replace the A10 in it's ground attack mode. The Air Force will try with the F16 as well as the F35 but it will take a war to determine really how effective those platforms can be in a ground attack setting. Not something that anybody is really eager to get into.
attack....fighter....it's a plane and a deadly plane...or used to be
We had a group of them when I was stationed in Alaska. I witnessed their strafing and bombing capabilities. Yes, they are slow and they do fly low. But I always liked them
Remember a old saying about "Fighter pilots make movies while bomber/attack pilots make history."
I agree with that. You don't read much about fighter pilots and their aircraft but we've heard a lot about the Enola Gay and the B17s (?) that flew over Germany in WWII
I loved the A10. When I was stationed at Myrtle Beach AFB (yeah, yeah, I know. Tough duty) we were in the process of phasing out the A7 which was replaced by the A10. Hell of an aircraft for it's mission.
The F4's were all retired in 1996.
Currently the Wild Weasel program is being run on the F16 airframe.
Did you forget the EA-18 Growler? They provide ECM jamming coverage for all three services. Growler puts the F-16 Wild Weasel platform to shame.
Nope didn't forget about it, that was the Navy version. But correct me if I'm wrong, the Growler mission was more ECM and electronics warfare where as the Wild Weasel mission was to eliminate enemy radar stations and missile platforms by spoofing the stations to light up the aircraft so that the aircraft would shoot a HARMs missile back at it to destroy it.
And the question I responded to was with regards to providing the F4 Wild Weasels to Ukraine which would be impossible as the F4's were all retired back in 96. The aircraft that has replaced the F4 in the Wild Weasel mission is the F16 platform.
Understood. But Growlers still rock!
Just went back and checked and Growler's are currently adept at both ECM/EW and SEAD functions and in many cases work in conjunction with F-16 "Wild Weasel" platforms.
Turns out there is even a USAF squadron flying the EA-18 Growler's out of Whidbey Island. This is as a result of the USAF losing it's primary ECM/EW platform when the EF-111 Raven's were retired in the mid 90's. The same USAF squadron flew EA-6B Prowler's until they were retired and then switched to the Growler.
Well, thanks. Learned something new today, I didn't know that before.
A-10's, from a ground pounder's perspective, no finer AF aircraft.
Great aircraft but I favor the AC 130 AKA ''Spooky or Puff the Magic Dragon''.
From a special ops perspective, you are absolutely right.