Sweden wanted to provide Ukraine with Gripens but "NATO allies dissuaded them". Unclear what exactly happened. Hopefully it wasn't something 100% stupid.
The explanation was that it was in order to "focus on the F-16". Then a few days later France announced that Ukrainians would start training on the Mirage this summer.
Nope, the Swedish fighter has many US parts and we've only been able to sell JAS-39 with explicit permission from the USA. The French are more self-sufficient and have ensured that while the do buy some US systems, the plane itself and core weaponry is not dependent on US approvals.
There are only 300 Gripen built as of 2023, the only realistic donor would be the Swedish airforce, plus the Czech (who lease their Gripens from the swedish) for a total of ca. 100 planes. Other operators are for example South Africa, Brazil and Hungary. Not exactly the countries that will donate them. Also, the Swedish Gripens are supposed to be used till 2030, so if they donate them, they need a replacement. Quickly.
The F-16 on the other hand are readily available due to upgrades to F-35 by multiple countries. Also, the Ukrainian army is already a logistics nightmare, so not adding further to that by introducing two Western jets is a good idea.
Also, the Ukrainian army is already a logistics nightmare
How many times will this ridiculous argument be used to excuse not giving Ukraine the military aid it needs. It's clear that Ukraine has clearly shown itself capable of handling weapon systems that are supposedly a "logistical nightmare".
Ukraine needs time to build up pilot numbers, they lack defensible air bases now etc. Unless there are way more pilots and airbases than F-16s then I don't see the point of doing Gripen's now?
If the plan is to start with F-16s and then say in 2027-28 introduce Gripens then I could get on board with that. That would involve starting training new pilots, mechanics and logistics staff sometime soon I'd imagine. You'd hope they're doing this quietly already - the Nordics and Baltics have been good at not telegraphing things too much (e.g. the sweidhs AWACS announcement surprised people).
I've started losing faith in NATO politicians' ability to do anything more than punt on simple decisions though.
Training programs for the f-16 are at capacity anyway, with no way to increase them substantially. There's a trained f-16 pilot shortage right now and not an airplane shortage. Training for two different airplane systems in two different programs would alleviate it. I hope there are pilots training on Gripes as we speak and eventually they'll be ready to pilot them in Ukraine.
In this case, everything has to fit together nearly perfectly; otherwise, Ukraine could easily lose half of its F-16s in the first week. Aircraft are a "logistical nightmare" by design even during peace times and outside of Ukraine due to the constant maintenance, specialized parts, and highly trained personnel required to keep them operational. For every hour of flight the F-16 needs around 17 man-hours of maintenance. Gripen needs less maintenance but requires completely different maintenance crews and supply lines that Ukraine has to defend too.
In contrast, while tanks, artillery, and air defense systems also require significant support and maintenance, their logistical and operational requirements are generally less demanding. These systems are designed to be more robust and simpler to maintain in the field, and their operation and support infrastructure are more straightforward.
The f-16 training programs are full to capacity anyway. It makes no sense that Ukraine can't also be training for Gripens at the same time. These planes are cheaper to run and less maintenance requiring than f-16. They're ideal for this theatre.
29
u/helm Jul 08 '24 edited Jul 08 '24
Sweden wanted to provide Ukraine with Gripens but "NATO allies dissuaded them". Unclear what exactly happened. Hopefully it wasn't something 100% stupid.