[GK3]

Another question is are there any more spare Migs around to donate to the Ukraine?  They seem desperate for more Air Support.  How hard is it to train up experienced pilots in another airframe, say an F 16?  Lots of people seem to now want HIMARS and we don't seem to be in a position to build more very fast.  Would we license the weapon to another country? We seem to be at a point that we need to provide even more support as now matter how fast they advanced, there have been losses.

We have already licensed several NATO countries to build the missiles. Several NATO nations licensed and built M270s, such as the German MARS version. It is not probable they are in a position to build any today.

Ukraine is indeed desirous of more air support capability. However, it isn't exactly a permissive environment over there. Many people seem to think having a HARM capability cures the problem. It doesn't. If it did, we wouldn't have built the F117, the F22, and the F35. Ukraine also has no Weasels or Growlers. They are missing a big piece of even the pre-stealth puzzle. We also almost exclusively use stand-off weapons for our F16s, F15Es, and FA18s. Along with the planes, we would need to supply the ground-attack weapons. It also takes a while to practice with these weapons. This is a much bigger deal than just sending a few aircraft.

3. I believe new planes would have to come from Bulgaria, Poland or Slovakia. I think those are the only NATO countries that still fly MiGs. I think it would be very difficult to train experienced pilots to a level of acceptability in western jets, though I believe an experienced MiG-29 fighter could transition to the F-16. I think fifth-generation jets are out of the question for a variety of reasons.

Both Germany and Poland attempted the experiment and decided it was difficult and generally not worth it. It isn't just that the pilots currently fly MiGs. They have always flown aircraft of "Soviet" design, from trainers to their current ride. There is a whole set of assumptions that are just built-in to their brains. Those assumptions are wrong in NATO aircraft. Yes, some of them can learn but most don't. The Ukrainian air force chiefs have all flown F-16s (2 seat versions) and some have flown F-15s (2 seat versions). Their reactions universally is that they aircraft are very, very, different to fly than the MiGs. The acceleration profiles and control forces are just completely different. They believe "retraining" is possible, but their opinion is obviously driven by need.

It is just better to start with "new" pilots. If we aren't idiots there have been a bunch of Ukrainians in T-38s since last March. Normally it takes about 2 years to become a fully qualified pilot in a given aircraft. For comparison, transitioning to a new aircraft of a similar type takes 9 or more months for a NATO pilot. This is a "peacetime" schedule. The weather in the southwestern US is good in winter. On a compressed training schedule it is reasonable to assume there will be qualified Ukrainian pilots by March or so IF we "did the right thing". Probably we didn't.

This is the kind of thing that should be a "no brainer" for the US. Ukraine doesn't have the spare airframes to train new pilots. Their airspace isn't totally safe to do so. The weather in the winter is so bad there are few flying days. The number of MiGs Ukraine has or can get is limited. Right now, they may have more pilots than planes. Therefore, there is no MiG training pipeline in Ukraine. The US should have been training the next class of Ukrainian pilots on NATO aircraft. If we chose not to give Ukraine any such aircraft, they are no worse off, but if we didn't train the pilots giving them the planes is not an option.

We certainly have had more than enough time to make the "right decision".  Unfortunately that is not always our strong point.  Too many politicians.

[GK3]

Another question is are there any more spare Migs around to donate to the Ukraine?  They seem desperate for more Air Support.  How hard is it to train up experienced pilots in another airframe, say an F 16?  Lots of people seem to now want HIMARS and we don't seem to be in a position to build more very fast.  Would we license the weapon to another country? We seem to be at a point that we need to provide even more support as now matter how fast they advanced, there have been losses.

We have already licensed several NATO countries to build the missiles. Several NATO nations licensed and built M270s, such as the German MARS version. It is not probable they are in a position to build any today.

Ukraine is indeed desirous of more air support capability. However, it isn't exactly a permissive environment over there. Many people seem to think having a HARM capability cures the problem. It doesn't. If it did, we wouldn't have built the F117, the F22, and the F35. Ukraine also has no Weasels or Growlers. They are missing a big piece of even the pre-stealth puzzle. We also almost exclusively use stand-off weapons for our F16s, F15Es, and FA18s. Along with the planes, we would need to supply the ground-attack weapons. It also takes a while to practice with these weapons. This is a much bigger deal than just sending a few aircraft.

3. I believe new planes would have to come from Bulgaria, Poland or Slovakia. I think those are the only NATO countries that still fly MiGs. I think it would be very difficult to train experienced pilots to a level of acceptability in western jets, though I believe an experienced MiG-29 fighter could transition to the F-16. I think fifth-generation jets are out of the question for a variety of reasons.

Both Germany and Poland attempted the experiment and decided it was difficult and generally not worth it. It isn't just that the pilots currently fly MiGs. They have always flown aircraft of "Soviet" design, from trainers to their current ride. There is a whole set of assumptions that are just built-in to their brains. Those assumptions are wrong in NATO aircraft. Yes, some of them can learn but most don't. The Ukrainian air force chiefs have all flown F-16s (2 seat versions) and some have flown F-15s (2 seat versions). Their reactions universally is that they aircraft are very, very, different to fly than the MiGs. The acceleration profiles and control forces are just completely different. They believe "retraining" is possible, but their opinion is obviously driven by need.

It is just better to start with "new" pilots. If we aren't idiots there have been a bunch of Ukrainians in T-38s since last March. Normally it takes about 2 years to become a fully qualified pilot in a given aircraft. For comparison, transitioning to a new aircraft of a similar type takes 9 or more months for a NATO pilot. This is a "peacetime" schedule. The weather in the southwestern US is good in winter. On a compressed training schedule it is reasonable to assume there will be qualified Ukrainian pilots by March or so IF we "did the right thing". Probably we didn't.

This is the kind of thing that should be a "no brainer" for the US. Ukraine doesn't have the spare airframes to train new pilots. Their airspace isn't totally safe to do so. The weather in the winter is so bad there are few flying days. The number of MiGs Ukraine has or can get is limited. Right now, they may have more pilots than planes. Therefore, there is no MiG training pipeline in Ukraine. The US should have been training the next class of Ukrainian pilots on NATO aircraft. If we chose not to give Ukraine any such aircraft, they are no worse off, but if we didn't train the pilots giving them the planes is not an option.

We certainly have had more than enough time to make the "right decision".  Unfortunately that is not always our strong point.  Too many politicians.