06-06-2024, 08:06 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-despe...46362.html
It appears that the training of F-16 pilots for Ukraine is totally inadequate to the requirements. The problem with the US effort is that it is going through the "normal" USAF training program for foreign nationals. This program has limited capacity especially compared to the one for US nationals. The one for US nationals is downsizing as the F-35 becomes more prevalent. The decision to use the foreign national pipeline is in itself understandable. That program is set up to deal with the language issues much more effectively. However it doesn't meet the need and that fact was obvious from day 1. It lacks capacity. Ukraine has all along questioned why its pilots weren't just put in the "regular" flow of training. The first four were done as a (no pun intended) pilot program. The remainder were supposed to just go the regular route, but apparently did not. Training 4 squadrons of Ukrainian pilots will therefore take four to five years starting today. The 20 Ukraine is getting via the US pipeline would be enough for maybe 1 F-16 squadron of 16 aircraft. It would be marginally manned. Of course, the issue of ground support staff is not addressed in the article. It could be in worse shape than pilot training AFAIK.
The article points out the previously stated fact that the European training site in Denmark has a capacity of 8 pilots a year and is set to close. Denmark doesn't have the resources to keep it open even if they wanted to do so. To keep using it some other countries in the EU will have to come up with the money. The one in Romania isn't up and running yet and IMO has all the hallmarks of an expensive fiasco that never does anything. Generating such a facility from scratch was never going to be easy and contractors in general haven't been a good way to do so. There is also a LOT to be said for training all the F-16 pilots in the same manner. It produces pilots that do the same things the same way reliably. Multiple instruction paths create variances in procedure. It is not a matter of right vs wrong, it is a matter of uniformity.
All that said, I see another very real problem here. It has been pointed out before, but here is a quote from the article.
It appears that the training of F-16 pilots for Ukraine is totally inadequate to the requirements. The problem with the US effort is that it is going through the "normal" USAF training program for foreign nationals. This program has limited capacity especially compared to the one for US nationals. The one for US nationals is downsizing as the F-35 becomes more prevalent. The decision to use the foreign national pipeline is in itself understandable. That program is set up to deal with the language issues much more effectively. However it doesn't meet the need and that fact was obvious from day 1. It lacks capacity. Ukraine has all along questioned why its pilots weren't just put in the "regular" flow of training. The first four were done as a (no pun intended) pilot program. The remainder were supposed to just go the regular route, but apparently did not. Training 4 squadrons of Ukrainian pilots will therefore take four to five years starting today. The 20 Ukraine is getting via the US pipeline would be enough for maybe 1 F-16 squadron of 16 aircraft. It would be marginally manned. Of course, the issue of ground support staff is not addressed in the article. It could be in worse shape than pilot training AFAIK.
The article points out the previously stated fact that the European training site in Denmark has a capacity of 8 pilots a year and is set to close. Denmark doesn't have the resources to keep it open even if they wanted to do so. To keep using it some other countries in the EU will have to come up with the money. The one in Romania isn't up and running yet and IMO has all the hallmarks of an expensive fiasco that never does anything. Generating such a facility from scratch was never going to be easy and contractors in general haven't been a good way to do so. There is also a LOT to be said for training all the F-16 pilots in the same manner. It produces pilots that do the same things the same way reliably. Multiple instruction paths create variances in procedure. It is not a matter of right vs wrong, it is a matter of uniformity.
All that said, I see another very real problem here. It has been pointed out before, but here is a quote from the article.
Quote:The warplanes "will give the Ukrainians an increment of capability that they don't have right now," Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said in May 2023. "But it's not going to be a dramatic game changer, as far as I'm concerned, for their total military capabilities."This is and has been an issue all along. The USAF doesn't think Ukraine can operate F-16s and that even if they can the USAF doesn't believe it is worth the trouble. This isn't a case of managing expectations. The USAF didn't and doesn't want to do it. They are following orders but nothing beyond that. In fairness the USAF is very much a process driven organization. This was always true but has become much worse in the last 25-30 years. The point here is that nobody (that speaks in public anyway) is trying to figure out a way to overcome difficulties and make it happen. Business as usual is the order of the day. IMO if the US policy is to provide the capability to Ukraine come hell or high water, the SecDef needs to order the Air Staff to get with the program and make it happen, period. Make it clear that if they can't do it, they will be replaced and quickly. Good policy is useless if not executed, and from the beginning we have not executed. It may not be easy, but IMO this effort has been pro-forma at best.