Now that Ukraine is in line to receive F-16s, opinions surrounding their effectiveness span from being counterproductive to war-winning for Ukraine. While most discussions have focused on the fighters’ air-to-air performance and the platform itself, the broader effect of their deployment with the precise munitions might be decreased Russian ground strikes.
Neither the Ukrainians nor the Russians have air superiority over the battlefield. Surface-to-air missiles, or SAM, and anti-air artillery provide nearly all of air control for each side. And yet, Ukraine is simply too vast for SAMs to cover, as most require line-of-sight, limiting maximum ranges at lower altitudes. The mobility and line-of-sight of fighters makes them well suited to defend areas with sparse SAM coverage. Fighters also can avoid adversary SAMs by flying low while also with the ability to engage aircraft doing the identical.
The aircraft’s first role will likely be supporting air defense by intercepting cruise missiles. Given Russia’s low monthly capability for missile strikes on Ukraine, only just a few F-16s are mandatory to intercept cruise missiles that enter Ukrainian airspace — providing needed relief to Ukraine’s overtaxed SAMs. Some commentators have highlighted the F-16′s ability to deploy cruise missiles and other munitions for strikes and interdiction resembling the Storm Shadow missiles. Nevertheless, those weapons are scarce, and F-16s provide only limited additional capability unless Ukraine receives a big influx of air-to-ground munitions.
As Ukraine gains proficiency with F-16s, the subsequent mission might be suppressing Russian SAMs, a mission that’s more involved than stand-off strikes. F-16s are well suited to operate the AGM-88s that Ukraine has been supplied to suppress forward Russian SAMs. These destroyed Russian SAMs are expensive and unlikely to get replaced quickly. Attritting these systems is critical for Ukraine to realize local air superiority improving the survivability of its drones and ground forces in the method.
The 2 missions described are possible with the initial pledged F-16s. Of the roughly 60 F-16s promised, only around a dozen are expected by early next 12 months. As more arrive, higher impact missions turn into possible.
Russia’s limited capability of stand-off munitions has not hindered its ground attack aircraft and helicopters from striking Ukraine. Initially, Russia resorted to flying below line-of-sight of Ukrainian SAMs while employing “dumb” bombs. Russia has since adapted to make use of precision, stand-off glide bombs. Russia has also employed its multi-role aircraft in air-to-ground roles because it faces little resistance within the air. F-16s can goal the latter and force the previous to air-to-air roles. Whether Russia diverts aircraft to air defense, takes higher risks, or performs fewer strikes, the result’s fewer effective Russian air-to-ground strikes.
There may even be downstream effects on Russian operations. Russia has, for instance, expended large quantities of its long-range SAMs for ground attacks. Given the high overlap of SAM, ballistic missile and air-launched missile components, increasing production of SAMs for replenishment will likely come on the expense of other missile production, which implies even fewer Russian ground strikes against Ukraine.
F-16s alone usually are not enough. They require training, support crews, communications, early warning, upgraded avionics and munitions. This infrastructure takes years to develop and shouldn’t be more likely to be fully fielded within the conflict timeframe. So far, little public discourse exists on exactly what the pledged F-16s may have when it comes to capabilities and supporting infrastructure.
Beyond a high probability that Ukraine will receive more AGM-88s and Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), no other public disclosures of F-16 munitions have been announced. NATO’s most capable long-range, air-to-air missiles (AAMs) are the U.S. AIM-120D and the U.K. Meteor. These are mandatory to beat Russia’s long range AAMs, yet neither has been pledged. Even when Russia has been inefficiently using its R-37′s by firing from long range and leaving the fight, Russia likely retains large quantities of R-77 missiles. It stays uncertain how most of the AIM-120 variants previously provided for air defense are still available. An F-16 with any AAM continues to be an improvement over Ukraine’s current MIG-29s.
If Ukraine’s F-16s are expected to strike ground targets, they may require the precise munitions. F-16 munitions designed for fighting Cold War-era ground formations are the upgraded variants the CBU and Rockeye series. Soon these will need decommissioning and can lack host aircraft. Stand-off glide bombs just like the GBU-39 are already being offered as ground-launched variants and the air-launched variant could provide needed survivability for the F-16 to strike ground targets.
Will F-16s win the war for Ukraine? No. Only ground victories and unacceptable Russian losses will force Putin to barter. An important support to Ukraine continues to be artillery, medical equipment, infantry weapons, ground vehicles, and drones. Nevertheless, a long-term commitment to supporting a well-equipped, sizable F-16 force will improve the likelihood of Ukrainian success even when an F-16 never shoots a Russian fighter.
Michael Bohnert is a licensed engineer on the think tank Rand. He previously worked as an engineer at a naval nuclear laboratory.