A recently leaked German intelligence assessment chastises the Ukrainians for failing to carry out the sort of combined arms warfare their NATO trained soldiers were taught: It suggests that Ukraine is holding these soldiers back from promotion, favoring those who have been in combat the whole time. I do see Germany’s point. At the same time, it is hard to deny combat veterans their promotions. Real world experience is uniquely valuable; and heroism deserves to be rewarded. At the same time, by denying NATO trained soldiers these promotions they are delaying their transformation into a more effective fighting force.
That said, I am not sure NATO style combined arms combat is possible without meaningful air support. First, if true air support is not possible, the US will have to learn how to train soldiers in a more ground-based style of fighting. One reason our Afghan army failed was that it was not taught how to fight absent air support. We needed to teach them how to fight with and without it. In the case of Ukraine, however, there is a much simpler solution: Give Ukraine F16s. Hopefully, once Ukraine is given more planes, the greater success of NATO trained troops in the presence of air support will solve the underpromotion problem Germany is understandably complaining about.
Of course, planes are useful to any war effort absent their usefulness in employing NATO style combined arms warfare. However, Ukraine does not merely need more planes; it needs Western planes—not merely because they are better but because of the availability of parts, the particular weapons they can deploy, and the avionics they utilize.
HARM Missiles and Wild Weasel Missions:
While the Mig-29 can carry the American AG-88 HARM missile, hi-speed anti-radiation missile, the Mig can fire the missile only in one of several compromised ways: A) Preprogramming or B) By using the missiles’ own radar detecting capability and a tablet, by that I mean the same sort of tablet your wife uses to search for things on Pinterest. This is not the ideal way to deploy these weapons.
In order to fire the missile at targets of opportunity, like the mobile SAMs that give anti-air cover to Russian forces, Western avionics are necessary. The F16 will allow them to deploy AN/ASQ-213[1] HARM targeting system, a targeting pod that will allow Ukraine to engage Russia’s mobile same cover.
Once SAM cover is removed, cargo planes can be turned into makeshift bombers using the “pallet bomber” and “cruise missile launch platform” paradigms to assist in breaking through prepared Russian lines. These planes, however, could never survive as long as Russia’s mobile SAMs remain operational.
Superior Radar and Situational Awareness:
Western radars are superior to their modern Russian counterparts—this is even more true of the older Ukrainian and Polish planes Ukraine is now operating. Superior observational capabilities is key to NATO style fighting.
Greater BVR Capabilities vis a vis Russian Planes:
Russia is hoping to run Ukraine out of SAMs. While it seems the US has managed to deal with this problem, it is likely to rear its ugly head again. Deploying air-to-air missiles with superior BVR (beyond-visual-range) capabilities will take pressure off of Ukraine’s SAM network.
Countering Russia’s Mobile Reserves:
Russia has built rather impressive defensive lines in occupied Ukraine. Ukraine must break through these lines; as part of Russia’s defensive strategy, Russia is keeping reserves of more elite forces that will come to assist in plugging any gap in Russia’s defenses that Ukraine happens to create. Air power is a great way to delay the arrival (or better yet destroy in transit) these reserves. Air power can also reconnoitre the movements of these reserves.
NATO Doctrine and Air Superiority:
NATO style tactics assume air support can be provided. It may not require air supremacy but it does require local air superiority. However, Ukraine will never achieve air superiority, even in just the specific areas where they are attempting a breakthrough (local air superiority), without superior planes and numbers.
The Biden administration refuses to give these planes to Ukraine because they are worried about what will happen if they are used to attack Russian territory; in short, the reason is similar to the controversy around ATACMs. (Ukraine also needs these, but for slightly different reasons. The need them to hit Russia’s supply depos and command and control centers.) The US is worried that this might lead Russia to retaliate against the West—even attacking supply depots in Poland. The US does not appear to trust Ukrainian promises in this regard. Further complicating matters is that China has said that they will support Russia with more direct military aid if Western weapons are used on Russian soil. In short, the US government fears escalation.
My heart is with the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian army: I sincerely hope that this counteroffensive is successful. However, the reluctance of the Biden administration to provide Ukraine with F16s, or some other Western plane available in significant numbers (sadly, while the Gripen is a great fit for Ukraine’s purposes, it lacks the numbers Ukraine needs), is prolonging this conflict unnecessarily. With many countries retiring the F16 to procure new F35s, hundreds of planes should be available for Ukraine’s needs. Until Ukraine is provided with F16s, a stalemate in Ukraine will likely continue.