President Joe Biden is about to do something he never would if it involved the military. He’s effectively sending Ukrainian forces into what promises to be a hellish, bloody ground assault without the benefit of air cover.
To be clear, Biden is not actually ordering the troops into battle. But by stubbornly insisting Ukraine doesn’t need the American F-16 fighter jets that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is begging for, he is consigning the brave Ukrainian troops to fight what could be the pivotal battle of the war the hard way. That is to say, not the American way.
UKRAINIAN COMMANDER RE-UPS ASK FOR F-16 AIRCRAFT IN TALK WITH TOP US GENERAL
“We're sending him what our seasoned military thinks he needs now. He needs tanks. He needs artillery. He needs air defense,” Biden said in an interview on ABC last month. “He doesn't need F-16s now.”
“The current administration is embracing a strategy of attempting to win a war without using air power,” retired Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula told the Washington Examiner. “The outcome of such an approach is just what we are seeing — a prolonged standoff that looks like World War I with personnel and materiel being fed into a meat grinder.”
Deptula, a former F-15 pilot, architect of the successful 1991 Desert Storm air campaign, and dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, said that given that Russian President Vladimir Putin has little regard for the lives of his troops, time, personnel, and material “are all on his side.”
“That’s why Ukraine requires a significant advantage to reset the fight,” he said. “And Western air power could provide it.”
If the United States were mounting an offensive to dislodge 300,000 dug-in Russian troops along a 600-mile front line of three-deep trenches and tank traps, job one would be taking down all of Russia’s air defenses.
Cruise missiles would target known anti-aircraft missile sites, and F-16s armed with advanced extended-range Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile radar-seeking would home in on and destroy any air defense radars that dared to target U.S. warplanes.
“Killing surface-to-air missiles is a primary mission of the F-16, including those made by the Russians,” said Deptula, who argues that if air defense is indeed a priority for Ukraine, “the F-16 can perform that role very well.”
At a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee late last month, Colin Kahl, undersecretary of defense for policy, outlined the administration’s thinking.
Sending used F-16s, training the pilots, and establishing logistical and maintenance support with mechanics and spare parts, Kahl argued, would take too long and eat up too much of the remaining $12 billion out of the $45 billion budgeted by Congress for military assistance for Ukraine this year.
“The Ukrainians have at times asked us for as many as 128 fourth-generation (non-stealthy) aircraft, a mix of F-15s, F-18s, and F-16s. Our Air Force estimates that over the long term, Ukraine would probably need 50 to 80 F-16s to replace their existing air force,” Kahl testified.
“Let's imagine you only did half, 36 of those, it would still cost $2 billion to $3 billion. … Would it make sense to spend $3 billion on a capability that will arrive a year and a half from now, when that $3 billion is needed for Patriot interceptors or more Bradley Fighting Vehicles or more 155 mm ammunition?” he continued. “These are the trade-offs that we are making in real time.”
“They argue that providing F-16s is costly,” Deptula countered. “Yes — but not as costly as Ukraine losing the war to Russia.”
“These planes not only would give the Ukrainians new ability to defend against Russian aerial attacks; they would also provide counteroffensive capability to destroy missiles, aircraft and offensive-drone launch sites that are putting much of Ukraine at risk. Close air support and interdiction from fighters would provide a significant advantage to Ukrainian ground forces,” Deptula argued in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.
“Fighter aircraft typically fly at around 600 miles per hour and can defend multiple parts of the country on a single mission," he added. "Manned and unmanned aircraft can carry thousands of pounds of ordnance and employ powerful sensors that report detailed battlefield information in real time.”
It’s undeniable that there are considerable logistical challenges to rushing F-16s to Ukraine in time for an offensive that’s expected to start in the May to June time frame. But Biden administration critics argue that even a small number of F-16s, a dozen or so, would be a huge psychological boost to Ukraine and a powerful message of resolve to Putin.
And much like what happened when the U.S. relented and promised M1A2 Abrams tanks that won’t arrive until next year, a token number of F-16s could free other countries such as Germany, France, and Britain to send their modern warplanes.
“Among all the advanced weapons provided for the conflict, NATO members have drawn the line at airpower, refusing to provide the advanced jets Ukraine needs to turn the tide in its favor,” wrote retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Bruce Wright, a former F-16 pilot during the first Gulf War and now president and CEO of the Air & Space Forces Association.
“In effect, we’ve chosen to prolong the war and the suffering of the Ukrainian people by withholding the tools of victory,” he wrote.
“We should not be satisfied with helping Ukraine fight to a draw, especially as Russia occupies a swath of Eastern Ukraine. To do so is to expect future fights and future wars over the same territory again, as soon as Russia regains its military strength,” Wright argued. “The relative asymmetric killing power of fighter pilots in F-16s would empower Ukraine even more than the remarkable HIMARS precision ground fires.”
So what’s holding the Biden administration back?
Kahl argues it would take 18 to 24 months to get F-16s to Ukraine, but many believe the real reluctance is about poking Putin a little too hard. Given that the introduction of F-16s or other European fighter jets, such as British Tornadoes, French Mirages, or Swedish Gripens, could, in theory, allow Ukraine to reach Moscow or, at the very least, threaten Russia’s long-range bombers that have been able to fire air-launched cruise missiles at civilian targets with impunity while safely over Russian air space.
“Since the beginning, the president has been overly worried, in my view, that giving Ukraine what it needs to win would be too escalatory,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL) said. “This hesitation has only prolonged the war and driven up the cost in terms of dollars and lives.”
Air power advocates argue the “shock and awe” value of F-16s and other strike aircraft could be a game-changer.
“There’s nothing like the morale-killing nature of air-delivered weapons to destroy an enemy’s will to fight,” Wright said.
“It appears that the administration position of ‘no F-16s to Ukraine’ is a tacit acknowledgment that it is resigned to, or is trying to influence, a negotiated settlement, not a ‘win’ defined by ejecting Russian forces from Ukrainian territory,” Deptula said.
“Nothing will stop this war except defeat of the Russians in Ukraine, and the only way the Russians will be defeated is by supplying Ukraine with the appropriate weapons and training that will enable them to do that,” he said.
Biden’s low approval ratings have taken a small uptick of late, in part because of the perception he’s been able to hold together international support for Ukraine.
But if Ukraine fails to punch through Russian lines and reclaim a significant amount of Ukrainian territory this year, many of his critics will point to the failure to equip Ukraine with an air force as a serious sin of omission.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Meanwhile, Biden supporters, such as Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, insist the president is simply practicing realpolitik pragmatism.
“We are getting every single weapons system that we can to Ukraine. There is not a decision being made about ‘that might be escalatory,’” Smith said. “It's about what can we get to them? How can we maintain the support? We've spent a lot of money. There is not a limitless amount of money or a limitless amount of equipment.”