The West should supply Ukraine with F-16s to prevent Russia from controlling the skies

The Economist provides counterarguments to the West’s most common responses on why it refuses to supply Ukraine with much-needed aircraft.

Despite finally receiving the tanks it had been requesting for a year, Ukraine's appeals for fighter jets are being largely ignored. Although approximately 30 ex-Warsaw Pact mig-29s are en route from Poland and Slovakia, Ukraine insists on acquiring the American f-16s that have served as the mainstay of NATO air forces for the majority of the past four decades.

Ukraine has a valid argument for receiving F-16s as the justifications for denying them are becoming weak. At the onset of the conflict, Ukraine had roughly 125 dated aircraft, slightly more than half of which were air-superiority fighters. Unfortunately, over 40% of these planes have been lost since then. Conversely, Russia currently possesses five times as many fighters as Ukraine's original inventory, with more modern technologies such as longer-range radars and air-to-air missiles.

Despite this, Russia has yet to establish air supremacy over Ukraine. However, this could change as Ukraine is not only losing planes but also running out of the Soviet-era surface-to-air missiles (SAMS) that form the core of their ground-based air defense. Although Ukraine is receiving more Western defense systems, the integration process takes time. If the airspace over Ukraine becomes less dangerous, Russia could gain air superiority, starting with Donbas and then extending to other regions. This could ultimately diminish the possibility of Ukrainian ground forces recapturing territory.

Ukraine’s Western supporters argue that investing in ground-based air-defense systems should be the top priority, as procuring fighter jets such as the F-16 would be expensive and potentially divert resources from more pressing concerns. Additionally, if approval for F-16s were granted, it would take around a year to train Ukrainian pilots and maintenance crews, and Ukraine lacks the necessary infrastructure, such as smooth runways, for the aircraft. Finally, Western backers caution that Russia would see the supply of F-16s as a major escalation.

However, much of the reasoning behind this inaction is unfounded. Despite Ukraine's shortage of planes, it actually has a surplus of pilots, allowing training on F-16s to begin immediately and potentially enabling them to be operational by year-end. Moreover, some maintenance of the F-16s could be outsourced to Poland and Romania, both of which operate the same aircraft. While new SAMs remain critical, excuses for not procuring F-16s seem increasingly weak.

The issue lies with runways, as debris on them could damage certain aircraft. The Gripen, a Swedish aircraft that requires less maintenance and can take off from short runways and roads, would be an ideal solution. However, there are only a limited number of Gripens in Europe - approximately 126, with Sweden owning around three-quarters of them. Ukraine believes that Sweden may be able to spare 12 Gripens, which would be a valuable offer to accept. This is in stark contrast to the 4,600 F-16s that have been produced since the 1970s.

Acquiring fighter jets for Ukraine would serve as a signal to Vladimir Putin about the West's long-term commitment and could act as a deterrent to escalation. While Putin may respond with physical sabotage or cyber-attacks that can be denied, most experts do not believe that deploying F-16s would lead to World War III. Ukraine's air force will require new aircraft sooner or later, so waiting does not make sense. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is requesting F-16s because his advisors fear that Russian bombers will fill Ukraine's skies without them. So far, they have been more accurate in assessing the situation than most Western experts, and it's time to heed their advice.