The firing of the Ukrainian Air Force’s commander Mykola Oleshchuk shortly after the country lost the first of its US-supplied F-16 fighter jets was likely a product of the “blame game” in the upper echelons of the Kiev regime, says Earl Rasmussen, a international consultant and retired lieutenant colonel with over 20 years in the US Army.
“There's many more factors revolving along this… I think, removing the leadership may complicate addressing some of these,” he notes.
Commenting on the US’ decision not to send personnel to Ukraine to service the F-16 jets, Rasmussen suggests that it was primarily due to the Pentagon deeming it too risky.
“So you're probably going to rush maintenance engineers through very quick training that may not be fully qualified. Or you're going to try to hire in people from outside in a fairly high cost. So it's a high risk job…” he muses. “Not being able to provide the level of maintenance required could be a detriment to Ukraine's ability to effectively use and deploy the jets.”
However good the F-16s might be, the aircraft has its drawbacks, such as the fairly limited range – “it can be out there for four hours if maximum fuel is provided” – relatively “low payload”, and vulnerability to “electronic exploitations,” Rasmussen notes.
The absence of stealth capabilities, the lack of “repair parts” and the severe shortage of trained pilots are going to further limit the usefulness of the F-16s for Ukraine, he adds.
As for how Russia might counter the potential threat presented by jets, Rasmussen argues that S-300 and S-400 surface-to-air missile systems, as well as Su-30 and Su-35 combat aircraft, should be up to the task.
“The F-16 is an addition to Ukraine, but it's not a wonder weapon, it's not going to affect the outcome of the battle environment and the Russian defense forces between their aircraft and their air defense forces easily will defend against any threat from the F-16s,” he says.