The West’s restrictions on Ukraine’s weapons are making its F-16s less effective, military experts say

This, in turn, leaves Russia’s weaponry more free to hit Ukrainian jets, making them more vulnerable and less able to fly close to the front lines.

George Barros, a Russia analyst at the US-based Institute for the Study of War, said the relationship between Western limitations and the effectiveness of Ukraine’s F-16s is “under-appreciated.”

He said that current restrictions mean Ukraine can only strike in a limited area, which allows Russia to concentrate its air defenses in those regions.

Allowing Ukraine to shoot missiles further into Russia would force Russia to make difficult decisions, Barros said, including where it should put its air defenses and what to protect.

Russia would then likely move some air defenses back to protect its rear, where Ukraine currently cannot strike, Barros said — a move that would take Russian weapons further away from Ukraine itself.

“It creates more operational depth for those Ukrainian F-16s to then operate in more of Ukrainian airspace, operate even closer to the front lines, and in some limited instances operate over Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory,” he said.

Removing the restrictions would also allow Ukraine to hit more of Russia’s defenses, Barros added, letting it “conduct shaping operations to really degrade Russia’s air defense posture.”

Michael Bohnert, an air warfare expert at the RAND Corporation, said Ukraine’s job is being made much more difficult now, and that “shooting the archer is always better than shooting the arrow.”

Western limits

Ukraine has repeatedly urged its allies to drop the weapon restrictions, saying it would allow it to fight far more effectively.

Several softened their stance in May, allowing Ukraine to use some shorter-range weaponry on Russian soil in a limited capacity.

Warfare experts say it quickly made a difference.

But the current restrictions on long-range weaponry means Ukraine can’t use some of its most powerful weapons, like Storm Shadow/SCALP and ATACMS missiles, to attack military targets in Russia.

Instead, Ukraine is reliant on less powerful drones for those strikes.

The ISW estimated last month that at least 250 militarily significant targets in Russia were within range of Ukraine’s ATACMS missiles, but the restrictions in place mean it can only strike 20 of them.

It said that Ukraine “needs to be able to target Russia’s air defenses with Western-provided long-range weapons to enable its use of F-16 jets.”

In a separate update, it said that Ukraine would only be able to use the jets close to its borders if it could destroy air defense assets in Russia.

Retired Maj. Gen. Gordon B. “Skip” Davis, Jr., formerly NATO’s deputy assistant secretary-general, told BI he “strongly advocates for the lifting of all restrictions” on using Western systems on Russian territory.

Davis said Ukraine’s attack into Kursk last month — where Ukraine says it holds 500 square miles of Russian territory — is proof that repeated Russian threats of escalation if red lines are crossed are false.

“That hasn’t happened, and it’s not going to happen,” he said, adding: “I don’t think that that’s even a possibility, despite the bluster we get from Putin and some of the spokesmen.”

A limited number of F-16s

The effectiveness of Ukraine’s F-16s faces other challenges, too.

Chief among them is the small number of jets it has.

Denmark, Norway, Belgium, and the Netherlands have pledged more than 85 F-16s to Ukraine, with an unspecified number being delivered in August.

But those are not enough for it to be very effective, many air warfare experts say.

Michael Clarke, a Russia and Ukraine expert and a UK national security advisor, previously told BI that for the jets to be truly effective, Ukraine needs at least 200 of them, along with the support systems they require.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in May that Ukraine needs about 120 to 130 advanced fighter aircraft to properly challenge Russia in the air.

Ukraine started asking for F-16s shortly after Russia invaded, and Keir Giles, a senior consulting fellow at Chatham House’s Russia and Eurasia Programme, said earlier this month the delay meant “Russia has been given ample time to plan for the appearance of Ukraine’s new aircraft type, and adapt to it.”

Ukraine and its allies, as well as warfare experts, also describe Ukraine’s F-16 program as being in its infancy.

Ukraine lost one F-16 along with its pilot in late August.

Air warfare experts told BI that it’s not clear what happened, and that it could have been the result of pilot error, friendly fire, or a Russian missile.

They said that jet losses were to be expected, and not a cause for panic.

Barros pointed to the World War II Battle of Britain, where a large number of pilots and planes were lost.

He said: “Pointing at some destroyed Ukrainian planes and lost pilots and then coming away with the conclusion like ‘Oh, shoot, we can’t do this’ — it’s like having Americans look at what’s happening in World War II at the Battle of Britain and saying: ‘Oh, man, the Brits are losing a lot of Spitfires, why are we still sending the UK raw materials and weapons?”

Air warfare experts said they didn’t expect the F-16s to be game changers for Ukraine, particularly due to the small initial number.

But they said the jets would aid Ukraine’s efforts to defend itself, including by protecting cities from Russia’s drone and missile attacks.

Zelenskyy said this month that there are plans to increase Ukraine’s number of jets and trained pilots.

Ukraine’s F-16s could also be made more potent: The US is reportedly debating whether to give Ukraine US-made long-range cruise missiles to equip them with.

“We are far from seeing the full potential of what I think the Ukrainian Air Force can achieve with the F-16, especially once they develop the capability more,” Barros said.

However, much could depend on Ukraine being allowed to effectively strike inside Russia.