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

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.

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.

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.