The UK Is “Considering” Sending British Fighter Jets to Ukraine -That’s About as Far as It Will Go

As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited London yesterday, media outlets instantly picked up on an assertion by a British government spokesman that the country is “considering” supplying Ukraine with British fighter jets. But given the paltry state of Britain’s military, the realities of effective use of any jets and Russia’s quick reaction, consideration is all Zelensky is likely to get.

By late morning, news that U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had tasked the country’s defense secretary with exploring which jets Britain may be able to send, was trumpeted by the Wall Street Journal and a raft of others.

Sunak’s reported assurance to Zelensky that “nothing is off the table” with respect to fighter jets drew a quick response from British media including Sky News which ran a piece opining that, “…he should perhaps have a look at exactly what is on his table first. Here is a clue: It isn’t much and certainly does not include fast jets anytime soon.”

The Government’s comments drew an equally rapid response from Russia whose embassy in London issued a statement warning the UK government against sending fighter jets to Ukraine, saying this would have “military and political consequences for the European continent and the entire world”.

By late afternoon, U.K. government and defense officials sought to clarify the Prime Minister’s statement and what it meant by considering the transfer of jets. A variety of follow-on pronouncements emerged including one from Sunak’s spokesman, Max Blain, who said the government was exploring “what jets we may be able to give” over the coming years but that it had not made a decision on whether to send its F-35 or Typhoons.

The back-peddling in the space of a few hours was notable enough but even more so in light of an assertion made by Downing Street just two weeks ago in which a spokesperson said, “These are sophisticated pieces of equipment. We do not think it is practical to send those jets into Ukraine.”

Why did the Prime Minister and the U.K. government even wade in to offer such an unrealistic balm to Ukrainian hopes?

“This is like a party-favor for a visiting dignitary,” Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) senior adviser, Mark Cancian, says. “The U.K.’s military resources are very thin. They’re sending 12 Challenger 2 tanks [to Ukraine] which is a great gesture but not a war-changing transfer.”

Discussion of the aircraft supply idea by former prime minister, Boris Johnson, and others in British circles seized on the potential for transferring early-build (Tranche 1) Eurofighter Typhoons to Ukraine. The F-35B is off limits, due both to U.S. restrictions on its technology/transfer and to the small handful (30) of such jets the RAF has. However, an RAF source told Sky News that the Typhoon idea is a non-starter. “Tranche 1 [Typhoons] are just training aircraft no good for combat,” the source said.

The very limited strike capability of the Tranche 1 versions of the Typhoon would be of little utility. Ukraine arguably needs a strike aircraft to blunt expected Russian ground offensives but U.K.-supplied Eurofighters would basically only offer an air defense capability. Ukraine has thus far done remarkably well in deterring Russian airpower with ground-based missile and other anti-aircraft systems and neither Air Force has consistently sortied over Ukraine since early in the war.

Moreover, supplying Typhoons to Ukraine would probably require the support of Eurofighter consortium members, Germany, Italy and Spain. Even as Germany committed to supplying 14 of its Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine in late January, German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, ruled out sending jets to Ukraine and has yet to move off that stance.

Adding to this complication is the fact that RAF pilot training is not producing pilots efficiently or in sufficient numbers. Recent reports claim the U.K.’s training pipeline has a production backlog and that about 300 personnel were recently in limbo as they waited to move from one training course to the next. British critics say that it can take up to eight or even 10 years for a recruit to pass through flying training and enter a frontline squadron rather than the RAF’s target time of under three years.

The U.K. might have been able to offer a meaningful capability with its 4th generation Tornado GR4 strike fighter. But in an effort to reduce defense spending, the country retired its Tornado fleet in 2019. The same source told Sky News, “The Tornado is a fantastic jet, but too difficult to maintain, operate and they will now be in disrepair or mothballs. Going nowhere for months.”

Britain’s only other operational tactical combat jet within recent memory was the Harrier GR9 which was retired in 2011. Despite a generally good combat record, the U.K.’s Harriers, including the GR9, were challenging to fly and maintain. A Ukrainian air force with no VTOL operational or maintenance experience would likely struggle to employ them even if they weren’t long out of service.

Hence the assertion from British officials including the Prime Minister that Britain will – at some point – train Ukrainian pilots on “NATO-standard” fighter jets. An article in The War Zone suggests that the actual “jet” part of this purported effort may be minimal.

The U.K. could offer a relatively small number of training slots to Ukrainian Air Force pilots with Mig-29 or Su-27 currency. For such experienced pilots, a NATO-jet syllabus could be abbreviated and hinge largely on simulator training with little actual flight training time in whatever notional aircraft is chosen. The F-16 would certainly fit the bill, both on combat effectiveness and NATO-standard grounds but the DoD and President Biden have shut the door on such an alternative for the foreseeable future.

“Providing jet aircraft would be highly symbolic but technically very difficult and not a particularly good form of support,” Cancian opines. “They are very expensive and difficult to maintain. They are highly vulnerable on the ground.”

On the ground is where real British support, aside from anti-air and surface to surface missiles, is likely to stay Cancian concludes. “The [British government] statements from later in the day are so tepid, I really think this was just a way to make Zelensky happy and go away.”