comment: >
  
  Plus the amount of conversion that would need to occur might make the aircraft dangerous to fly.
  First, you’ll need to convert the entire cockpit to run in Ukrainian language. 
  Second, F-16 was designed to work with NATO equipment. Radios work with NATO encryption. Radars guide NATO missiles. Bombs guide on NATO lasers. Data links work with NATO networks. Ukraine is not a NATO Member.
  Converting the aircraft to run with native Ukrainian equipment would involve changing around some pretty sensitive equipment, particularly electronics. The F-16 might not even be able to fly safely after all that.
context: Everything I've read suggested that the F16's wouldn't really be a gamechanger despite how amazing they are at what they do.
  Also I'd have to imagine that training someone on an F16 takes way longer than a land vehicle, but this is 100% be being an armchair general and I have no clue if that's true. >
  
  What the US has been sending so far is pretty much limited in range, while an F16 as a multi role "fighter" could strike deeper in to Russian territory. 
  That's probably a red line we don't need to cross.