comment: >
  
  Do you really think there are people who speak English as a second language but can't read the alphabet?
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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Approximately only 50% of Ukrainians can speak English, and the Ukrainian army is not composed of professional pilots. It’s best for their national security if things are translated, because a coin flip on whether or not they’ll easily learn things is not exactly a good thing >
  
  They are required to speak English, yes, but the last time I checked most of the readouts in an F-16 cockpit do not verbalized their output.  It must be read.