# A-10 to the Ukrainians? Recent comments by the Air Force secretary suggest a way out for the USAF from A-10 ownership



## sotaro (Jul 22, 2022)

A-10 to the Ukrainians? Recent comments by the Air Force secretary suggest a way out for the USAF from A-10 ownership. I just read an article in the New York Times describing this interest.
"U.S. Air Force leaders have raised the possibility of training Ukrainian pilots in the United States and giving Ukraine the American fleet of A-10 Warthog ground-attack planes — an idea that could solve a problem for both countries. 
The notion is a classic trial balloon. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall this week entertained the idea of giving the A-10 planes to Ukraine, while adding that it was still in the discussion phase. Such a plan could make sense. Ukraine needs more air power and more ways to destroy Russian artillery and tanks, and the Warthog was designed during the Cold War for that very purpose. And the Air Force has for years wanted to get rid of the A-10s. That would free up maintenance money for new planes that can be used for multiple purposes, and would be more effective in a possible conflict with China.
But Congress has blocked every attempt to retire the A-10. Under the Obama administration, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates tried to retire the plane, only to be opposed by Senator Kelly Ayotte, Republican of New Hampshire. Instead of retiring the A-10, Congress approved money to modernize and extend the life of the planes, a project that was completed in 2019. Under Mr. Kendall, the Air Force has once again tried to retire the planes to save money to modernize the military. But the most recent attempt to mothball the Warthog was blocked by Senator Mark Kelly, Democrat of Arizona. While designed to destroy Russian tanks, the Warthog was used in Iraq and Afghanistan to provide support for troops in combat. Air Force pilots would fly the Warthog slowly over the terrain and then open up with its guns on insurgent fighters. Some former officials believe that in Ukraine the Warthog could perform a combination of that role and its original tank-killing mission. In recent months, those former officials have been working with Ukrainian and American officials to discuss the possibility of sending Ukraine at least some of the Air Force's A-10 fleet.
For now, though, any plan to ship Warthogs to Ukraine remains only a suggestion. But there are some indications that sending the planes to Ukraine could appeal to some lawmakers. The House version of the annual defense policy bill would authorize the United States to train Ukrainian pilots on American planes.
This week, Gen. Charles Q. Brown, the Air Force chief of staff, told Reuters that the United States and its allies were examining long-term training plans for Ukrainian pilots. Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum, General Brown said the Ukrainians would have to stop using Soviet-era fighter planes because replacement parts would not be available. General Brown did not mention the A-10, but at a later appearance Mr. Kendall restated his desire to have the Air Force get rid of the A-10s. Asked by the moderator, David Ignatius of The Washington Post, whether the Warthogs could be given to Ukraine, Mr. Kendall appeared to be open at least to the possibility.
"Older U.S. systems are a possibility," Mr. Kendall said. "As Ukraine, which is pretty busy dealing with the right-now problem, tries to sort out what its future will be longer term, we will be open to discussions with them about what their requirements are and how we might be able to satisfy them."
_— Julian E. Barnes

What do you think? Would the A-10 offer value to the Ukrainians in an environment rife with MANPADS?_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## southjn1982 (Jul 22, 2022)

I love the A10 as much as the next person but we need to be honest with ourselves in low threat engagements like in Iraq or Afghanistan it does well but in a peer on peer conflict it's a death trap and with the prevalence of Manpads and other AA systems they wouldn't last a month.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 22, 2022)

southjn1982 said:


> I love the A10 as much as the next person but we need to be honest with ourselves in low threat engagements like in Iraq or Afghanistan it does well but in a peer on peer conflict it's a death trap and with the prevalence of Manpads and other AA systems they wouldn't last a month.


Iraq, "low threat engagement"? Seriously?

Thr Iraqi military was Soviet trained and supplied, they put up fierce resistance in the early stages of Desert Storm.

Quite a few A-10s were battle damaged and survived.

In a "peer to peer" engagement (for which they were designed, by the way), their engines run cooler, are mounted high and partially obscured by the empennage, making a "lock" extremely difficult.
It has redundant control systems that doubles it's ability to absorb damage and stay in the fight.
It has enhanced and protected fuel and hydraulic systems that reduce the possability of fire due to damage.

It has upgraded and enhanced ECM systems and the list goes on.

It was literally designed for what's currently happening in Ukraine and is far from a "death trap".

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 22, 2022)

It'll need top-cover, and that will complicate matters. On the whole I'd do it if I'm Ukrainian. It'll hurt the Russians more than the Ukrainians, I think.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 22, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> It'll need top-cover, and that will complicate matters. On the whole I'd do it if I'm Ukrainian. It'll hurt the Russians more than the Ukrainians, I think.


It always has, although here is something many aren't aware of: A-10 pilot's curriculum includes what's called "Basic Fighter Maneuvers" - in essence, this means how to dogfight. And the pilots go through refresher courses with the latest updates.

So if an A-10 finds itself in trouble with no help immediately available, it can stand and fight.
Aside from it's wicked turn radius, it is armed with two AIM-9 missiles for self defence and if that fails, they will bring the cannon into the fight.
So the enemy has to make a decision, do they try and get into an energy depleting turning fight and run the risk of facing that cannon or do they try and do a stand off shot, to which the A-10's cooler engines and countermeasures make difficult, and get targeted by the 22 mile range AIM-9 for the effort?

So contrary to popular beleif, the A-10 is not helpless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 22, 2022)

The Ukrainians are still flying their Su-25s. They must have a mission for the Frogfoot. Given all its qualities, as listed above, A-10 is the better platform.
It was brought up in other threads that A-10s have been upgraded. I wonder when the Ukrainian (or Orc) Su-25s had their last wing replacement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 22, 2022)

Another attribute of the A-10, is that it was designed for wheels-up survivability.

This means that in the event of damage and it cannot extend it's landing gear, it can still land on it's retracted main gear (and a built in tail skid), minimizing damage to the aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 22, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> Iraq, "low threat engagement"? Seriously?
> 
> Thr Iraqi military was Soviet trained and supplied, they put up fierce resistance in the early stages of Desert Storm.
> 
> ...



And lets not forget that Manpads were still a huge threat after OIF. Its why some aircraft types were restricted to night time operations, and those of us flying during the day did so low and fast.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Jul 23, 2022)

Retiring the A/OA-10 from the USAF inventory is not going to happen anytime soon - it has already been budgeted for service through ~2030 and is planned to be kept in service until at least 2040. US Army and JSOC have stated quite clearly that the A/OA-10 is needed until a suitable replacement airframe and/or other operational capability has been provided (*both of which the USAF has repeatably failed to do*).

One of the major problems involved is the need for training in CAS.

Why is this a problem one may ask? Well, the USAF found (*during the studies the A-10 holdouts in the US Army, DOD, and Congress forced the USAF to perform and report on*) that for a pilot to be acceptably proficient at the CAS mission he needs 2x-3x as much training time as for the Air Superiority mission. In effect, for every 1 hour devoted to Air Superiority the pilot will have to complete 2-3 hours of CAS training, wearing out the high(er) performance airframes at 3x-4x the planned on rates.

Why can not the Air Superiority airframes do both you may ask, and absorb the cost via fewer overall airframes? Well, one reason is the resulting reduction in airframe life due to the rigors of additional flight hours and the type of flight hours (ie low altitude). In a cost analysis (*an analysis forced on the USAF by the GAO*) it was found that the current high(er) performance airframes when used for both Air Superiority and CAS will wear out at a 4x higher rate than the same airframes would if used only for air superiority. Since the base A/OA-10 airframe procurement costs are already spent, the retirement of the A/OA-10 would pay for only about 10%-15% of the difference - even when including the foreseen continuing upgrades need for the A/OA-10 necessary to keep it viable until at least 2040. The cost/flight hour is also about 1/2 - 2/3 of the cost for the high(er) performance airframes.

Why would a the high(er) performance airframe have to fly low altitude profiles and expose itself to MANPADS and such, what with the availability of stand-off PGMs and such, you might ask? Well, the USAF found (*during the studies the A-10 holdouts in the US Army, DOD, and Congress forced the USAF to perform and report on*) that there is currently no substitute for the Mark 1 Eyeball and the ability to fly at low altitudes during many CAS mission profiles. Flying at higher altitudes and the use of stand-off weapons, even with FLIR and other optical aids, simply does not allow the minimum acceptable required situational awareness of battlefield ground operations.

However, there is no reason that some A/OA-10 could not be sent to Ukraine, as additional replacement A-10 airframes can be taken out of mothball and brought up to operational standards for the US Air National Guard units currently operating the A/OA-10.

Incidentally, I have 2 friends who were part of FIST and FAC teams when they were in the Army. Their experience says that a high(er) performance airframe flying a mission profile at high altitude with stand-off PGM is only acceptable as a substitute for the A/OA-10 airframe at low altitude if:

1. You are unable/unwilling to take losses in CAS airframes.
2. You are operating in a low(er) intensity/threat environment, and then only if you are willing to trade potentially higher losses of ground forces for lower losses of airframes, with the consequent increase in chances of losing the battle on the ground.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 23, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> It always has, although here is something many aren't aware of: A-10 pilot's curriculum includes what's called "Basic Fighter Maneuvers" - in essence, this means how to dogfight. And the pilots go through refresher courses with the latest updates.
> 
> So if an A-10 finds itself in trouble with no help immediately available, it can stand and fight.
> Aside from it's wicked turn radius, it is armed with two AIM-9 missiles for self defence and if that fails, they will bring the cannon into the fight.
> ...



Yep, and it's damned maneuverable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Jul 23, 2022)

Ukraine Says It Needs ‘Fast and Versatile’ Aircraft, Not the A-10 | Air & Space Forces Magazine


U.S. Air Force leaders weighed in on fighter aircraft to Ukraine, but they may be suggesting the wrong platform, said a Ukrainian official.




www.airforcemag.com

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 23, 2022)

I guess that settles that.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Jul 23, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I guess that settles that.



Probably angling for the F-16 as it's more versatile. Give 'em that, I say.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 24, 2022)

ThomasP said:


> Incidentally, I have 2 friends who were part of FIST and FAC teams when they were in the Army. Their experience says that a high(er) performance airframe flying a mission profile at high altitude with stand-off PGM is only acceptable as a substitute for the A/OA-10 airframe at low altitude if:
> 
> 1. You are unable/unwilling to take losses in CAS airframes.
> 2. You are operating in a low(er) intensity/threat environment, and then only if you are willing to trade potentially higher losses of ground forces for lower losses of airframes, with the consequent increase in chances of losing the battle on the ground.


You bring out many if not all the variables in this discussion that has been going on for several years, but one thing that always perplexes me; when having the discussion about CAS we always seem to forget that an A/OA-10, F-16 or F-35 or for that matter any fix wing aircraft is not the only platform that can perform CAS,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You bring out many if not all the variables in this discussion that has been going on for several years, but one thing that always perplexes me; when having the discussion about CAS we always seem to forget that an A/OA-10, F-16 or F-35 or for that matter any fix wing aircraft is not the only platform that can perform CAS,
> 
> View attachment 678806




Damn right!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pararaftanr2 (Jul 25, 2022)

Saw a YouTube video earlier this week claiming a dozen or so UAF pilots, who were "retired", have been fully trained on the A-10 in the US not so long ago. Unverified, but food for thought.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2022)

pararaftanr2 said:


> Saw a YouTube video earlier this week claiming a dozen or so UAF pilots, who were "retired", have been fully trained on the A-10 in the US not so long ago. Unverified, but food for thought.


I don't believe it - there was no funding allocated to provide any type of training to the UAF until last week. At best, former UAF pilots might have been invited to fly simulators at the sole A-10 training unit at Davis Monthan.









US approves amendment in defense budget to train Ukrainian pilots


The United States House of Representatives has approved an amendment for the defense budget bill for 2023 to train Ukrainian pilots on F-15 and F-16 fighter jets amid the reeling crisis in Ukraine




www.business-standard.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Jul 26, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't believe it - there was no funding allocated to provide any type of training to the UAF until last week. At best, former UAF pilots might have been invited to fly simulators at the sole A-10 training unit at Davis Monthan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The only A-10 training unit at Davis Monthan... is it sheer coincidence that as we have a thread discussing retirement of the A-10, the training unit is already co-located at "the boneyard"?

Food for thought.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 26, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't believe it - there was no funding allocated to provide any type of training to the UAF until last week. At best, former UAF pilots might have been invited to fly simulators at the sole A-10 training unit at Davis Monthan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I thought Nellis had a training squadron too. I may be mistaken. I’ll have to ask my buddy who is a 10 driver at Nellis.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 26, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I thought Nellis had a training squadron too. I may be mistaken. I’ll have to ask my buddy who is a 10 driver at Nellis.


They might - the last I heard all A-10 training was at "Davy Mohns"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 26, 2022)

I’ll find out in September…

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Aug 20, 2022)

I'm sceptical about the final result. Still, I respect the effort of Alexander Gorgan and the others involved.
They can say "at least we tried".








Exclusive: Ukraine’s Secret Effort to Train for U.S. Jets


The program shows how Ukrainians are using invention, social media and disregard for protocol against Russia.




time.com

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 20, 2022)

I have to be honest, I would spend my time asking Poland if they could train a cadre of air and ground crew on the F16. There is far more chance of the supporters of Ukraine supplying them with F16's of some type. And to have a sufficient number of people already trained on them would be a massive benefit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Macandy (Aug 23, 2022)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 23, 2022)

Macandy said:


>



No one does a drunken rant better than Lazer Pig.


----------



## Macandy (Aug 23, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> No one does a drunken rant better than Lazer Pig.




But he's right - they would be shot out of the sky like game birds over the Donbas.
They are larger and very significantly slower than the SU-25.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 23, 2022)

Yeah, if the A-10 didn't have it's current electronic warfare upgrades and enhanced hardpoint weapons suite, it might be more vulnerable.

As long as there is no threat overhead, anything beneath the A-10 is in danger.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 23, 2022)

We should send Ukraine a few anyway. Just to familiarize their pilots with American cockpits. 
Who am I kidding? Send them so those guys can just screw around with them and have a blast in a safe rear area. Be the first on the block with A-10s!
While we’re at it, send a dozen F-16s too. We got so many of them, we’re using them for target practice! What the heck. Give them a few. See what they do with them. Ukraine has pleasantly surprised NATO so far.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 23, 2022)

Time is of the essence in the current situation - transferring A-10s, F-16s, J-39s or any other non-Russian types would not only take pilot training, but ground-crew and maintenance training as well. There is also the need to work up a material support supply line, too.

This all takes time to get in place, something that is a precious commodity at the moment.

I'm sure that in time, the Ukraine armed forces will transform into a very potent member of NATO with the most current hardware, perhaps even with the F-35.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 25, 2022)

The day the UAF needed the A-10 was with that huge traffic jam of Russian kit north of Kiyv back in Feb-Mar. 

Now, I’m sure they’d prefer F-16s. What’s taking the US and NATO so long? Is it still a matter of training and maintenance/parts?









USA announces largest Ukraine weapons buy to date, but still no fighter jets


The $3 billion military aid package from the Biden administration includes UAVs, a new counter-UAV system and several advanced air defence platforms, but the transfer of US-made fighters has not yet been approved.




www.flightglobal.com


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 25, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Is it still a matter of training and maintenance/parts?



Most likely yes. I've recounted several times how it took the 301st TFW at my base 8-9 months to be declared operational after transitioning from F-4Es to F-16As -- and those were pilots who spoke English and were familiar with the English measurements American planes use.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Aug 25, 2022)

buzz-buzz

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Now, I’m sure they’d prefer F-16s. What’s taking the US and NATO so long? Is it still a matter of training and maintenance/parts?



It really has not been a long time. 😂

Seriously. I’m not sure you understand the logistics and training involved to get a pilot trained so they are proficient in an aircraft. These aren’t single engine Cessna’s that anyone with half a brain can fly. They are complex aircraft that take time to become proficient in.

Then you have the parts logistics that has to be worked out.

Then you have to train the maintenance personnel. They aren’t working on a Ford Fiesta for crying out loud.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 25, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It really has not been a long time. 😂
> 
> Seriously. I’m not sure you understand the logistics and training involved to get a pilot trained so they are proficient in an aircraft. These aren’t single engine Cessna’s that anyone with half a brain can fly. They are complex aircraft that take time to become proficient in.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. So, what is a realistic date we can see UAF F-16s? Presumably there are UAF pilots and ground and parts/logistics personnel in Europe training now on the F-16 and preparing a supply chain and maintenance/support plan. Do you think we'll see UAF F-16s before end of year, or before the one year anniversary in Feb 2023?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2022)

You can’t wiggle your nose or nod your head and 4 weeks later jets magically appear, pilots can fly them, and maintenance personnel have the knowledge to troubleshoot and keep them in the air.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 25, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You can’t wiggle your nose or nod your head and 4 weeks later jets magically appear, pilots can fly them, and maintenance personnel have the knowledge to troubleshoot and keep them in the air.
> 
> View attachment 683812
> 
> ...


What's the point of this post beyond a sarcastic dismissal? I'm here to learn, not be turned away. Why not instead respond to my questions above?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Fair enough. So, what is a realistic date we can see UAF F-16s? Presumably there are UAF pilots and ground and parts/logistics personnel in Europe training now on the F-16 and preparing a supply chain and maintenance/support plan. Do you think we'll see UAF F-16s before end of year, or before the one year anniversary in Feb 2023?



Maybe. You have to remember that pilots typically get hundreds of hours on training. Maintenance personnel training can take months. My H60 training took 6 months, and that was not a complex fighter jet.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> What's the point of this post beyond a sarcastic dismissal? I'm here to learn, not be turned away. Why not instead respond to my questions above?



Relax, don’t get your nickers in a bunch. It was meant to be a post in gest. Laugh a little, and stop being so uptight.

I was already posting it as a follow on to my other post while you were creating your post. You were just faster because i was searching for the animated gifs.

Notice, I answered your other post as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 25, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Now, I’m sure they’d prefer F-16s. What’s taking the US and NATO so long? Is it still a matter of training and maintenance/parts?


How many times do you have to be told, aside from all the politics that go along in situations like this, you don't snap your fingers and set up a squadron of F-16. 

*YES - it's still a matter of training and maintenance/parts*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 25, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Fair enough. So, what is a realistic date we can see UAF F-16s? Presumably there are UAF pilots and ground and parts/logistics personnel in Europe training now on the F-16 and preparing a supply chain and maintenance/support plan. Do you think we'll see UAF F-16s before end of year, or before the one year anniversary in Feb 2023?


This is from Air Force Magazine, an official publication of the USAF









Ukraine Flies ‘Suicide Missions’ With MiGs, Awaits U.S. Decision on F-16 Training | Air & Space Forces Magazine


Ukrainians described the challenges they face flying MiGs against newer Russian jets as they wait for a U.S. decision on F-16 training.




www.airforcemag.com

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 25, 2022)

Up through 1942, Luftwaffe pilots received between 13 and 20 months of training depending on their assignment.

The training time kept being shortened between 1942 through 1944 and by war's end, this was literally down to weeks. Many of these pilots did not survive their first sortie.

The situation in Ukraine is not desperate enough to toss cannon fodder at the Russians - the longer the Ukrainian pilots take to train, the more efficient and effective they will be with their equipment (and this can be said for their ground-pounding counterparts working up with Western AFVs and weapons systems, too).

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 25, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> This is from Air Force Magazine, an official publication of the USAF
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing. By that article, it appears that as of July 8, 2022 the US had no training planned or in place.

_"On training of pilots, there are no current plans to train Ukraine on any air platform other than those that they are using every day effectively in the battle right now," a senior defense official said in response to a question from Air Force Magazine at a July 8 Pentagon briefing."_

Of course the Defence Department doesn't want to show all its cards. But this does suggest that from before the invasion to at least July, no training on the F-16 took place. This is what I’m getting at in my posts above, where I ask what’s taking so long. I understand that the training, parts/maintenance and preparation phase takes a long time, but why did the US government wait until mid July or later to make a decision on providing F-16s? Had such training begun in, say April or May, would the UAF see the F-16 in Dec?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 25, 2022)

Here is a very detailed and well rounded artical on both the A-10 and F-16 in regards to Ukraine:





__





The US military now seems open to gifting Ukraine new fighter jets, but what type? - Breaking Defense


"There's US[-made], there's Gripen out of Sweden, there's the Eurofighter, there's the Rafale [from France],” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown. Even the venerable A-10 hasn't been ruled out.



breakingdefense.com

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 25, 2022)

I really think I understand and share in The Admiral's frustration. I know it takes a while to set everything up and hate that the necessary steps weren't set up sooner. The sooner the forces of Evil are stopped, the better the the world can be. I don't want to get a Shortround6 lecture from FLYBOYJ or Der Eagle but I like to think there's more going on then we know. I like to think it's already happening.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 25, 2022)

There may be more going on than is being said.

I've mentioned that before in the other thread.

In regards to F-16s for Ukraine, there is this from June of last year:






Lockheed Martin offers Ukraine F-16 fighter jet - U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC)


<p><img alt="" src="/images/defence blog.png" style="float:left; height:99px; width:110px" />Defence Blog, Kyiv, Ukraine,</p><p>June17, Fri, 2021</p>



www.usubc.org

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I don't want to get a Shortround6 lecture from FLYBOYJ or Der Eagle but I like to think there's more going on then we know.



Damn…

Sorry.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I like to think it's already happening.



I am sure there is. 

*I kept it short. Not wanting to lecture.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 25, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I don't want to get a Shortround6 lecture from FLYBOYJ or Der Eagle…


_Relax, don't get your nickers in a bunch…stop being so uptight._

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> _Relax, don't get your nickers in a bunch…stop being so uptight._



He’s not the uptight one, Groucho.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 25, 2022)

Groucho is my Lord.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2022)

Groucho Marx?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 25, 2022)

I have always been a Groucho Marxist. Mel Brooks is his Prophet.

Hello, I must be going.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 25, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Fair enough. So, what is a realistic date we can see UAF F-16s? Presumably there are UAF pilots and ground and parts/logistics personnel in Europe training now on the F-16 and preparing a supply chain and maintenance/support plan. Do you think we'll see UAF F-16s before end of year, or before the one year anniversary in Feb 2023?



Feb is a realistic goal, although that too might slip its gears a little depending on factors that are hard to foresee.

According to what I've read, the decision to start this training was taken a month ago, but I haven't read anything about its progress or what stage it's in, for obvious reasons.



FLYBOYJ said:


> This is from Air Force Magazine, an official publication of the USAF
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was under the perhaps-mistaken impression that this decision had already been taken in the positive. I'll have to go look up what I read a while back to see if I misread; so what I wrote above may be wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 25, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You can’t wiggle your nose or nod your head and 4 weeks later jets magically appear, pilots can fly them, and maintenance personnel have the knowledge to troubleshoot and keep them in the air.
> 
> View attachment 683812
> 
> ...



Two more gals I had a mean crush on as a boy.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Aug 25, 2022)

Even in our info leaky world, there is always something going on that "we" don't know about. For instance the "red Eagles" at Tonopah and later the F-117 at the same base. One of the main reasons MacNamara wanted to change the aircraft designations was because it was too confusing for the college boys to know if they were voting for money for new planes, new models, or a black program..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ThomasP (Aug 25, 2022)

There is already training of UAF plots going on, hosted in other countries. The US is involved in the training, but is still waiting (I think) on congress for the official OK and funding to engage in the training with a larger footprint.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 25, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Of course the Defence Department doesn't want to show all its cards. But this does suggest that from before the invasion to at least July, no training on the F-16 took place. This is what I’m getting at in my posts above, where I ask what’s taking so long. I understand that the training, parts/maintenance and preparation phase takes a long time,* but why did the US government wait until mid July or later to make a decision on providing F-16s? Had such training begun in, say April or May, would the UAF see the F-16 in Dec?*


That's something to ask someone in the DoD. I think this is slow process is due to getting approval from congress and a buy in from other allies. Then it's a matter of funding. Even then your timeline for training and deployment under the current conditions is still very wishful.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Aug 25, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Most likely yes. I've recounted several times how it took the 301st TFW at my base 8-9 months to be declared operational after transitioning from F-4Es to F-16As -- and those were pilots who spoke English and were familiar with the English measurements American planes use.


Probably, their training schedule was 40 hours per week or close to that?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 25, 2022)

Dimlee said:


> Probably, their training schedule was 40 hours per week or close to that?



Perhaps. You're right that as reservists they had a lower-intensity training schedule. You may want to counterbalance that with the fact that their understanding of instrumentation was more natural, that they were already used to thinking in English rather than metric readouts, that their trainers were speaking to them in their native tongue, things like that. Learning how a Sidewinder works, learning how to use an infrared pod they have no experience with, all these things take time. For anybody.

I'm not saying anything unwholesome about UAF pilots, who have definitely shown their mustard in the last six months -- and I have no doubt they can and will master these fighting platforms. I'm just saying that a training schedule can only intensify so much before you get holes in the ground, and so gathering flight-hours, experience, and thus confidence in a new and foreign airframe will take time.

The days of Don Blakeslee saying "you can learn to fly it on the way to the target" are long gone. All due respect to 
A
 Admiral Beez
, this stuff takes a lot of time, because the systems are complex.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 26, 2022)

As long as we're unloading all kinds of stuff to Ukraine, how difficult would it be to transition from Mi-8 helicopters to CH-47s? There's got to be a buttload of those lying around.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 26, 2022)

How well would the CH-47 serve their needs?


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 26, 2022)

Two power-plants will require more maintenance.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 26, 2022)

Now the AH-1, on the otherhand...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 26, 2022)

GrauGeist said:


> How well would the CH-47 serve their needs?


With MANPADS aplenty, this conflict seems deadly for slow and low rotary aircraft.


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 26, 2022)

I was wondering, that with all those Dnipro River bridges out, how would Ukrainian forces cross the river in force (queue "Ride of the Valkyries"). Ukraine was/is calling for more aircraft and I assume helos are on the wish list. NATO countries did send a few Soviet choppers. I doubt there were enough for a good heli-borne assault. While I'm aware there's logistical issues with yet another bit of NATO kit, landing and supplying a superior force on the southern bank will be an important supply issue as well. I don't think using "pool floaties" will fit the bill. Besides, if Ukraine is dumping Warsaw Pact junk, why not go all in?
Of course these CH-47s will not be going in unprotected. All that other cool stuff they're getting for the liberation of orc held territory.
Unless, of course the Ukrainian Navy has been hiding a huge riverine assault task force.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 26, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I was wondering, that with all those Dnipro River bridges out, how would Ukrainian forces cross the river in force (queue "Ride of the Valkyries").


Bridgelayers can do the shorter spans. But yeah, they'll need a plan to span the wider spots.









Germany lends more support to Ukraine forces with tanks pledge


Announcement of 16 bridge-layer tanks adds to news of howitzer sale authorisation




www.theguardian.com













Germany sends 16 armored bridgelayers to Ukrainian army


German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht greenlighted the transfer of 16 Biber armored bridgelayers to the Land Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. — Ukrinform.




www.ukrinform.net

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 26, 2022)

CH-47s are very vulnerable. When we were in Iraq, they were restricted to night ops only.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 26, 2022)

Night assault. I like!


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 26, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Bridgelayers can do the shorter spans. But yeah, they'll need a plan to span the wider spots.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good stuff but will this stuff actually get sent? Seem to remember promised equipment not actually getting to Ukraine. Prefer to be wrong in this.


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 26, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> CH-47s are very vulnerable. When we were in Iraq, they were restricted to night ops only.


I didn’t know Mi-8s are less vulnerable. I thought Ukrainian troops would be better off in a Boeing product. Correct me if I’m wrong 😉.


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 26, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Bridgelayers can do the shorter spans. But yeah, they'll need a plan to span the wider spots.


My thought exactly. The “bridge-able “ points seem to be vulnerable. Being able to strike at various points of your choosing, whether you do or not, will keep the enemy off balance. Remember the amphibious assault staging off Kuwait’s coast? I’m not forgetting Market Garden either. 
There will be many casualties no matter what. That’s why Ukraine is building a huge army. I figure one way or the other, they‘ll be needing helicopters. 
“Boeing, when you need to get vertical.”


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 26, 2022)

The CH-47 is a great and versatile aircraft, but it is vulnerable even with M60 door gunners.

If rapid deployment of large numbers of troops by air is needed, perhaps the CH-53E/G/K might fit the bill, though I don't think the U.S. would guve any up.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 26, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I was wondering, that with all those Dnipro River bridges out, how would Ukrainian forces cross the river in force (queue "Ride of the Valkyries"). Ukraine was/is calling for more aircraft and I assume helos are on the wish list. NATO countries did send a few Soviet choppers. I doubt there were enough for a good heli-borne assault. While I'm aware there's logistical issues with yet another bit of NATO kit, landing and supplying a superior force on the southern bank will be an important supply issue as well. I don't think using "pool floaties" will fit the bill. Besides, if Ukraine is dumping Warsaw Pact junk, why not go all in?
> Of course these CH-47s will not be going in unprotected. All that other cool stuff they're getting for the liberation of orc held territory.
> Unless, of course the Ukrainian Navy has been hiding a huge riverine assault task force.



We should definitely be including bridging equipment and training in our tranches of aid. They will certainly be necessary once the Ukrainians go over to the offensive. Bridging equipment is cheaper than helos, and can provide continuous rather than intermittent support.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 26, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I didn’t know Mi-8s are less vulnerable. I thought Ukrainian troops would be better off in a Boeing product. Correct me if I’m wrong 😉.



I agree, they would be better off in a Boeing Chinook, however, I was answering a Chinook specific question.

The Chinook is a fine helicopter. Just don’t fly on one that is not leaking hydraulic fluid.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 26, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree, they would be better off in a Boeing Chinook, however, I was answering a Chinook specific question.
> 
> The Chinook is a fine helicopter. Just don’t fly on one that is not leaking hydraulic fluid.


I had to read that twice.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 26, 2022)

If it's already dry your ass is toast!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 26, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree, they would be better off in a Boeing Chinook, however, I was answering a Chinook specific question.
> 
> The Chinook is a fine helicopter. Just don’t fly on one that is not leaking hydraulic fluid.


Okay, okay, my mistake. I wrote "heli-borne assault" when that was not what I really meant. Can one think of OD helicopters and not replay Apocalypse Now in one's mind? What I meant was; if we happen to have a whole lot of CH-47s, wouldn't it be more useful (and in greater number) than the Soviet stuff. With the Dnipro River bridges out, helicopter airlift is needed. 
I did imply using them as the tip of spear. Oops.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 26, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> We should definitely be including bridging equipment and training in our tranches of aid. They will certainly be necessary once the Ukrainians go over to the offensive. Bridging equipment is cheaper than helos, and can provide continuous rather than intermittent support.


I was thinking about those stretches where bridging equipment wouldn't work.


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 26, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Okay, okay, my mistake. I wrote "heli-borne assault" when that was not what I really meant. Can one think of OD helicopters and not replay Apocalypse Now in one's mind? What I meant was; if we happen to have a whole lot of CH-47s, wouldn't it be more useful (and in greater number) than the Soviet stuff. With the Dnipro River bridges out, helicopter airlift is needed.
> I did imply using them as the tip of spear. Oops.



Helos are always useful, but as Beezy points out, this is a pretty dangerous environment for them. Granted, the Ukrainians did chopper resupply and evac missions for Mariupol, at night, singly. But we also saw the Russian airborne assault shot up badly at that airport near Kyev. And how many videos?

The inference I draw from those facts is that using them for small tactical insertions or other special missions may well be useful, but fleeting them up for a major crossing could get a lot of folks killed. Speartip missions would surely be on the cards -- airland parties onto the opposite bank in order to secure the other end of a bridging operation, there's a good idea. But using them _en masse_ is pretty goddamned risky. The place is rife with MANPADS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 26, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> Helos are always useful, but as Beezy points out, this is a pretty dangerous environment for them. Granted, the Ukrainians did chopper resupply and evac missions for Mariupol, at night, singly. But we also saw the Russian airborne assault shot up badly at that airport near Kyev. And how many videos?
> 
> The inference I draw from those facts is that using them for small tactical insertions or other special missions may well be useful, but fleeting them up for a major crossing could get a lot of folks killed. Speartip missions would surely be on the cards -- airland parties onto the opposite bank in order to secure the other end of a bridging operation, there's a good idea. But using them _en masse_ is pretty goddamned risky. The place is rife with MANPADS.


I was thinking more in terms of using them where the orcs ain't. They gotta' be better than what Ukraine is using now. There's got to be a lot of them with plenty to spare. They've been around since the War of 1812. 
If the Chinooks are escorted by A-10s, however, I think we'll have something.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 26, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Okay, okay, my mistake. I wrote "heli-borne assault" when that was not what I really meant. Can one think of OD helicopters and not replay Apocalypse Now in one's mind? What I meant was; if we happen to have a whole lot of CH-47s, wouldn't it be more useful (and in greater number) than the Soviet stuff. With the Dnipro River bridges out, helicopter airlift is needed.
> I did imply using them as the tip of spear. Oops.



They could definitely be useful. Like I said the “Shithook” as we Hawk guys called them is an excellent helicopter.

The German’s just placed an order for the latest Chinook variant. I have to admit, she looks good with those crosses on their fuselages.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 26, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I was thinking more in terms of using them where the orcs ain't. They gotta' be better than what Ukraine is using now. There's got to be a lot of them with plenty to spare. They've been around since the War of 1812.
> If the Chinooks are escorted by A-10s, however, I think we'll have something.



Insertions like that could work, but I'd not want to have A-10s weaving nearby and drawing attention. But yes, going where they ain't would have to be the thing. You don't want to go where they are in that battlefield, flying low and slow.


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 26, 2022)

I was joking about the Warthog.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 26, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I was joking about the Warthog.



Wait, you're expecting me to keep up? WTF, over?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 26, 2022)

Unless, the A-10 was loitering nearby, hoping and praying someone would be stupid and try and tag a helo.

When that happens, you know they'll be down on the bad guys like a sack full of hammers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Aug 27, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Unless, of course the Ukrainian Navy has been hiding a huge riverine assault task force.


Not huge, but most of the river fleet was at bases in Zaporizhye and further north on the first day of the invasion. Can it be effective without air superiority... I'm not sure.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 27, 2022)

Dimlee said:


> Not huge, but most of the river fleet was at bases in Zaporizhye and further north on the first day of the invasion. Can it be effective without air superiority... I'm not sure.


I wasn’t expecting good news from my dumb joke. That is something I wasn’t expecting. Of course without heavy duty support, it is extremely vulnerable. However, having riverine capability is certainly good news.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 27, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> They gotta' be better than what Ukraine is using now.


I suppose I’m influenced by Red Dawn, but I’m a big fan of the Hind attack ‘copter. Can the ex-WP states scrounge up any?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 27, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> I suppose I’m influenced by Red Dawn, but I’m a big fan of the Hind attack ‘copter. Can the ex-WP states scrounge up any?
> 
> View attachment 684177



I cannot speak for any country other than Russia, but we were banned from flying in tjr Russian Hind’s in Kosovo because they were so poorly maintained.

When flying, they were neat to see though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 27, 2022)

There are a few civilian owned, flying in the US, of course unarmed.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 27, 2022)

Is there any Western attack helicopter besides the Apache and Cobra/Viper that would be useful for Ukraine? I’ve not read good things on the survivability of the Agusta Mangusta. What of the Eurocopter Tiger?


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 27, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> There are a few civilian owned, flying in the US, of course unarmed.


----------



## Denniss (Aug 28, 2022)

civilian hinds could be re-armed or used for spare parts


----------



## Dimlee (Aug 28, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I wasn’t expecting good news from my dumb joke. That is something I wasn’t expecting. Of course without heavy duty support, it is extremely vulnerable. However, having riverine capability is certainly good news.


It's good that you reminded about the possibility. Internal waterways are rarely discussed during this war.
At least, that fleet can be used for moving overweight/sized equipment. Also to increase the degree of redundancy overall, as bridges are so vulnerable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 28, 2022)

Denniss said:


> civilian hinds could be re-armed or used for spare parts


Providing the civilian owners want to give up their aircraft. I've seen a Hind in Texas several years ago and it was really stripped down and "very demilitarized." Additionally many of the desirable parts are life-limited and you'll find many of these aircraft have components, although airworthy, are almost timed out. Depending what parts you're talking about, it's better to build or acquire "new" rather than cannibilize, especially when it comes to rotor wing aircraft.


----------



## Ovod (Aug 28, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> Is there any Western attack helicopter besides the Apache and Cobra/Viper that would be useful for Ukraine? I’ve not read good things on the survivability of the Agusta Mangusta. What of the Eurocopter Tiger?



How about the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior? Strictly speaking not an attack helicopter as such. but could be used as one , and has been used as one before. I believe it has been recently retired from US Army service - could be a lot of airframes still in storage?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 28, 2022)

Ovod said:


> How about the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior? Strictly speaking not an attack helicopter as such. but could be used as one , and has been used as one before. I believe it has been recently retired from US Army service - could be a lot of airframes still in storage?


I was going to suggest the same. This is an old photo but a pretty robust bird.











photos from the internet


----------



## special ed (Aug 28, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Providing the civilian owners want to give up their aircraft. I've seen a Hind in Texas several years ago and it was really stripped down and "very demilitarized." Additionally many of the desirable parts are life-limited and you'll find many of these aircraft have components, although airworthy, are almost timed out. Depending what parts you're talking about, it's better to build or acquire "new" rather than cannibilize, especially when it comes to rotor wing aircraft.


There was a squadron of Hinds in Alexandria, La about 20-25 years ago (U.S. Army) used for OPFOR training.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 28, 2022)

special ed said:


> There was a squadron of Hinds in Alexandria, La about 20-25 years ago (U.S. Army) used for OPFOR training.


Yep - IIRC I think those eventually went to Afghanistan.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 28, 2022)

Another option is bringing up the old guard and using UH-1s. They are plentiful, easy to work on, plenty of spares and well proven. On the down side, they are slow (compared to newer birds) and would need heat suppression kits for the exhaust depending on the model.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 28, 2022)

Ovod said:


> How about the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior? Strictly speaking not an attack helicopter as such. but could be used as one , and has been used as one before. I believe it has been recently retired from US Army service - could be a lot of airframes still in storage?



It would be an aircraft easily available, but NOT OPTIMAL. It was already over-weighted and it would likely be eaten alive by the Russian defenses. It’s too slow with all the equipment and armament.

When we flew into Iraq, we escorted the 58D’s with our UH-60s, and carried their DART teams in case one broke down. We had to slow down so much because they could not keep up with us. One did in fact have an issue when its chin bubble blew out while firing its .50 cal. They had to jerry rig a piece of sheet metal to it at a Polish base in Babylon.

The best use of the 58D is in tandem with an attack helicopter like an Apache where it is not directly engaging the enemy but used as a scout that “paints” the target for the attack helicopters who engage the target. Hence why it was retired, when the Apache-Longbow came online. The slow obsolete 58D was no longer needed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 28, 2022)

Off-topic, but just for our Polish friends here. These were taken that day in Babylon at the Polish Camp. We spent a few hours there while the 58D was being temporarily repaired.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 28, 2022)

Cool!


----------



## Glider (Sep 3, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Another option is bringing up the old guard and using UH-1s. They are plentiful, easy to work on, plenty of spares and well proven. On the down side, they are slow (compared to newer birds) and would need heat suppression kits for the exhaust depending on the model.
> 
> View attachment 684248


I was wondering how many AH1 attack helicopters might be sitting in storage in the desert. The TOW may be an old AT missile, but would more than suffice for the majority of targets available


----------



## Dimlee (Sep 11, 2022)

We just need some Brrrt, once again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

