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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

sotaro

Airman
76
44
Mar 29, 2014
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?
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

A-10_gear-failure_EdwardsAFB.jpg
 
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".

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.
 
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 needed for the A/OA-10 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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Yep, and it's damned maneuverable.
 
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,

1658641188565.png


 
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!
 
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.
 
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.

 
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.
 
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back