"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (1 Viewer)

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

 
GTX said:
www.politico.eu

Russia warns US that Ukraine will be its ‘second Vietnam’

‘We can’t let Putin win,’ Biden said on Wednesday.
www.politico.eu www.politico.eu

Or perhaps a second Afghanistan multiplied many times for Russia
Click to expand...
Aparently, Naryshkin is not aware that the U.S. is not involved by way of boots on the ground, as it was in Vietnam.

My counterpoint to him would be, that Russia in Ukraine is fast becoming a Soviet's Afghanistan folly V2.0...
 
I believe the US president still has a certain monetary budget to draw weapons from for Ukraine.
If he sends more combat vehicles maybe he could "lease" them to Ukraine instead of basically "selling" them as used part so saving some of the budget.
 
GTX said:
Included due to the comments on proposed use of A-10s for Ukraine:
Click to expand...

The guy in this video raises a worthy point. Aircraft flown at tree top height in the CAS and interdiction role are vulnerable to SAMS. The A-10 is no exception, and it is worth stating that despite all its advances, it is not infallible. That at least one example will get shot down over Ukraine if it were introduced for use by the UAF is a given. Since the Great War, conflicts have demonstrated the vulnerability of low-flying combat aircraft, including Vietnam, experience from which gave birth to the specification the A-10 was built to in the first place. Cemeteries in the Normandie countryside are littered with Hawker Typhoon pilot graves. The RAF lost hundreds of them in 1944. During the Falklands War, the RAF's Harrier GR.3 close support squadron suffered a forty percent loss rate. Every single Harrier GR.3 that was not lost in combat received damage from small arms fire.

It is for this reason that the USAF is changing its approach to CAS, preferring remote aircraft at high altitude delivering precision munitions and/or using cheaper, less sophisticated manned and unmanned platforms, as opposed to the A-10. On the other hand, this might be interpreted as a viable means of getting rid of the A-10 from USAF service, something some are saying should happen (you decide, I have no skin in the game).

Bearing this in mind, ask yourselves this. What would the propaganda value of a shot-down A-10 be to the Russians and what impact would that have in the USA? Imagine a crashed airframe with Russian troops swarming all over it and waving their Kalashnikovs in the air, claiming they are "A-10 Slayers". That would not be a good look at all and would definitely play into the hands of those who do wish to rid the USAF of the type. Do you think that it is worth giving A-10s to Ukraine at the risk of this happening?

The A-10 is a cool-a$$ aircraft but it is not totally immune to being shot down.

53266968504_f92dd0fea6_b.jpg
_ADP6905
 
Last edited:
nuuumannn said:
The guy in this video raises a worthy point. Aircraft flown at tree top height in the CAS and interdiction role are vulnerable to SAMS. The A-10 is no exception, and it is worth stating that despite all its advances, it is not infallible. That at least one example will get shot down over Ukraine if it were introduced for use by the UAF is a given. Since the Great War, conflicts have demonstrated the vulnerability of low-flying combat aircraft, including Vietnam, experience from which gave birth to the specification the A-10 was built to in the first place. Cemeteries in the Normandie countryside are littered with Hawker Typhoon pilot graves. The RAF lost hundreds of them in 1944. During the Falklands War, the RAF's Harrier GR.3 close support squadron suffered a forty percent loss rate. Every single Harrier GR.3 that was not lost in combat received damage from small arms fire.

It is for this reason that the USAF is changing its approach to CAS, preferring remote aircraft at high altitude delivering precision munitions and/or using cheaper, less sophisticated manned and unmanned platforms, as opposed to the A-10. On the other hand, this might be interpreted as a viable means of getting rid of the A-10 from USAF service, something some are saying should happen (you decide, I have no skin in the game).

Bearing this in mind, ask yourselves this. What would the propaganda value of an A-10 being shot down be to the Russians and what impact would that have in the USA? Imagine a crashed airframe with Russian troops swarming all over it and waving their Kalashnikovs in the air, claiming they are "A-10 Slayers". That would not be a good look at all and would definitely play into the hands of those who do wish to rid the USAF of the type.

The A-10 is a cool-a$$ aircraft but it is not totally immune to being shot down.

View attachment 750798_ADP6905
Click to expand...
How about enough for an airshow over Kyiv?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 1, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Sisu
S
M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
1K
GTX
GTX
M
All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
Replies
19
Views
2K
MIflyer
M
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
833
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
M
The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
Replies
2
Views
490
Thumpalumpacus
Thumpalumpacus
Back