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

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...
Ridiculous. The Ukraine war is the best kind of fighting for the USA, with America supplying the kit to kill Russians but at no risk to themselves. If only South Vietnam could have made like Ukraine and held its own with American kit but without American lives.
 
Admiral Beez said:
That's a heck of a long flight, presumably via Singapore. I'd need a pee bag.
Click to expand...

Japan non-stop to Melbourne, Australia. Fuel top ups obligatory.

52775949593_73f7041c9e_b.jpg
_DSC4928_edited
 
GrauGeist said:
I'm sure the Russians would be able.to down an A-10 at some point, but after how many tanks, AFVs and personnel were annihilated first?
Click to expand...

The Ukrainians are perfectly capable of destroying Russian vehicles without the A-10. Basically speaking, the A-10 doesn't really offer anything that the Ukrainians can't do already. The Ukrainians need more of what capability they already have and numbers of A-10s offer more of an existing ability. How it does what Ukraine can do already may differ, but it would be there simply to make up numbers. Attrition represents the biggest threat to the Ukrainian forces. Like the promised F-16s, the A-10 isn't a silver bullet. It doesn't represent a war-winning capability beyond what Ukraine has already, it does mean more anti-tank assets, which means more enemy tanks destroyed, which is what Ukraine needs. The use of Western weaponry on Western platforms means an increase in commonality with what the Ukraine is being supplied with and this is the value in using Western aircraft and tanks and so forth.
 
We should keep in mind, that while the GAU-8 is a formidible asset, the A-10C also has precision stand-off weapons which are able to do considerable damage.

So far, this war has been reminesent of WWI, with ground warfare, trenches and artillery being the dominant factor.

Ukraine has seen limited success with their air assets, but they simply do not have enough to gain air superiority.

Drones can only do so much and what Ukraine has accomplished with them is nothing short of amazing.

But they need to up their game and with A-10Cs, they would immediately have the advantage. Add to that, F-16s delivering air supremacy, and the face of the war will change in short order.

Back to the "vulnerability" of the A-10: how many UAF Su-25s have been shot down versus being destroyed on the ground?
Additionally, just imagine Russian troops standing on the wreckage of a downed F-16 taking selfies...
 
I'd argue that modern attack helicopters would probably be more use to Ukraine than A-10s.

Give Russian superiority in airborne assets and the prevalence of short and long range AD on the battlefield, A-10s would be limited to NoE only for survival close to the frontlines (just like any attack aircraft on the Ukranian side). Otherwise Mr R37 and R77, or Mr S300/S400 or SA-15 are going to make sure your day ends really badly.

While the A10 does carry a considerable warload, it's flight/attack profile puts it at considerable risk for anything other than stand-off weapons. Pilots are not going to be crossing the forward edge of the battlefield and making GUA-8 runs on Russian armour in a 500 knot, 30 degree dive from 8000 ft. They're going to be lobbing Mavericks from 10km away or doing pop-up rocket attacks like the Su-25s. If a really juicy target and lightly defended target is presented, then maybe dumb bombs or .

It's personal opinion, but I think a bunch of AH-64Ds capable of lobbing Hellfires from 10+ km away are likely to be more of a threat to Russian assets. Plus, they'll probably be easier to conceal from observation and keep operating.
 
Nothing that is designed for deck through 5000feet AGL is inherently survivable in that conflict.

The A-10 was designed as CAS with counter insurgency forces in mind - not daylight CAS in US/USSR or Russia/Ukraine - European war scenario.

I love the airplane for Gulf War and on-going Iraq/Afghanistan conflict - but not in the Ukraine/Russia dust up.
 
GrauGeist said:
I'm sure the Russians would be able.to down an A-10 at some point, but after how many tanks, AFVs and personnel were annihilated first?
Click to expand...
Sounds like an unnecessary risk of lives. Better to use a fleet of anti-tank drones to destroy those tanks and keep the newly NATO-trained, rare and expensive Ukrainian pilots for the F-16s where they stand the best chance of survival.

I wonder if any Ukrainian women are training in the West on combat aircraft? The only women pilot in Ukraine I can name is Nadiya Savchenko - Wikipedia. Not that I can name any male pilots besides posthumously, Andrii Pilshchykov "Juice".
 
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 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.

View attachment 750798_ADP6905
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
defence-blog.com

Russian military helicopters concealed on Crimean beach

Following a series of successful operations by the Ukrainian army, Russian military forces have relocated their helicopters from the "Chaplynka" airbase near the occupied town of Berdiansk to a new "base" along the Arabat Spit, situated in the temporarily occupied Crimea. According to Defense...
defence-blog.com defence-blog.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Luft.4
L
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
868
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
M
The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
Replies
2
Views
518
Thumpalumpacus
Thumpalumpacus
Back