"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (2 Viewers)

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

GTX said:
defence-blog.com

Russian cruise missile crashes en route to Ukraine

A cruise missile fired from Russian navy ships in the Caspian Sea towards Ukraine Saturday crashed in the Pavlovsky district of Russia's Krasnodar region. Local reports confirm that the missile crashed in the morning, leaving behind a visible impact crater in a field between the Pavlovskaya and...
defence-blog.com defence-blog.com
Click to expand...
There seems to be a quality issue with Russian missiles.
The Ukrainian army said that Putin launched 41 missiles today, and only 8 were intercepted. But most of the others failed to hit the target.
 
GTX said:
Happy to give it to Ukraine. My point was more that the USAF has been trying to offload so that they can better use resources on far more capable platforms like the F-35.
Click to expand...
I would add though that while I am sure the troops on the ground would love all the air support they can get, I seriously question the survivability of A-10s in that or indeed, any modern war environment. I know that many get all weak at the knees at the mention of the A-10 and it's big gun, but seriously, at sometime it has to be let go. And just one last point re the age: The last A-10 was delivered in 1984, some 40 odd years ago, whereas the F-16s, F-15s etc have been delivered a lot more recently. B-52s...well that's an entirely different story as we all know. Mind you, they would not be useful for Ukraine either now unless firing standoff missiles from afar.
 
Last edited:
If Ukraine is setting up new logistics chains, the effort should concentrate on keeping as many single engined F-16s as operational as possible. The Su-25 Warthogski is twin engined but that is what Ukraine has (as does Russia). The maintenance crews may be there for twin engine operations but the parts ain't. Those crews, IMO, should be training to maintain whatever we can send Ukraine that can loft a Scalp/Storm Shadow.
 
SaparotRob said:
If Ukraine is setting up new logistics chains, the effort should concentrate on keeping as many single engined F-16s as operational as possible. The Su-25 Warthogski is twin engined but that is what Ukraine has (as does Russia). The maintenance crews may be there for twin engine operations but the parts ain't. Those crews, IMO, should be training to maintain whatever we can send Ukraine that can loft a Scalp/Storm Shadow.
Click to expand...
I am curious to see how they use the F-16s given how deadly the environment is for anything airborne.
 
I'm thinking as stand-off missile* trucks for now. Push Soviet aviation further behind the Surovikan line and farther back behind Krinky, by crikey! The F-16 has a longer reach than a Ukrainian MiG-29. Push Russian aviation back behind there own AAA. Russian AAA; it flies, it dies. No matter whose flag it flies. This might reduce the bomb toss attacks and their version of JDAMs effectiveness. This could allow strengthening the bridgehead across the Dnipr.
Full disclosure: my military aviation background consists of running around the house with model airplanes while making airplane noises.

* I had accidentally wrote "bomb trucks".
 
Last edited:
It's a pity the F-111s are all long gone. Some of these would probably be more useful in fast low level strikes than A-10s. Anyone else remember this novel:

309933.jpg
 
Admiral Beez said:
Maybe they were junk missiles intended to deplete Ukraine's SAM arsenal or test its capabilities.
Click to expand...
Maybe just water instead of fuel or the fuel drained for BBQ, à la chinoise:

www.thedrive.com

Water-Filled Missiles, Silo Problems Behind China Purge: Report

New reported details about Chinese corruption allegations raise questions about the country's military readiness and modernization efforts.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

Given the known corruption in the russian army something like that could be a very real posibility
 
GTX said:
I would add though that while I am sure the troops on the ground would love all the air support they can get, I seriously question the survivability of A-10s in that or indeed, any modern war environment. I know that many get all weak at the knees at the mention of the A-10 and it's big gun, but seriously, at sometime it has to be let go. And just one last point re the age: The last A-10 was delivered in 1984, some 40 odd years ago, whereas the F-16s, F-15s etc have been delivered a lot more recently. B-52s...well that's an entirely different story as we all know. Mind you, they would not be useful for Ukraine either now unless firing standoff missiles from afar.
Click to expand...
Given the advances the Ukrainians have made with FPV drones they could probably convert most to remote control and the balance to signal relays and play merry hell with the Russians without risking any rare as rockinghorse droppings pilots
 
GTX said:
I would add though that while I am sure the troops on the ground would love all the air support they can get, I seriously question the survivability of A-10s in that or indeed, any modern war environment. I know that many get all weak at the knees at the mention of the A-10 and it's big gun, but seriously, at sometime it has to be let go. And just one last point re the age: The last A-10 was delivered in 1984, some 40 odd years ago, whereas the F-16s, F-15s etc have been delivered a lot more recently. B-52s...well that's an entirely different story as we all know. Mind you, they would not be useful for Ukraine either now unless firing standoff missiles from afar.
Click to expand...
As has been exhaustively mentioned before, the A-10 was designed exactly for this type of war and associated environment.

Add to that, the current A-10C is far more advanced than the A-10A.

It was designed to survive/evade enemy SAM and MANPAD action, it was designed to survive/evade/counter A2A enemy contact.

This war is what the A-10's entire existence has been waiting for.
 
As far as ground attack aircraft are concerned whether it's A-10, F4 Phantom, F-111 or whatever, the
troops on the ground who become the targets aren't going to be thinking "It's ok, that's an obsolete
________ ". They will be thinking that hell has come to breakfast.

I haven't had the experience of being on the receiving end of this kind of attack but from all the historical
info I have the effect on morale is just as great as the actual ordnance being thrown. This is particularly
pertinent to the current war in Ukraine, as there isn't a lot to suggest that Russian troops are well supplied
with modern equipment to counter such attacks compared to the Ukrainians who have been getting a
lot and using it.
 
WARSPITER said:
As far as ground attack aircraft are concerned whether it's A-10, F4 Phantom, F-111 or whatever, the
troops on the ground who become the targets aren't going to be thinking "It's ok, that's an obsolete
________ ". They will be thinking that hell has come to breakfast.

I haven't had the experience of being on the receiving end of this kind of attack but from all the historical
info I have the effect on morale is just as great as the actual ordnance being thrown. This is particularly
pertinent to the current war in Ukraine, as there isn't a lot to suggest that Russian troops are well supplied
with modern equipment to counter such attacks compared to the Ukrainians who have been getting a
lot and using it.
Click to expand...
In the 70's, when the A-10 was conceived, they factored in the Soviet air defense system (AA as well as coordinated air superiority) when designing it.

It was concluded that the A-10's successes against Soviet ground elements would offset the A-10's losses.

I keep seeing time and again "oh, but the A-10 might be shot down" or "it needs air cover to be effective".
Ok, this is a WWII site - at what point did the militaries at the time worry about one of their aircraft (pick one: fighter, bomber) might be shot down?

Currently, the Russians and the Ukrainians are using the Su-25s in theater and no one has an issue.
The A-10 is far more advanced than the Su-25 and everyone loses their shit when the prospect is brought up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 1, guests: 2)

Similar threads

M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
790
GTX
GTX
M
All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
Replies
19
Views
1K
MIflyer
M
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
289
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
A
Canada seeks to join non-nuclear pillar of AUKUS alliance
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
S
Request help identifying type of aircraft
Replies
4
Views
667
MiTasol
MiTasol
Back