Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I am reminded of a statement one of the Ukraine Leaders said about joining NATO. It basically went, whatever the future about joining NATO, if we are turned down, whatever excuse is used, don't ever say, that it was because we were not good enough.When the dust settles and Russia is cleared out of Ukraine (not a matter of if, but when), I see them becoming a NATO and EU member.
Indeed. And today that would mean mobile and fixed SAMs are targeted by drone and satellite guided HIMARS before the A-10s arrive. MANPADS will still need to be accepted. But, us armchair generals aside, has anyone asked the Ukrainians if they want and can use the A-10?
As would any ground attack aircraft, so who cares.
Most ground attack aircraft try to avoid shorter-ranged air defence systems with the use of various standoff weapons systems, AGM-65, for example. If you are going to use the A-10 in a standoff attack profile way what is the whole point of the A-10's unique features?
How would a HIMARS or M270 go about targeting and hitting mobile targets, such as mobile SAM systems?
The point was that any ground attack aircraft will have a hard time surviving in contested airspace.
Sorry if one's appreciation for the A-10's mission upsets you, but placing the Su-25 on a pedestal makes it easier to be knocked off.Don't forget the GAU-8 also has a much higher fire rate so needs to carry more. Either way though, people need to get over this almost phallic-like attraction to the A-10 and its gun. The fact remains that in a contested environment with both fighters and modern air defence systems (SAMs and guns), the A-10 would suffer very high losses.
I'm pretty sure the HIMARS has satellite guidance. Granted that that isn't perfectly real-time, it's pretty useful, I'd think. Drones could have a role as well.
Having said that, I think the Ukrainians using the HIMARS/MLRS against supply facilities, generally immobile, is the smart money, because without fuel, you ain't moving, and without ammo, you ain't shooting.
Targeting supply depots will, aside from destroying resources, force the Russians to keep their depots further back, thus increasing the resource expenditure and attack-exposure of the elements bringing the supplies forward.
Well exactly, including the A-10 - so what has it got to offer? Bear in mind that what the Ukrainians are looking for in any future combat aircraft deliveries is a SEAD/DEAD capability, for which the A-10 would not be the first choice of aircraft with most air forces.
In addition to this the one big fear that I have (and no doubt others) is of a Soviet breakthrough in one area or another. Both sides are stretched and no doubt there are weak spots in both sides defences.What does it have to offer? I think its proven its worth, especially when dealing with armoured columns. The aircraft is aging, but not "overrated" as some wish to believe.
There must now be hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers and airmen training with NATO units in Europe.In the meantime. Training of Ukrainian crews for Gepards has begun, most probably.
The UK committed to training 10,000 at least.There must now be hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers and airmen training with NATO units in Europe.
The main problem with exporting A-10s is how few there are left to send. Production really shouldn't have ceased as there has never been a suitable or cost efficient replacement.
The F-35 will fill the A-10's mission profile, but we'll have to wait and see how it works out.The main problem with exporting A-10s is how few there are left to send. Production really shouldn't have ceased as there has never been a suitable or cost efficient replacement.