Ukraine and Only Ukraine. If it isn't about Ukraine then fuck off

[billy backstay]

They probably are worried about Sweden not being neutral and this could risk their secret bank accounts there.

I thought Switzerland was the home of secret accounts, not Sweden? And, now that the Swiss are more cooperative with US LEO; the Caymans are preferred or so I have heard......
.

 

[Ishmael]

The Rushists are really pushing the envelope here. Looks to me like they are inviting NATO to come in and take control of that plant in self-defense. Fuck around and find out.

 

[The Dark Knight]

I thought Switzerland was the home of secret accounts, not Sweden? And, now that the Swiss are more cooperative with US LEO; the Caymans are preferred or so I have heard......
.

I was using a secret purple font because I suspect a few of the objecting rednecks will not know the difference between the 2 countries.

 

[billy backstay]

I was using a secret purple font because I suspect a few of the objecting rednecks will not know the difference between the 2 countries.

Is that like invisible ink? I have to hold my laptop screen over a candle to make it turn purple?
.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Is that like invisible ink? I have to hold my laptop screen over a candle to make it turn purple?
.

Only those who know the joke that is a reality for many can see the purple. I worked with an English guy in Sweden who thought the job he got was in Switzerland. 10 years later he actually got to work there.

 

[Olsonist]

Air Force Open to Sending A-10s to Ukraine for Fight Against Russia

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said that some of America's aging A-10 Thunderbolt combat jets could potentially be given to Ukraine.

www.military.com

 

[Monkey]

Air Force Open to Sending A-10s to Ukraine for Fight Against Russia

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said that some of America's aging A-10 Thunderbolt combat jets could potentially be given to Ukraine.

www.military.com

It wouldn’t surprise me if we sent them all. For such an incredible plane, it sure does annoy a lot of high level people. I’d much rather see them all go to Ukraine instead of getting scrapped in a year or two. Unfortunately, they might not last long without proper fighter support.

 

[Steam Flyer]

It wouldn’t surprise me if we sent them all. For such an incredible plane, it sure does annoy a lot of high level people. I’d much rather see them all go to Ukraine instead of getting scrapped in a year or two. Unfortunately, they might not last long without proper fighter support.

I think the biggest AA threat is from the bigger longer range RUS missiles. The Warthogs are incredibly tough, a Stinger might or might not take one down... it's an exaggeration to say they can laugh at SA-7s... and they fly low which makes them a difficult target. But overall I think their mission survival will not be stellar, over there. But they'd be great at blowing up lotsa RUS stuff.

 

[Ishmael]

This was quite informative.

 

[Mark_K]

It wouldn’t surprise me if we sent them all. For such an incredible plane, it sure does annoy a lot of high level people. I’d much rather see them all go to Ukraine instead of getting scrapped in a year or two. Unfortunately, they might not last long without proper fighter support.

Better than an SU-25 in one important point: Service ceiling. Can go high and loiter. Even back in Gulf War 1 it was clear low-level is not the way to last long in today's environment, not for anybody or anything.

 

[Burning Man]

Better than an SU-25 in one important point: Service ceiling. Can go high and loiter. Even back in Gulf War 1 it was clear low-level is not the way to last long in today's environment, not for anybody or anything.

That's true, but that worked well only because it was in an essentially non-contested Air to Air environment and without modern SAMs on the battlefield. It also worked because we had air dominance and could throw a lot of support assets to protect the A-10s.

I honestly don't see A-10s being all that viable on the UKR battlefield where the rooshians likely enjoy a fairly solid air superiority locally in the East overhead the battlefields that the A-10s would be working, assuming they were to be used against the massed armor on the front lines. I honestly don't think they would last very long if they were trolling around up at 20K feet looking for targets. They would be sitting ducks for the Russian Sukois as well as the mobile SAMs like the SA-11 (Buk) and SA-15 (Tor). Without the usual support assets like the USAF Wild Weasels shooting HARMs and the USN F/A-18G "Growlers" providing jamming, as well as dedicated Air to Air fighters providing cover - the A-10s on their own frankly would be cannon fodder.

Edit to add: I'm not in any way suggesting going back low would be any better. It would not. Just that the A-10 on it's own or with very limited support would likely not be terribly survivable on that battlefield.

 

[Ease the sheet.]

What can an A10 do that himars etc can't?

Love me some warthog, but....

 

[Zonker]

I did read an analysis of A-10 performance in Gulf War. For all the vaunted 30mm cannon performance, it was stand off missiles/laser guided bombs that it carried that killed the most tanks. No need to get close and personal if you can be 5 miles or more away and just target something and get them with one shot.

 

[00seven]

What can an A10 do that himars etc can't?

Love me some warthog, but....

600+ KMH.

 

[BeSafe]

The Warthog functions like very fast moving helicopter that can't hover. It carries a large flexible payload and is designed for used as close support for ground troops. The advantages it has over a helicopter is much higher speed getting to the location and the ability to engage more and heavier targets - including older style mainline battle tanks - once it gets there. And, it can hang around for quite a while. The disadvantage is that its not landing and picking anyone up and it can't hover. A10s are ground attack aircraft.

Warthogs are really valuable when you have total air supremacy. But they're really more in the category of a helicopter in terms of air combat. They're going to lose a dogfight against almost any modern combat plane and are likely to get shot before they ever get a chance to engage. They can be similarly compromised if the defenders have modern SAM defenses. They're big, slow, and not stealthy as air targets go. There are lucky encounters where a Warthog got off a Sidewinder or "sprayed and prayed" but serious - any modern combat aircraft is going to shoot them down without much difficulty.

The have a function - They're like the military version of a sawed off shotgun. What they do, they do very well. But its a pretty niche role.

The Ukranians don't have air superiority let alone air supremacy and the Russians have numerous SAM installations spread around the more critical areas they're defending/attacking. Unless the US intervenes, any A10s in that theater would get chopped up pretty fast.

 

[kent_island_sailor]

Unless the US intervenes, any A10s in that theater would get chopped up pretty fast.

I think that is the idea, the Air Force *finally* figured out how to get rid of them

 

[d'ranger]

The Warthog functions like very fast moving helicopter that can't hover. It carries a large flexible payload and is designed for used as close support for ground troops. The advantages it has over a helicopter is much higher speed getting to the location and the ability to engage more and heavier targets - including older style mainline battle tanks - once it gets there. And, it can hang around for quite a while. The disadvantage is that its not landing and picking anyone up and it can't hover. A10s are ground attack aircraft.

Warthogs are really valuable when you have total air supremacy. But they're really more in the category of a helicopter in terms of air combat. They're going to lose a dogfight against almost any modern combat plane and are likely to get shot before they ever get a chance to engage. They can be similarly compromised if the defenders have modern SAM defenses. They're big, slow, and not stealthy as air targets go. There are lucky encounters where a Warthog got off a Sidewinder or "sprayed and prayed" but serious - any modern combat aircraft is going to shoot them down without much difficulty.

The have a function - They're like the military version of a sawed off shotgun. What they do, they do very well. But its a pretty niche role.

The Ukranians don't have air superiority let alone air supremacy and the Russians have numerous SAM installations spread around the more critical areas they're defending/attacking. Unless the US intervenes, any A10s in that theater would get chopped up pretty fast.

Thanks for that, and of course just wondering if all the people in charge of strategy have thought of this? Like there is a plan for how to best use them? My guess is they will be deployed when and where they do the most damage with the least risk. It's not like NATO and Ukraine are operating on RU tactics.

 

[Ishmael]

Now would be an excellent time for Chechnya and Kazakhstan and other Russian regions to decide they don't want to be Russian any more.

 

[Steam Flyer]

... Warthogs are really valuable when you have total air supremacy. But they're really more in the category of a helicopter in terms of air combat. They're going to lose a dogfight against almost any modern combat plane and are likely to get shot before they ever get a chance to engage. They can be similarly compromised if the defenders have modern SAM defenses. They're big, slow, and not stealthy as air targets go. ...

Thanks for that, and of course just wondering if all the people in charge of strategy have thought of this? Like there is a plan for how to best use them? My guess is they will be deployed when and where they do the most damage with the least risk. It's not like NATO and Ukraine are operating on RU tactics.

The Warthog is totally not a dogfighter. In the past, the USA has deployed them to areas where we had total air supremacy but I would suggest that it's not necessarily an absolute condition to use them effectively. Their survivability depends on 2 things, they can fly very very low (like, pull up to get over mailboxes) and they are very damage-resistant. They're the closest thing yet to a flying tank.

The 30mm gun is an awesome weapon. It's aimed down, so it's not good against air targets but will shred anything short of a battleship. And if you give the Warthog a 2nd pass at it, I'm not sure a battleship would fare so well. It can carry any other weapon in the NATO air arsenal. They take out tanks with ease, bust bunkers, panic ground troops. They've got range and loiter time.

But the question is, is the net offensive capability worth the opportunity cost to UKR? They already are devoting resources to improving their artillery; given satellite snooping and advanced artillery rounds, they can do almost anything an A-10 can do. I would bet that given a choice between all our A-10s -OR- an equivalent amount of aid in more HIMARS and the top ammo, they would pick more HIMARS.

Same balance of cost/opportunity as the anti-sub capability debated over in the other Ukraine thread.

 

[Mark_K]

That's true, but that worked well only because it was in an essentially non-contested Air to Air environment and without modern SAMs on the battlefield. It also worked because we had air dominance and could throw a lot of support assets to protect the A-10s.

I honestly don't see A-10s being all that viable on the UKR battlefield where the rooshians likely enjoy a fairly solid air superiority locally in the East overhead the battlefields that the A-10s would be working, assuming they were to be used against the massed armor on the front lines. I honestly don't think they would last very long if they were trolling around up at 20K feet looking for targets. They would be sitting ducks for the Russian Sukois as well as the mobile SAMs like the SA-11 (Buk) and SA-15 (Tor). Without the usual support assets like the USAF Wild Weasels shooting HARMs and the USN F/A-18G "Growlers" providing jamming, as well as dedicated Air to Air fighters providing cover - the A-10s on their own frankly would be cannon fodder.

Edit to add: I'm not in any way suggesting going back low would be any better. It would not. Just that the A-10 on it's own or with very limited support would likely not be terribly survivable on that battlefield.

I suspect the offer to give them to Ukraine is reflects a desire by the Air Force's bean counters to get it out of our inventory. The day is coming anyway, haven't made a new one in decades, and every different bird requires it's own unique parts inventory which gets harder to keep stocked by the day.

Be a cool video to see one un-zip a Russian tank with that cannon though...just for old-times sake.