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

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
30,043
4,582
New Oak City
We haven't been sending Apaches into Ukraine, near but not into.
Yeah, we're probably going to give the Warthogs to the Ukes,
partly to cycle them out of our inventory. We been doing this
with Stingers on up.

However, the Russians really have no air superiority to speak of.
They've lost 200+ planes and are deathly afraid of Uke MANPADs.
The Russians have A400s but I don't think their MANPADs have been as effective.

Consequently, the Russians have been flying sorties in Russia basically as high altitude artillery.
On the other hand, the Ukes have very effective drones for target spotting
and have no need to hang out at 20,000 feet waiting for an A400 to hit them.

Warthogs in the vanguard of an offensive would be a scary thought
given the current state of Russian morale, logistics, ....

Lastly, the Ukes are extremely aggressive and creative.
They've been developing new tactics and given a new old toy,
they'd probably do the same with the Warthog.
 

Fakenews

Super Anarchist
13,848
1,899
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.
What I know about military weapon capabilities could fit on a thimble but these should be a welcome addition if only for there “go get” capability vs targets of opportunity The HIMARS are constant states of redeployment to avoid Russian targeting. In the event a tasty target presents itself you can put a warthog on it very quickly.
 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
45,586
10,275
Eastern NC
What I know about military weapon capabilities could fit on a thimble but these should be a welcome addition if only for there “go get” capability vs targets of opportunity The HIMARS are constant states of redeployment to avoid Russian targeting. In the event a tasty target presents itself you can put a warthog on it very quickly.

And as Rasper said, it's huge psychological blow to troops to have one these ugly-ass things pop up out of the bushes (well, it seems that way when they approach very low) and start shredding everything in sight.

They can just about shrug off a MANPADS... shoulder-fired anti-air... but the bigger mobile SAMs are a real problem. You wouold need to have a good idea where they were, sneak up and pop them first, probably with multiple A-10s, and that would be a risky mission.

But really, the UKRs are asking for better anti-air and air-superiority weaponry as well as more HiMars. Why are we handing them all the cobwebby stuff from the basement, no matter how cool of a toy it is, instead of giving them what they're asking for?
 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,764
2,196
Back to the desert
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.
It feels like there's an echo in here.... ;)
 

Ease the sheet.

ignoring stupid people is easy
20,411
2,371
WHAT??? You're an idiot. Please stick to your lane of knowledge. Like checkers and simple jiqsaw puzzles for 10 and under.
The a10's ability to sustain damage is well known.

 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
45,586
10,275
Eastern NC
WHAT??? You're an idiot. Please stick to your lane of knowledge. Like checkers and simple jiqsaw puzzles for 10 and under.
The a10's ability to sustain damage is well known.







How much damage can the A-10 Thunderbolt endure before being shot down?


Answer (1 of 4): A lot. Like, A LOT, a lot. That said, it's always possible that the proverbial "golden BB" can hit a critical system in just the right way to turn your whole kit & caboodle into a smoking hole. Still, that Hawg can take quite a beating and keep on ticking. That's actually what...

www.quora.com



I'm sure the Warthog's toughness is overhyped, but I'm also sure it's a very tough plane. It is in fact designed and built to survive getting shot up by ground fire, including have an engine blown off.

The Air Force doesn't like close ground support, never has.
 

Ease the sheet.

ignoring stupid people is easy
20,411
2,371

I'm sure the Warthog's toughness is overhyped, but I'm also sure it's a very tough plane. It is in fact designed and built to survive getting shot up by ground fire, including have an engine blown off.

The Air Force doesn't like close ground support, never has.
One of the few "modern" planes designed to be blown up and still get home.

Enough space to load up with chaff, flares and harms. A sam radar operators worst nightmare....
 


1658589107820.png

You cant trust the Russians.
 

BeSafe

Super Anarchist
8,121
1,363
Down in the fine print, the deal also includes the provisions to sell RUSSIAN grain and fertilizer.

My guess is that they'll be co-loaded (or co-processed at very least) to make sure both sides have a reason to want the ships to get through.

Both sides exchange hostages - that's how deals ultimately get done in war.
 


Latest posts



Top