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

Yahoo ^ | 21 July 2022 | Thomas Novelly

[TangoLimaSierra]

You guys ready to get back in the action?

[FtrPilot]

I’m not a military person, but it seems bizarre that the Air Force expects the F-35 to fill the ground combat support and anti-armor role of the A-10

It seems like using a samurai sword when a hammer is needed. But I’m open to being proven wrong.

Please allow me to try.

Without a doubt, the A-10 is a killing machine. However, it does have some limitations.

The youngest A-10 is over 35 years old. Here's a picture of the cockpit:

Often referred to as "Steam Gauges".

The A-10 has no radar, no mission computer, no sensor fusion, etc.

Its primary weapon is the GAU-8...30mm cannon. Awesome at killing tanks, however the A-10 has to get close to the target to kill it.

The problem is that tanks seldom travel alone. They are usually joined by mobile Surface to Air systems like the SA-22 Greyhound. The A-10 has no stealth and is very vulnerable to SA-22 like systems.

The F-35 is new & state-of-the-art Gen-5 aircraft. It has stealth, sensor fusion, and is able to employ the latest and greatest USAF high tech weapons.

The F-35 can fly combat missions 24/7, even in bad weather. The A-10 has limited effectiveness at night and has no ability to employ munitions in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC).

While the A-10 can carry Aim-9L/M missiles for self protection, A-10 use in an Air-to-air role is severely restricted as the A-10 has no radar.

One thing the Ukraine war has shown is that drones, HIMARS, and Javelins can kill tanks and prevent a breakout. In a high tech, high threat arena, F-35 is the clear choice.

[SaveFerris]

Dang autocorrect.....🙄🙄🙄

before Satan LOOSES his anti-messiah upon the Earth 🌎🌍.

[PIF]

he’s suggesting that not only is the A10 obsolete but that it would be suicide to use it in a heavily contested air space where the side using it did not have air superiority

—
So send them to Ukraine where to same conditions prevail and they can commit suicide?

[Hulka]

Live for it. . . If I wasn’t crippled now.
The Warrior wishes to die by the last bullet fired during the last battle in the last war.

[PGR88]

very good

[Jim Noble]

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

Yes, I bet they are.

No Chair Force gongs for close air support.

Give them to the Army, or better to the USMC. I'm sure they can find a use for them.

[PIF]

A squadron of A-10s at the start of the war would have put an end to that convoy in short order

—
Had they been there, they would have been destroyed.

SU-25s are the Russian equivalent which the Ukraine AF has but they were in constant danger of the S300 and S400 systems that covered that area. A-10s would have fared no better.

Contrary to Westerner reports, Ukraine SU-25s did hit the convoy many times.

[Gen.Blather]

“So send them to Ukraine where to same conditions prevail and they can commit suicide?”

Actually, yes. The Airforce so hated the A10 that they drove Fairchild Republic, the planes maker, out of business so they wouldn’t have to procure any more. They have been attempting to get rid of them in almost every budget I remember reading over for decades. Congress has resolutely stopped them, just as Congress has saved Abrams for at least since I worked on it starting in 2001.

The Airforce would be happy to get rid of them even if it costs the life of every Ukrainian pilot who flew it. Because the Airforce wants to spend the two billion or so dedicated to A10 on Gee-whiz stuff.

I remember reading that one AF general in the ‘50’s said something like, “If it doesn’t fly higher and faster than last year’s model, don’t even show it to me.” That appears to be the attitude today. Thus, we get ever more capable aircraft that may or may not be optimized for their stated functions. We won’t know until the defecation hits the fan and they either do, or do not perform as advertised. Frankly, I believe, as Stalin said, “Quantity has a quality all its own.”

[PIF]

It would be cheaper and easier to get more SU-25s which are the Russian equivalent of the A-10.

[DesertRhino]

Our USMC rifle company wound up in an Air Force base overnight when our C-130 broke. Laid out in the grass beside the taxiway all night. In the morning they marched us all to the USAF chow hall. Imagine the astonishment when the airmen asked -individually- how we wanted our eggs or if we would prefer in omelette…

Blown away

[RetiredTexasVet]

If they use an airport in Ukraine they will last only a few days at most.

[DownInFlames]

Empty the boneyard in AZ.

[Gen.Blather]

“It would be cheaper and easier to get more SU-25s which are the Russian equivalent of the A-10.”

That’s true. Except, the USAF does not have any SU-25’s lying around but they do have a plane they’d really like to get rid of. Also, if there were any SU-25’s in play I’d think Ukraine would be on it in a heartbeat. But, like the kid with a rich uncle, the Ukrainians will hoover up anything Sam is willing to let go of.

[PIF]

Other countries do have SU25s they could supply. A-10s would be a truly bad idea in that war - without the latest upgrades, all of which are dependent on US comm systems and are classified. Stripped of those - its suicide.

Besides we will need then later in some future event. The F35 cannot replace it and neither can the Toucans.

[Tallguy]

The A-10 cannot survive in that environment.

[arthurus]

Part of the ongoing program to deplete the American stock of arms to accompany the total demoralization and downsizing of the military.

[Hulka]

A-10 is a single mission aircraft (CAS).
Air Force pursued a multi-mission aircraft policy. More mission coverage.
Old school Generals were believers in faster/higher aircraft. Until Gulf War I, the A-10 was not thought too highly by old school tac fighter types.
Gulf War I proved the A-10s worth and now enjoys respect from the Air Force.
Gen Horner was quoted a week into the Gulf War I air war: “the A-10s are saving our a$$es—and he was a hard core tac guy that didn’t think much of the Hog. He changed his mind.
Many still want to mothball the jet but the jet keeps performing and doing the mission no other jets can do as well.
A10s were always planned to be part of a package of support jets (a/a escorts, SEAD support, etc). A-10s were never considered a go-it-alone jet, but Gulf War I changed that.
A-10s have staying power and a massive weapons load—the strike fighters do not have staying power therefore could have some effect on the battlefield but the A-10s had long loiter time and weapons flexibility so they really impact the battlefield.
Gen 6 fighters like the JSF have nice stealthy profile but to be effective they have to strap on external weapons load and that destroys their stealth. They can carry some internal load but not near anything like the A-10, and the JSF has a “one pass, haul a$$” staying power due to limited weapons load and no gas.
And the A-10s gun makes all the difference and is highly accurate and flexible, whereas other jets have to reply on satellite guidance weaponry and their gun is a pop-gun, no real anti-armor killing power.
We can go on and one but it is clear, for CAS nothing beats the Hog.

[Hulka]

Actually, look at the numbers: Vietnam, CAS pilots earned 5 MOH, a/a jets, zero MOH.

Giving the Hog away is a logistical and support nightmare that the Army could never support.

[Hulka]

Not really. I’m an old Hog driver and studied tactics and such, and the Hog is much more effective than other jets. People think “speed is life” but not for the Hog.

F-16 takes a hit, 80% it won’t survive. A-10 takes a hit, 80% survivable.I’ve crunched the numbers myself.