>giving Ukraine F-16s. >why not A-10s as a bonus? Posted on May 24, 2023 by PrepHole Contributor >giving Ukraine F-16s >why not A-10s as a bonus?
>why not A-10s
ukies don't want them
Best one yet
man american WWII paintjob is so fucking cool
Contested air space
A-10s are very vulnerable to modern air defenses. Even in Desert Storm in the early 1990s we lost six from what I remember.
>Even in Desert Storm in the early 1990s we lost six from what I remember.
180 were deployed and they flew 8000 sorites, 4 were shot down, 2 landed safely but were written off
thats more than F-16s shot down but on the whole they were impressed by their performance and it led to an extension of their service life
No they weren't. They were shit, but had a rest PR department. They caused more blue on blue than any other aircraft
>No they weren't.
they performed well and impressed the brass enough to extend service life further than planned
Post proofs, they did anything better than a f16
not saying that they did better or worse, just that their performance in the gulf war was seen as good enough to justify keeping them on for 20 more years and that the losses they took were justified in the damage they did
otherwise they would have been retired right after
LOL no, we don't need as many tanks as we have didn't stop us making them. Need is not the priority until it hurts the politicians. If something is popular in the military you are keeping it.
>we don't need as many tanks as we have didn't stop us making them
M1A2 hulls have been recycled since the 90s due to supply far exceeding demand
current backlog of 3000 M1A1s and M1A2s to be updated to SEP3+ standard has meant no real need to produce tanks at all
>If something is popular in the military you are keeping it.
often because its perceived as actually working
useless weapons tend to develop negative reactions very quickly
even satisfactory weapons are perceived worse than they are and force upgrades
>they performed well
They didn't, initially they just tallied up all the dead vehicles and said "yep, A-10" but after later investigations it came out that it was mostly aardvarks with guided bombs.
>they performed well and impressed the brass enough to extend service life further than planned
they were literally banned from flying because they got fucked up by shitty old soviet AAA and SAMs
and despite that, they were still seen as highly effective
only 6 were lost total in comparison to inflicting high losses
The US could have flown biplanes and inflicted “high losses”. Proper doctrine and support systems facilitates the success of a platform. It does not make it good.
But only the A10 could lift that much tonnage of bombs, rearm and take off from shitty frontline, to carry out multiple sorties per day.
Delivering the majority of munitions through sheer volume.
>only the A10 could lift that much tonnage of bombs
The A-10's thrust means that you should load it lightly. You're not going to have several passes to expend that tonnage, you're going to release once, maybe twice, then back the fuck out of AA range. No point in adding unnecessary weight.
>rearm and take off from shitty frontline
Dumb idea. The increased wear and tear of FARP operations would not be worth it considering the extra security and air defense it would require. The Lancet spammer Pajeet would have a field day if A-10s were stationed near the front.
>carry out multiple sorties per day
That's great. But the company that made the A-10 went out of business two decades ago. Do you know how much it costs to contract out replacement parts? You're gonna wear the fuck out of those A-10s.
You'd be better off loading them with explosives and crashing them into Russian HQs if the plan is to obliterate A-10 airframes.
>took so many losses that they were pulled from frontline service against Republican guard unita
>damaged so routinely the the commander of the air war had to sit back and think “wtf are we doing” after seeing a line of shot up A-10s on the apron.
>”flying tank” meme got one pilot killed because he tried to land a brokedick plane instead of just ejecting
F-111s and F-16s did all the heavy lifting. The USAF (read: people that have to actually fucking use the thing) want to retire it, but every time they’ve tried to, Congress has stepped in and screeched autistically about muh ground troops.
>Congress has stepped in and screeched autistically about muh ground troops.
I've always found this particularly baffling as that is precisely what attack helicopters are for.
moron they're flying fucking Su-25s what makes you think the A-10 can't pull a frogfoot's job?
Russkies have better AD and America is more image-conscious.
moron they're flying SU-25's because that's all they have in numbers that isn't a valuable mig-29 or su-24.
>they're flying fucking Su-25s
Which they use by firing rockets into the air and fucking off back to base.
>what makes you think the A-10 can't pull a frogfoot's job?
It would be a waste to train Ukrainians to do a shit job. Also, it's slower than the Su-25.
much much slower.
Russia doesn't have modern air defenses.
USAF would never risk allowing a staple aircraft like the A-10 fall into commie hands.
learn to greentext properly before making your awful shit thread that stink up MY board
They're too gay for them, frankly America is gay for them too. Nobody except me is heterosexual enough to use the A-10 which is why they should be given to me instead
A10s fucking suck
And for that matter, does Australia still have F/A-18s left over or did they send them all to America? I know Finland said no to giving theirs to Ukraine.
Australia has a bunch of F/A-18 that were going to be sold to some private American company but the deal went nowhere. The F/A-18s that could be given are not in ideal condition.
Canada bought them.
Canada bought some of the jets, and even that deal was questioned by Australia as an "ok but why"
Because the even at the end of their service life the Aussie hornets were still in better condition then the Canadian ones. Canada agreeded to buy them while waiting for someone to grow the balls to admit that pulling out of the F35 deal was a bad idea.
Canada bought all the flyable ones plus spare parts. The rest have all been scraped or turned into museum pieces.
the A-10 isn't very good.
Because the a-10 has been obsolete for decades, and the Ukes already have the SU-25. The a-10 would, in no way, be worth the time and labor needed for the Ukrainians to field it.
Ukrainian SU-24 and SU-25 are not modernized and not very good compared to modernized A-10
Not very good at what?
What capability would make it worth using there?
Is the difference between the su25 and the a10 great enough to warrant the need of creating another logistical line? Idk man
>are not modernized
And neither is the a-10. We may have slapped on some upgrades, but at the end of the day it's an old plane that can't do CAS any better than a more modern f-16. The Ukes don't need a bomb truck, they need something that can clear the skies of Russoid aircraft.
>source: my ass (I know nothing about jets)
>a giant fuckoff convoy will definitely not have everything from iglas to streaks to buks to tors in it
Clown board. You’d think this is a world where shooting at planes has been banned by the Geneva convention.
Strelas but it’s not as if any of you retards have ever heard of any anti air system before so why bother
Guess the Ukrainians were just too lazy to send their planes to attack the convoy haha
They didn’t have western HARMS at the start of the war you moron. The Ukie AF consisted of. 97 combat aircraft in total when the war kicked off, and needed to defend across three different fronts. Only 25 CAS birds out of that 97. Russoid ground based air defense has proven to be a fucking joke, and now western support (HARMS, MALD, SS, additional Soviet planes, soon F-16s) mean SEAD is back on the menu. Sending A-10s makes perfect sense and will OBLITERATE Russian logistics
>Russoid ground-based air defense has proven to be a fucking joke
Found the most clueless post in the history of PrepHole.
The Russian GBAD is objectively the strongest in the world that would rape any yuro airforce (yuros unironically can't SEAD as shown in Lybia) and would give the USAF a tough time. The early war failures were a consequence of Russians being retarded and worse than Arabs at using their own tech, but even they could figure out how to read the manual after a year.
Russian ground based AA has shot down more of it own aircraft than they have of the enemy you ass clown. The Russian air to air missiles have been the star of their air defense network.
>t. consumed too much cheerleader media
It’s hard to argue with someone when they apparently live in bizzaro world.
>laughs in AN/ALQ-131
Russia would get GAPED by A-10s, let alone the A-10/F-16 double whammy
>x system exists
>that means they can solve every related problem and be available everywhere at once and there is nothing the enemy to do to adapt to this new system
Unsurprisingly, a-10 posters prove themselves the biggest morons in an information space where unironic vatniks exist.
> a system that can/is mounted on A-10s exists
> in fuck huge quantities
>anon thinks it won’t be present somehow
F-16s have 131 pods too. Ziggers are fucked six ways till Sunday
>they have HARMs
>this means that no AA exist now
>Russian GBAA are a joke anyway haha
That’s why Bayraktars stopped flying as soon as they turned on the pantsirs right?
And that’s why even footage from this year show SU25 RWR lighting up like a christmas tree the millisecond it pops over the tree line to drop a glide bomb, right retard?
That’s why Bayraktars are still not flying even today, right retard?
That’s why Ukraine are still asking for more SEAD and long-range strike capabilities, right retard?
God I wish the would send A-10s just so monkeys like you would shut the fuck up.
>Bayraktars stopped flying
L O L
Pantsirs fucking suck SPECIFICALLY AGAINST SLOW MOVING TARGETS LIKE UAVS
>doesn’t know about MALD
Are you having a stroke? Did you read my post?
utter cope and delusion
Russian anti-air was absolutely terrible in the early stage of the war.
>5 webms from March 2022 with Bayraktars destroying SAMS
Isolated short range SAMs, not the type or density you would see flaking an massive logistics column you clueless regard
Let me guess, you think throwing 2 HARMs without a full scale SEAD/DEAD mission the likes of which the Ukrainian Air Force simple is too overstretched in its current state to muster would solve that problem?
Here’s an idea, how about you educate yourself on air defense before posting about it, you shitskinned tourist?
>thinks American planes have the same EWIR/ELINT capes as 30 years ago
Sure would be a shame if we sent them A-10s and they end up being used for not just CAP, but fucking SEAD too. You russiaboo incels just might an hero
>how dare you use your brain, y-you’re a russoboo
kill you self actually.
Holy FUCK you’re regarded ahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHA
What’s next, wait, lemme guess, they can mount aim-120 on the A-10 too?
>implying A-10 can’t bait enemy radar, SAMS, etc
> implying A-10 can’t strafe enemy AA
You’re in for a rude awakening kiddo
>radar baiting with the slowest plane in existence
Fuck. I’ve been successfully baited. Like a Buk operator looking at a F4. Well done.
this has to be a troll
It is, but so was saying A-10 would be used for SEAD. A-10 will be used for CAP, and it’s gonna be a YUGE
Russian forces lacked anti-air defenses over critical assets early in the war. This was allegedly due in part to trouble with Russian iff leading to friendly fire incidents. Whatever the case Russian forces had nowhere near the control of their airspace that they do today.
>you clueless regard
Kek. Regarded as in the ass.
>3 more webms with Bayraktars destroying equipment moving in columns
Fucking A-10 retards never stop being stupid.
The A-10 is too slow and entirely inadequate for the job.
no brits on the ground for blue on blue
Hey now man, be fair.
They also are useful for killing Canadians.
they're only good for dunking on AK wielding thirdies who have no AA
An… that pretty much describes Russia, just replace, “no AA,” with, mediocre AA.”
>just replace, “no AA,” with, mediocre AA.”
and thats the issue
even absolutely trash and shit AA will absolutely destroy A-10s, you would be better off fielding plywood biplanes
A-10s are not good against actual conventional forces, they lasted as long as they did because they are good at smoking terrorists that have no real way of shooting them down.
Ukies don’t appreciate
>come on, say it
They asked even before the F16s were approved and we just said NO
>Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov says that he personally asked his American counterpart, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, for 100 A-10 Warthog ground attack jets just weeks after Russia launched its all-out invasion in February. Reznikov says that Austin bluntly refused, saying the request was not only impossible to fulfill, but that the aircraft would be dangerously vulnerable to Russian air defenses.
We accidentally memed a-10s to hard and now the rest of the world thinks they are some wonder aircraft
They are shit, Ukraine doesn't want them. Only literal third worlders with nothing else would. O and boomers and fudds.
I don't hate the a10 but this is really an awful theater for them. Air defense coverage is chaotic on both sides and that is worse in some ways than solid defenses because you don't know what you're encountering. I generally think that a more flexible platform is just a much better idea
Ukraine is using British armour
Probably because they want Ukraine to win
it's good CAS aircraft when there are no Air defense system present in the AOO
They'll get raped by AA.
gay useless plane wich is represent no real improvement from the frogfoot. A10 fanbase really is the worst . Actually I'd like to see them deploy so they get downed
>no real improvment
probably worse lol, its like half as fast
That'd be so much fun just liesurely flying along Russian trenches emptying your ammo load.
Do A-10's carry napalm? Gotta have that as well.
>imagine brrting at this convoy
>imagine brrting that armored column
>imagine brrting those trenches
I am convinced a-10tards all post from parallel universe where radar and guided missiles don’t exist.
Actually it is agile in ground support and nice to look at when it flies repeated horizontal loops for ground support. Apart from that, there was a wiki leaks video of a blood thirsty A10 pilot loitering high up in the skies going brrt and killing his own people on the ground. All he was saying when he became aware of the fact that he killed his fellow soldiers was "Fuck, I am going to be court martialled, fuck I am going to be CM'd"
The SU-25 is unironically better for their purposes since they'll be operating in contested airspace.
Ukraine requested them too, but the request got denied
>why not A-10s
We've been over this.
Flying CAS in a contested airspace is VERY risky.
They already do very little of it, and their Su-24/25s fulfill the role better while requiring no retraining.
The A-10 is something America can afford to fly while enjoying total air supremacy. Over Ukraine it would be a waste of pilots.
whats the difference between the su24 and the a10?
The su-24 is faster. It's probably worse in many other ways, but without speed you're a sitting duck in modern air combat.
Too late. An era of 40km convoys has come to an end.
A-10 doesn't have radar.
> *BOOM* *BOOM* *BOOM*
>why not A-10s as a bonus?
because ukraine doesn't have a senator on the US armed services committee
Just give them like 5 AC-130's to go with the jets and this shit will be over in like a month tops.
The war and its consequent tourism
If the even the Iraqis could fuck them up, even shoot a few down, how do you think they would handle against the Russians. Even with all their incompetence they're still better off than the Iraqis were.
>mutts still think a10 is amazing because john mcain said "YUUURP OUR BOYS IN THE DESERTLOVE THAT BRRT SOUND OORAH"
and that was after iraq air defences had been taken down
The largest modern air defense network in the world had indeed been suppressed… not sure the point you were trying to make here lol
Forgot the picture.
>Ukraine can't even do sorties now because the one thing Russia has in abundance is AA systems
>I know, let us give them a slow and out of date aircraft that was obsolete when it was brand new and see what happens haha brrrrt xD haha le normal people le build le aircraft and put le guns on them but we usa we go big or go home hehe and built le aircraft around le gun xDDD
The A-10 is great for shitting on guys who might at a fucking push have a DshK on a Toyota as 'AA' but even an incompetently ran military such as Russia would have no issue having at least ONE of their AA systems dunking on an aircraft that can't even break 700kmph.
And then even if it was to be handed over, you wouldn't see its meme gun in action. It would be launching missiles. Now if you're saying
>Hey lets give them mountains of AGM-86 ALCM which are going to be dismantled anyway and try and jury rig them to the A-10 somehow
Then fine but you're not, so no.
>It would be launching missiles.
Not even that, it would probably just fly around malding
Same reason Apache wasn't used in Yugoslavia.
give them super tucanos or another light prop
I’m all for giving Ukraine literally every single A-10 in our inventory, guard and active, and then buying that new Prop plane in bulk to lower average cost
Because we grounded them during the invasion of Iraq for a reason
>30 years later
>they have received zero upgrades… because
>j-just don’t send them!!
Zigzogs are afraid
The issue with the A-10 is that it is slow and fat and cannot operate in a contested environment. This was true in 1990 and is true in 2023, the USAF has been trying their damndest to get rid of the entire fleet for a reason anon
Why did being slow and fat hurt 30 years ago? What’s different now? Once you find the answer to these questions you might rethink your stance
Do you also think the B-52 is now good for bombing in a contested airspace because it’s also been upgraded?
Do B-52s have AN/ALQ-131 Electronic Attack pods for countering modern radar guided threats? Do they have chaff and/or flares? Are they flying above or below the enemy MANPAD ceiling? Answer all those questions and I’ll answer yours
Those are all extremely easy to attach. So effectively yes.
Then my answer is yes*
*assuming the 131 is reprogrammed to communicate properly with the bomber
You know what that would actually be kino. I stand corrected, please send B52s and ALCMs, Joe.
A plane is a plane, please understand.
Most of the A-10 upgrades are meant to point a laser at a camel fucker's crotch and drop a bomb directly on his nuts.
Not run the gauntlet through SAM Alley.
The b29 can carry more than an A-10
It can loiter longer than an A-10
You can probably fit a 50mm autocannon on it
Why aren’t we sending B-29s?
Because a-10 is a bullshit
Ok, but for real, why not give Ukraine
Don’t we want total zigger death?? What the fuck is the West’s foreign policy if not that?
Give them the sky warden. AGR-20 is love, AGR-20 is life.
Daily reminder that the A-10 doesn't have a radar.
Because we don't want Ukraine to lose.
>why not A-10
We are trying to help them win
>giving Ukraine F-16s
>why not give T-41s as a bonus?