Journos want the A-10 in Ukraine

Thoughts on how it would perform?

Personally I think terribly, there's a reason F16/18s took over CAS after it's desert storm performances, it would be a deathtrap in such an air defence heavy environment like Ukraine instead of dunking on middle eastern terrorists.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't understand what the A-10 does, and it seems attack helis serve the same role better and more flexibly. A-10 seems to be a hold-over from days when you could still engage ground targets with fighters. Now the doctrine is to fire missiles from many KM away without even visually seeing the target.

    As such, I don't think the A-10 can do anything.

    They need F-16's, and the goal is to slowly push out the Russians further and further back. They're already doing that with Patriots right now. F-16's will speed this up. The "No Go Zone" will eventually encroach into Russia proper as well.

    Ukraine needs quantity rather than quality for fighters and bombers as their current SOVIET era planes are literally falling apart from flying too many missions. They also need hundreds of modern IFV and artillery as well. They need everything.

    Like someone dumping a few hundred Soviet era fighters in their lap, and 50 F-16's would really help.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Congrats. You have more brains than reformers or Congress

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Congrats. You have more brains than reformers or Congress

        I looked at the A-10 and thought "Isn't that just the Blitzfighter but less moronic?". So is the A-10 really something the REFOORMERS came up with?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No. Because the reformers are moronic.
          The A-10 was not moronic for the time and mission it was designed for. It just had supremely bad luck to come about right before the rise of PGMs and MANPADS. The main complaint with it nowadays is that “people” see the A-10, see the advances made in air defense over the decades, see the A-10’s performance in Desert Storm, and still claim it’s the best thing since sliced bread.

          Meanwhile, the reformers looked at the A-10, and while they didn’t have the benefit of hindsight at the time, still think that the A-10 is too advanced and a simpler design is even better.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A-10s performance in desert storm was actual dog shit though. It was the only aircraft permanently withdrawn below some parallel on the map because they were getting BTFO even then. By Iraqis.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Bullshit it was never withdrawn from some arbitrary line. When too many were getting shot down or damaged by an Iraqi Republican Guard division that had competent air defenses they tasked those A-10s elsewhere and shifted to hitting those targets using fast movers with PGMs. There were plenty of other things for those A-10s to do in that war. Does a change in tactics for a particular scenario mean the aircraft that were tasked elsewhere somehow becomes a failed design?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              A-10s launched nearly all the Mavericks used in Desert Storm, they were very useful in that regard
              keep that in mind the next time somebody spouts off about the GAU-8 - it was the Maverick that was the real tank killer

              Bullshit it was never withdrawn from some arbitrary line. When too many were getting shot down or damaged by an Iraqi Republican Guard division that had competent air defenses they tasked those A-10s elsewhere and shifted to hitting those targets using fast movers with PGMs. There were plenty of other things for those A-10s to do in that war. Does a change in tactics for a particular scenario mean the aircraft that were tasked elsewhere somehow becomes a failed design?

              the A-10 isn't a failed design but the tradeoffs for the Gatling turned out to be not worth it, in short

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      These days it's unique role is medium bomber or cruise missile truck. It can hold something ridiculous like 24 MALDSs

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >These days it's unique role is medium bomber or cruise missile truck. It can hold something ridiculous like 24 MALDSs

        If that's what it can be used for, eh? I guess? More cruise missile trucks never hurt.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's not a unique role because the F-15E exists and does it better.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Well it sucks then how its two most distinctive features (armor and gun) are actively working against its current role, then. Bomb trucks could fly faster and further without all this dead weight.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the extra capacity for missiles doesn't mean shit when it's stuck flying at 300 knots and dies on its first sortie.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >how it would perform?
      Literally perfectly
      >there's a reason F16/18s took over CAS after it's
      and there's a reason it took the role back again
      >air defence heavy environment like Ukraine
      Russian air defence is nil. Zero. It does not exist. There is no Russian air defence
      >dunking on middle eastern terrorists
      Every single durka smithereens by the A-10 were orders of magnitude more competent and dangerous than any Russians in Ukraine

      >attack helis serve the same role better and more flexibly.
      No more than a motorcycle with a MANPAD fulfills the same role as a Bradley. They both have wheels.

      They can ask for whatever they want, but if it's a choice between 1 more F-16 vs 12 A-10s; once you account for critical mass of pilots and ground maintenance that one extra F-16 is going to do more than 12 A-10s.
      As for the Tigers/Taipans; Australia elected a socialist tankie who is withholding Ukranian aid for all the wrong reasons - but Ukraine is un-ironically better off without helicopters than with those deathtraps. Unless they could be rigged to remote control flying bomb duty.

      >critical mass of pilots and ground maintenance that one extra F-16 is going to do more than 12 A-10s
      That one F-16 requires more resources, personnel and maintenance than the 12 A-10s, without exaggeration, and couldn't do anywhere near the volume of sorties of 2 A-10s let alone 12, also without exaggeration

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >That one F-16 requires more resources, personnel and maintenance than the 12 A-10s, without exaggeration, and couldn't do anywhere near the volume of sorties of 2 A-10s let alone 12, also without exaggeration
        2 xA-10 airframes, then they can start flying sorties with the 0 pilots they have with experience in that type, and the 0 ground crews and logistics experience. All so that they can say they have an airframe that can land on an improvised runway (something that might come in handy if the front line ever moves into the Russian interior) and marginally out perform the F-16 in one mission type while not being able to do any of the other things the F-16 could have done.
        If they weren't in wartime with several limited resources you'd have an argument; but in their current circumstances it would be a joke.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You said a lot of dumb things but you explained nothing

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        While you make a good point about maintenance and upkeep, everything else you said was wrong.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It would end up doing exactly the same thing the Frogfoot does for both sides i.e. a glorified Grad that flies away really fast after firing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >It would end up doing exactly the same thing the Frogfoot does for both sides i.e. a glorified Grad that flies away really fast after firing.
      That's basically Axe's argument. I don't think the Ukrainians would turn it down.

      Literal sooooi faced Journalism Major homosexual who gets paid to shitpost.
      Unironically I say, this turd is living the life

      >Literal sooooi faced Journalism Major homosexual who gets paid to shitpost.
      I've met him. He was an English major. He does get paid to shitpost but in fairness to him he is kind of insane in terms of work ethic and has taken a lot of risks in his career, and probably seen more combat than a lot of soldiers. He has been blown up several times in IED or suicide attacks, got kidnapped twice, was in a fair number of firefights while embedded with U.S. troops, sneaked into Syria. Been embedded with Ugandan troops in Somalia, the U.N. in DRC, Australians in East Timor. He has been doing it for 20 years and basically filing articles on deadline constantly the entire time.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >seen more combat than a lot of soldiers
        No. There's a whole universe of difference between actually being in the firefight and being even 100 meters back. I'm not going to criticize his writing, but saying that someone can know fighting from being near it is a dumb statement.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Well, I'll tell you, and he'll probably disagree with you, but one thing he told me (military / war geek stuff, you run into people at things, get a beer with them) is that being a "veteran" doesn't give you any special insight on war because most people who experience war are civilians, so the idea that we have to kiss up those military guys' asses because they got into a lot of fights is a lie. Everyone is basically living in the same world where this stuff is happening, so it's not like this stuff can't be understood by ordinary people. It was in fact those people in Ukraine who saved their country's bacon when it came down to the wire.

          He's fairly self-aware but all I'm saying is that he has been in vehicles that got blown up and he almost died, been shot at directly from people intending to kill him, been kidnapped by child soldiers at gunpoint. He was with U.S. troops in Afghanistan where they got ambushed in the open and a soldier yelled at him to get the frick down, so he just sat down as the soldiers shot back, and he felt like a moron because he was just sitting there like a putz who couldn't do anything as bullets were whizzing past his head. All kind of stuff.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Being a "veteran" does give you a better insight into war. Why? because you have training to understand the fundamentals of combat and have experience in combat in what is effective and what is not.

            Being "blown up" or shot at is harrowing and dangerous. It provides no useful experience in how to stop a VBIED or destroy the enemy. Setting up blocking positions and having to stop an incoming VBIED does provide useful experience, bc you learn very quickly what works or die. The journalist can die as well, but he is not finding clear lines of fire for the mg, or positioning the roadblock to limit exposure to snipers. The NCO commanding the squad manning the blocking positions has this experience, and this knowledge is infinitely more useful than what the journalist has learned from simply being near death.

            I am not denying his bravery. Stories of both the suffering and heroism that come from war should be told. I am also not denying his argument, as if well researched and supported by expert opinion, it holds as much weight as any, and would certainly be more valuable than baseless lore repeated by vets.
            But to claim he is as experienced as soldiers who fought doesn't make sense. One doesn't learn from proximity to combat and relating one's experience. One learns from combat by fighting and studying what is effective.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Those are good points. Don't really have an argument. I would say the journalist's job is to be a middleman, essentially, between the soldiers and everybody else and they take this complicated military stuff which most people don't understand and translate it into narratives in which they can. Most Americans also don't have much proximity to the military, around 1% of the population serves and many of them come from military families, so it becomes like a military caste. Either way, overall my impression is that Axe has experience putting himself out there.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >blown up several times
            >kidnapped by child soldiers
            Sounds like a pretty shit soldier if you ask me.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        My problem with David Axe is that he's just a blogger, not even a technical expert in any fashion, but because he's attached to Forbes and he blogs all the time people rely upon him as if he's an expert. Sometimes it's not too bad, where he just compiles Russian telegram posts, but other times he says stupid uninformed shit.

        Weapons systems are insanely complicated, and no single person can be an expert on all of them. If he were a journalist rather than a blogger, he would be interviewing and parsing information various experts give him, rather than just writing whatever he thinks is true.

        This is why he says stupid shit sometimes, like this post about the freaking A-10 which has zero place on the modern battlefield.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >This is why he says stupid shit sometimes, like this post about the freaking A-10 which has zero place on the modern battlefield.
          Yeah but there's a lot of Mad Max hardware in Ukraine that maybe "shouldn't" have a place in an ideal world but it can still kill your ass.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >other times he says stupid uninformed shit.
          he started out saying stupid uninformed shit, and continued to say stupid uninformed shit, never took back his stupid uninformed shit, and never ever apologised for saying stupid uninformed shit, so frick him with a double headed dildo

          as they say, this is David Axe Wrapped:

          >https://web.archive.org/web/20160205202051/https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5

          >Any recent tidbits of apparent good news can’t alter a fundamental flaw in the plane’s design with roots going back decades.

          >Owing to heavy design compromises foisted on the plane mostly by the Marine Corps, the F-35 is an inferior combatant, seriously outclassed by even older Russian and Chinese jets that can fly faster and farther and maneuver better.

          >And future enemy planes, designed strictly with air combat in mind, could prove even deadlier to the compromised JSF.

          >It doesn’t really matter how smoothly Lockheed and the government’s work on the new warplane proceeds. Even the best-manufactured JSF is a second-rate fighter where it actually matters—in the air, in life-or-death combat against a determined foe. And that could mean a death sentence for American pilots required to fly the vulnerable F-35.

          >Sprey, the fighter engineer, said he expects the Pentagon to eventually come to terms with the unpleasant truth, that its new universal jet fighter with the foolhardy vertical-takeoff capability could spell the end of an epochal half-century in which America truly dominated the world’s skies. “My prediction is the F-35 will be such an embarrassment it will be cancelled before 500 are built,” he said.

          https://i.imgur.com/fA3418i.jpg

          >It would end up doing exactly the same thing the Frogfoot does for both sides i.e. a glorified Grad that flies away really fast after firing.
          That's basically Axe's argument. I don't think the Ukrainians would turn it down.

          [...]
          >Literal sooooi faced Journalism Major homosexual who gets paid to shitpost.
          I've met him. He was an English major. He does get paid to shitpost but in fairness to him he is kind of insane in terms of work ethic and has taken a lot of risks in his career, and probably seen more combat than a lot of soldiers. He has been blown up several times in IED or suicide attacks, got kidnapped twice, was in a fair number of firefights while embedded with U.S. troops, sneaked into Syria. Been embedded with Ugandan troops in Somalia, the U.N. in DRC, Australians in East Timor. He has been doing it for 20 years and basically filing articles on deadline constantly the entire time.

          >He was an English major.
          fricking figures, that's the go-to for the most useless twats on the planet

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ukraine isn't using Su-25s as rocket artillery because they want to.
        It's because they have nothing else.
        It's like seeing a kid from a poor country making his own drum kit out of plastic buckets to learn the instrument and you get the idea of gifting him more plastic buckets. The intention is in the right place, but most would agree that the objective is to give the kit a real drum kit so he can let his skills shine with the real hardware. Not double down on the poorgay meta.

        https://i.imgur.com/D13xavC.jpg

        >A-10 would be death traps. They need attack helicopters to lob missiles from the safety rather than an A-10 flying over shit. This is like WW2 design.
        The A-10 has more than just the gun. They mount laser-guided bombs, rocket pods, etc. They can fly low, pop up and lob the rockets then turn around and fly away.

        >The A-10 has more than just the gun. They mount laser-guided bombs, rocket pods, etc. They can fly low, pop up and lob the rockets then turn around and fly away.
        Laser guidance requires the A-10 to orbit the target as it lases it. Useless. If you are planning on using drone lasing, you could bolt the bomb to another airframe so there's no need for the A-10.
        You can lob a bomb using GPS coordinates, sure. But GPS guided bombs has been bolted to Ukraine's Soviet era aircraft so the A-10 is not needed.
        The A-10 being adopted alone requires an opportunity cost to be paid. Every pilot trained on the A-10 will not be trained on a fighter. Every aircraft mechanic trained on the A-10 will not be trained on the F-16. You are dedicating man-hours and money to an aircraft that brings nothing to the table as any PGM ability it has is either contingent on loitering over a SAM network or won't even perform any better than Western weapons bolted to Soviet fighters.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I’m impressed, anon. Deadlines are tricky.

        But in seriousness, that’s a good enough resume.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Send them so when they are all shot down, the A10 gays finally shut up. But in all seriousness, they could be useful if the F16s SEAD effectively. I don't think they will unless NATO sends of EW planes, which they wont because our leaders are appeasement muh escalation Black folk.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i don't care homie, take them away
    all of them

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Well meaning but militarily clueless journalist
    >David Axe

    lel

    A-10 would be death traps. They need attack helicopters to lob missiles from the safety rather than an A-10 flying over shit. This is like WW2 design.

    >but what about...

    Yeah, they have A-10's so they use them, but they had total air superiority in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >A-10 would be death traps. They need attack helicopters to lob missiles from the safety rather than an A-10 flying over shit. This is like WW2 design.
      The A-10 has more than just the gun. They mount laser-guided bombs, rocket pods, etc. They can fly low, pop up and lob the rockets then turn around and fly away.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So it has ammunition an F-16/18/15/35 can use except it's slow, sluggish and incapable of air to air combat

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Literal sooooi faced Journalism Major homosexual who gets paid to shitpost.
    Unironically I say, this turd is living the life

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >David Axe
    Why do you apes keep reading his shit?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >David Axe
      The moron would rather get Ukrainian pilots killed than admit he was wrong about the F-35.

      It's not just Axe, Syrskyi also wants A-10's.
      Which is even more of a reason to consider even the retired F-117's before A-10's.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >consider the retired F117s first
        this honestly
        this will probably be the very last conflict where its capabilities would be useful

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >A
      >MELTING
      >POT
      >OF
      >TOLLERANCE

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/F39KKFp.png

      >A
      >MELTING
      >POT
      >OF
      >TOLLERANCE

      Heil Ghostler

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why hasn't that guy been axed yet?

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you'd think since the Su-25 is operating in Ukraine and surviving that the A-10 can as well, however the A-10 is slower and less maneuverable than the Su-25. Now the A-10 does have long range stand off weapons like the Maverick so I dunno.... it's a risky proposition

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >David Axe
    The moron would rather get Ukrainian pilots killed than admit he was wrong about the F-35.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Chairforce is pushing these articles
    they REALLY really want to get rid of that turd

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You already know the answer OP. No one on here is going to be moronic to enough to unironically think using A-10s in Ukraine (or any conflict which is *mostly* peer v peer) is a good idea. A fricking ancient V2 would unironically be a better asset and would still have the badass sound factor that people guzzle the A-10's assault cannon after.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Ulis would probably use it to lob JDAMs and possibly NATO long range ammunition

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    there's no reason not to give A-10s to ukraine tbh
    if they perform well then they're a valuable addition to help ukraine win the war, and if they perform poorly then we'll have gotten rid of an entire fleet of dogshit useless aircraft. we win either way

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If they perform poorly Ukraine loses pilots, a resource more scarce and valuable than aircraft. Pilots are cheaper than planes ($5.6 mil for F16, $10.7 mil for F35), although not at all cheap, but more importantly it takes longer to train a pilot than it does to build a new plane. Ukraine would MUCH rather lose a plane than a pilot, because by the time a replacement pilot could be trained, the war would likely be over. Yes, the plane will be expensive to replace, but when a plane is destroyed, Ukraine loses an air unit for a few weeks or months. When a pilot is killed, Ukraine loses an air unit for most or all of the war. Not calling you a thirdie but this is something thirdie armies don't recognize and part of why NATO prioritizes serviceman survivability in its design.

      Say that Ukraine gets A10s. The A10 is proved to be ineffective for CAS (didn't work with US trained pilots in Iraq under ideal conditions i.e. SEAD and good coms), so it is essentially a missile truck. It is a missile truck that doesn't do anything better than the F16 or that the F16 can't, is an unnecessary addition to the logistics train, and most importantly has lower survivability than the F16. The F16 files higher, faster, and has better early warning and countermeasures than the A10. Pilots are safer in the F16 when running identical missions.

      The fate of the A10 is that of all old military equipment: use as a trainer aircraft, use as redforce in exercises, demilitarize and sell to the civilian market for airshows and museums, and coat in cosmoline for the air national guard in event of the chinese yellow dawn. The F16 isn't new or exclusive technology, it's late cold war tech that we don't use anymore. There is no reason to give Ukraine A10s and they wouldn't meaningfully add to Ukraine's air capabilities compared to what they already have.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Say that Ukraine gets A10s. The A10 is proved to be ineffective for CAS (didn't work with US trained pilots in Iraq under ideal conditions i.e. SEAD and good coms), so it is essentially a missile truck. It is a missile truck that doesn't do anything better than the F16 or that the F16 can't, is an unnecessary addition to the logistics train, and most importantly has lower survivability than the F16. The F16 files higher, faster, and has better early warning and countermeasures than the A10. Pilots are safer in the F16 when running identical missions.

        It could be useful as a missile truck simply because Ukraine needs quantity more than quality. They are currently relying upon Soviet era fighters and bombers which are literally falling apart since they're running so many missions.

        So far after all this time, Ukraine is only getting around 60 F-16's. Adding 20-50 A-10's could help relieve pressure on those F-16's.

        Likewise, they need several hundred top notch European and American IFV, and it doesn't matter what kind specifically. All of them will be better than the slav-shitboxes they currently use.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, let’s give them a squadron or two and see what they can do with them.

      One thing the Ukies have proven is that they know how to use existing weapons in novel ways.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    better than Su-25 for sure, you could drop SDBs from relatively low altitude 10km from the frontline and actually hit something instead of doing those popup unguided rocket attacks

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Or try to jurry rig the stuff a-10 carries to su-25 due its ukies they managed to do that stuff with HARMs and SCALPS so it should be posable but it might be that the airframe itself is falling apart due ive heard one su-25 was on its 500th mission sortie last month

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If they use them for long range stand off ground attack it seems like they'd be a significant upgrade over their su-25's thanks to superior munitions and sensor suites.
    If they're dumb enough to try strafing ones they'll explode in short order.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I mean if you are gonna go scrap the A-10's anyway you might as well give them to Ukraine for the lulz. With the F-16s doing SEAD against Russian AD and radar systems you will have gaps that could be exploited. I wanna see 4K vids of mobiks getting BRRRRT

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That whould be KINO as hell I do hope we even get a recovered footage type from russian side when they get shreaded by an gau-8

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Journos want

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >David Axe
    Lmao that dude never even seen a gun before getting the Ukraine assignment from his editor. His takes can be discarded without having to read them.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Good chance to get rid of it.

    >You have to take AAAALLLL the A-10s

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    would it be cheap to rig them up as a suicide drone and just launch them at a city or something
    imagine it just pissing and shitting 30mm everywhere and then an heroing into a bridge

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If the Ukes think the A-10 has a place in their war, the A-10 has a place. It's not long ke they're stupid.
    Remember to always reject the OP's premise in a situation. Ukes have requested the A-10, journalists are reporting around the world where Ukes are being let down (Tiger in Australia for eg).

    Don't come up with stupid propaganda arguments and sophistry, simply provide the stuff.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They can ask for whatever they want, but if it's a choice between 1 more F-16 vs 12 A-10s; once you account for critical mass of pilots and ground maintenance that one extra F-16 is going to do more than 12 A-10s.
      As for the Tigers/Taipans; Australia elected a socialist tankie who is withholding Ukranian aid for all the wrong reasons - but Ukraine is un-ironically better off without helicopters than with those deathtraps. Unless they could be rigged to remote control flying bomb duty.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They can ask for whatever they want, but if it's a choice between 1 more F-16 vs 12 A-10s; once you account for critical mass of pilots and ground maintenance that one extra F-16 is going to do more than 12 A-10s.
      As for the Tigers/Taipans; Australia elected a socialist tankie who is withholding Ukranian aid for all the wrong reasons - but Ukraine is un-ironically better off without helicopters than with those deathtraps. Unless they could be rigged to remote control flying bomb duty.

      Australia provided bushmasters, and is likely (though this is just my assumption) to provide FA-18 if the right deal can be figured out.

      I'm confused by the taipan situation. I assume they have what they think is a good reason, but they aren't telling anybody what it is. even if the reason is 'we dont want it made obvious what a piece of shit we've been defending our country with', just fricking say it

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I'm confused by the taipan situation. I assume they have what they think is a good reason, but they aren't telling anybody what it is
        Australia retired them early- with no replacement ready, because of fatal accidents. They're the last thing Australia should be sending.
        The Bushmaster deal was initiated by the previous government and the new government didn't kill it. The F18 deal is dead in the water under the current government with no current apparent progress. The big ticket aid that the new government *is* responsible for was the cardboard drones, which I suspect was supposed to be a fig leaf because when they actually beat expectations and got some kills the followup orders for this local industry was complete radio silence.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >give

    Your dog-dick addled brain can't think of any reason at all? None-whatsoever how America and American industry benefits?

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Discard old/obsolete equipment (excuse to restart production lines to keep jobs and boost the econmy too) in return for destroying russian equipment, which it was meant to do anyway. Its literally a win win, hand over some old junk and get results, also data on how weapons
    systems perform on an actual battlefield.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    One of the early dunning kruger peaks in military manners is knowing all about what you can do to the enemy but having not a care for what he can do to you in turn which is why you'll see journos argue for dumb shit like throwing a low and slow plane like the A10 against a country with modern air defense systems that (at least once in a blue moon) work

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Yeah ignore the other points and talk about nukes, fricking troglodyte. You clearly don't have the military industrial complex in your heart, shame on you.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Its gunna be good the day all A10s are scrapped and we can stop talking about them.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Depends what munitions they send it with, but it would take years to get them logistically cappable of fielding and maintaing them, so it's a pointless fricking question.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      SDB's range are based off of height and speed at release, a10s are designed for neither. The only things a10s are even reasonably ok as is COIN

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >but it would take years to get them logistically cappable of fielding and maintaing them
      This was said about attaching Storm Shadow to Su-24, in fact it was said French will need 6 years to do it, engineers had it done in three weeks

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        To do it by French standards, French regulations, etc it would take 6 years. As in they want to create a new system that would be certain to not just fall apart or fail to drop the bomb. Meanwhile Ukraine can bypass that and just create something that is functional.

        This is the same country that takes live cluster munitions, uses a saw to cut them open, then extracts the charges individually.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >This is the same country that takes live cluster munitions, uses a saw to cut them open, then extracts the charges individually.
          It's wild what Slav sensibilities can do.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    attack planes are a luxury for more robust air forces that already have multirole fighter jets, ukraine would be better off with multiroles like F16s.
    both can throw PGMs, but the A10 can't do air patrol.
    they probably wouldn't even need that many to force the russians to adopt even more cautious tactics and reduce the effectiveness even more.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I think terribly
    Who cares? they need planes and nobody will give them planes so frick it. Not like it is any worse than the Grach that makes up the majority of the Ukrainian air force

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not saying David Axe is a pedophile, but with a face like that I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I think he was inspired to get into the war correspondent business by Robert Young Pelton. Kind of a role model hence the mustache and goatee combo. RYP is sort of a respect elder for a lot of these guys.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They would just do the same shit Su-25’s do

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Thoughts on how it would perform?
    about the same as the Su-25.

    it'd be funny to see the air force finally divest from the A-10 by giving them to Ukraine, but it's not what Ukraine needs right now. As russia and ukraine have found out (and the us knew since forever), these types of cas platforms work best when you have an actual air force to get them into location and perform SEAD for them so they can actually do their job. russian SEAD is nonexistent and ukraine SEAD is little more than HARMs from the mid 80s and GMLRS. Neither side is capable of performing complex air operations.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Journos

    You mean the MIC and the politicians in their pocket. They've been trying to shitcan the A-10 for years and "supporting Ukraine" seems like an easy way to do it for them.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Without air superiority it wouldn't be very useful. But if Ukraine got air superiority first it would be very useful. They have about the same payload as an F-16 but are less maintenance intensive and can operate from unprepared airfields. So they can operate off highways and dispersed to avoid missile strikes. So you'd have a simple to operate and reliable aircraft to support ground forces that does work with many common western PGMs like Mavericks, JDAM, SDB and APKWS.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I thought it was ridiculous at first, but the general's comments basically amounted to
    >we need every single fricking flying thing we can get
    so there it is

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I would've liked to see the old pig go out in a blaze of glory wreaking havoc on the Scoobt Doo Conga line during the first week of the 3 day SMO. There hasn't really been anything approaching a decent use for it since; as dick hardening as BRRRRRRRT is it's probably time to let the fleet ride lawn mowers at air shows or something. Give Ukraine more F-16s and armor instead.

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I like the A10 but this entire thread feels like I'm on fricking Quora or Yahoo Answers. Every post itt reads like it was made by a soulless 40 year old man

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I like the A10 but this entire thread feels like I'm on fricking Quora or Yahoo Answers. Every post above this reads like it was made by a soulless 40 year old man

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    remove the gun and add more missiles.

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >america will win when pigs fly

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why would we send more stuff to that shithole? We should let them get overrun

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      To prevent your vatnik heroes from respawning the USSR. Ziggers begat the entire modern Left so to not want TZD is to support gun confiscation.

      Russia is eternal enemy to civilization and revenge for Communism and the US casualties in EVERY war Russia armed the other side in merits applying weapons to ziggers and tankies until they cease to be. Their defiling MY precious /k/ is utterly nigrocious and that alone would merit genocide.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      brilliant plan mate
      - this way there will be 200milion vatniks instead of 150
      i have even better idea:
      lets give them whole Europe - then there will be 750 million vatniks that can stand against US!

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If they want them, maybe give them five with another five for parts. Have more ready to send on hold until they see if they can use them effectively and actually want them. Test run it first.

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If Ukraine can actually keep the skies clear and suppress the RU IAD from the eastern front and 150 miles in Russia, then they can use the A-10. If they can get about 250 F-16's, then the A-10 will be able to operate.

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    One thing I don't get, why were Ukrainian pilots not being trained on the F-16 since 2014? We could've done a direct transfer of high block F-16's the moment those air wings switched over to the F-35.

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >David Axe
    frick this twat

    I want to point something out here, cause most of you if not all are going off on third-party reporting. here's what the guy said:

    https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/01/12/7437018/
    >I would talk about A-10s as an option if they'll be given to us ... this is not a new machine, but a reliable one that has proven itself in many wars, and which has a wide array of weapons for destroying land targets to help the infantry.
    the operative word in this quote is
    >IF
    the guy was talking about a shopping list and what he can do with each item, he wasn't saying "TAKE AWAY THESE F-16s I WANT A-10s" as some here seem to think

    this was clarified by a Ukrainian Air Force colonel:
    https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/01/13/7437088/
    >The position of the Air Force regarding the receiving of Western aircraft remains: the priority is F-16s, which our pilots are currently training on. There may be different modifications, but [these are] exactly multi-purpose aircraft capable of operating on air, ground and surface targets. Therefore, the F-16 is multifunctional and can perform a number of these functions with a wide range of weapons.

    he also says:

    >Ihnat [the Colonel] emphasises that the prerequisite for success is to gain air superiority, which can be provided by both the F-16s and medium- and long-range anti-aircraft missile systems.

    >And after that, it may be possible to effectively use assault aircraft for their intended purpose to support ground troops, as well as combat helicopters, including western-style ones, which our brothers in the army aviation want

    >Of course, Colonel-General Oleksandr Syrskyi, the commander of the Ground Forces, would like to see more air support, but Ukraine has not sent an official request to provide us with A-10 aircraft. Today, the No. 1 issue is the development of the F-16s

    this points to what they intend to use the F-16s for, in accordance with standard NATO doctrine - achieving aerial superiority.

  48. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The fact there's so much anti A-10 shilling ITT means that they're afraid. Bring on the A-10s.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The fact there's so much anti A-10 shilling ITT means that they're afraid.
      They're just afraid of more aide period.
      It could be Tucanos and they'd still shill against it.

  49. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >A-10s in contested airspace with SAMs everywhere
    It would be a waste of pilots and decent COIN aircraft. The A-10 is a good bomb truck for bombing dirt farmers but it can't survive contested airspace.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It would still work fine as a long range missile truck in that environment, some ancient soviet planes are doing that job just fine.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >It would still work fine as a long range missile truck in that environment
        It wouldn't because it's slow as shit. The less altitude and speed you have at launch, the more the missile has to work up to cruise speed if jet powered or the less range it will have if it has to burn solid fuel and go ballistic.
        Not to mention that Ukraine's priority is not a dead end aircraft that was purposefully starved of parts so the USAF could counter Congress denying every request to retire airframes almost every fiscal year.

  50. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I like the A-10 but it's time has passed.
    On the other hand, based on Russian competence, this is the one opponent it might still be effective against.

  51. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe if the F-16s thing works out. Like many anons have said, they're not very useful without air superiority. Maybe things would be different if they could be turned into drones, but AFAIK that's never even been a serious concept proposal for that, and cheap, mass-produced drones can do just about the same damage for a tiny fraction of the price it'd take to turn even a fraction of the A-10 fleet into UAVs.

  52. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Dude, the A-10 is only useful in areas where you have air superiority. Journos see "brrrrt" memes and think it can just buzz through a dozen SAMs. I'd totally be for supplying them after Ukraine retakes full control over their airspace but it will take a long time before that happens

  53. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It seems like the air aspects of this war are really different from what we've been used to before. Neither side is really comfortable with carrying out the kind of strikes we saw in Iraq, Afghanistan etc, and it's not like countries are comfortable with risking losses like in WW2 or Vietnam.
    I doubt Ukraine would be able to use the A10 to attack columns of tanks, or even get sufficiently close to the frontline to do shit like brrap a trench. If they could, we'd see or hear of more aircraft doing similar shit.
    Outside of drones the biggest usage of aircraft in the war seems to be shit like KA-52 spam to blunt offensives, Russian bombers launching missiles from the Caspian, Mi-8s doing useless rocket attacks against empty fields, and a whole plethora of Russians falling out of the sky for various reasons.

  54. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How effective has the Su-25 been in this war?
    I feel like I have seen quite a few pictures and videos of them blown up.
    Why would the A-10 fare any better?

  55. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Those writing papers like this are not doing so because they give a shit about ukraine, they are paid by the defense contractors to kill of the A-10 no matter what. They want in a new model to replace it. All current replacements options cost 3-10x more to maintain for each flight.
    They want those affordable A-10 to get sold off to a foreign nation since they cannot get the military to retire them. Corrupted Pentagon officials have tried to get the air force to get rid of them. Then had the Army and Marines ask for them if the Air Force doesnt want them. So the Air Force said "No, this is ours, you cant have them". The industrial military complex needs to be investigated for all those they bribe.
    brrrrrrrrrrrrrt

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >All current replacements options cost 3-10x more to maintain for each flight
      This is misleading. The A-10 operation cost is purposefully lowballed by ignoring all the cannibalization of airframes that went on and the billion dollar Boeing re-winging programs.
      There is no universe where you can get a replacement that's cheaper than the A-10. The A-10 is basically an old car that requires a ton of wrenching to keep running but you can find parts laying around on every scrapyard. And when stuff like the radio and the AC quit working, you actually stop using it so it won't matter (retiring more airframes to act as donors). And then you had to have a part custom machined in a local shop, that cost you way more than buying a new beater car, but you don't add that cost to the maintenance figures so it doesn't hurt the bottom line. As long as you keep fudging all the money and effort it actually took you to keep that car running, it's fricking cheap. But we all know you should have just let it go and got a new car, it's just the sticker shock that scares you.
      >They want those affordable A-10 to get sold off to a foreign nation
      They're not affordable and they don't want to sell them, the manufacturer that made them went out of business two decades ago, they can only be kept running with necromancy and custom orders of parts (actually fricking expensive).
      >Then had the Army and Marines ask for them if the Air Force doesnt want them. So the Air Force said "No, this is ours, you cant have them".
      Bull-fricking-shit. One Army general once piped up with the "why can't we have them?" in the 1990s and was instantly told the myriad of reasons why that can't happen. Not only do the Key West accords prevent it, it would cost the army BILLIONS and probably a decade to transfer the airframes and parts inventory, the pilots, the instructors and school syllabus, mechanics, etc. from one branch to another.
      Marines can't fly A-10s off amphibious assault ships. Frick you, Sprey.

  56. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly it would be better to buy up every su-25 in the world and give it to the Ukies instead, or better yet just give them shitloads of F18s

  57. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So here's a moronic question: A-10s or very late model (i.e. the ones the nips were flying until recently) F-4s?

  58. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A-10 is horribly outdated and people, as well as subhuman journos, only like it for meme reasons

  59. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Pretty sure Ukies don't have air superiority. Not that the Russians can fly with total impunity either, but I don't think the answer to Ukraine's problems is "more airplanes"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Pretty sure Ukies don't have air superiority. Not that the Russians can fly with total impunity either, but I don't think the answer to Ukraine's problems is "more airplanes"
      The answer is actually "more airplanes" but not those kinds of airplanes-- how the frick do you think countries win air superiority? They need properly competitive fighter jets, and pilots trained on them, in order to turn this war around. Literally winning the air war is number 1 in turning this shitfrick around for either side-- we should be sending F16s, Grypens, and training their pilots above all else.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *