If the US is going to retire 21 A-10s this year, why don't they send those to the Ukies? They've been trying to get rid of these for years. If 21 are due to be retired, send that shit! I guarantee the UAF can easily be trained to operate them.
Also, where can I buy one?
Proposed by the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology to replace its North American T-28 Trojan thunderstorm penetration aircraft. The A-10 would have its military engines, avionics, and oxygen system replaced by civilian versions. The engines and airframe would receive protection from hail, and the GAU-8 Avenger would be replaced with ballast or scientific instruments. Project canceled after partial modification of a single A-10C
They don't want it.
Why would they want A-10s when they're proving that drones are cheaper and more effective every single day of the war so far?
It's an expendable ground hugging JDAM/Maverick bus.
Expendable also makes it an understatement. Not only can they take a shit ton of damage, but after the drone strike the world knows russians can't fly or maneuver at low speeds. Giving Ukies flying tanks? Yes please!
>shit ton of damage
you mean MAYBE they can survive a MANPAD if they get lucky lmao
The pilot isn't expendable, which makes the most expensive drone in the world more cost-efficent than the cheapest manned ground attack plane.
makes the most expensive drone in the world more cost-efficent
sounds pretty based
SAM fuckfest, platform's predicated on air supremacy
The US keeps trying to retire them because they're useless in conflicts where air superiority hasn't been established this is the case in Ukraine where the hohol air force is still kicking and the Russians can only use felons and foxhounds to lob missiles from within their border. Also the gun uses depleted uranium rounds that the Americans are extremely autistic about not exporting for whatever reason
>Americans are extremely autistic about not exporting for whatever reason
Uranium bad ok
They would need a legitimate ton of ballast to even out the weight distribution if they took out the gun. No wonder they dropped the project it would cost way too much, and frankly, there are far cheaper and user-friendly aircraft out there that could do the job better than a gunless A-10.
why the fuck would they take out the gun? thats what the entire plane is what the fuck is an a10 without the gun?
They don't even export DU armor why do you think they'd export the gun that fires DU rounds
Because it's useless, against anything even slightly modern.
>The A-10 would have its military engines, avionics, and oxygen system replaced by civilian versions. The engines and airframe would receive protection from hail, and the GAU-8 Avenger would be replaced with ballast or scientific instruments
Someone came into reading comprehension.
unironically because the Ukies don't want them. They would just have valuable pilots die in shitty bomb trucks.
>"You have to take all the A-10s."
>"WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS"
Because they are generally shit. But are still poten symbols of American might so when one get blown out of the sky, the perception of of its loss will be considerably worse than any benefit we would get by sending them.
We going to have this thread every day? Ukies straight up said they don't want them, A-10s can't fly in contested airspace, if they needed an air to surface platform F16s could do the job, or even the MiG-29s they're getting from Poland
>We going to have this thread every day?
Wut r u talking aboot Ivan "the newfag tourist" Suckmydickski? Nobody ever posts this thread. Fucking gay.
fucking every other day there's a "send A10s to Ukraine" and the replies are same "they didn't want them"
Source on that? They wanted them at the beginning of the war
>“We had done our homework,” Reznikov said. After studying publicly available information on the U.S. arsenal, the Ukrainians concluded that the Pentagon had a surplus of A-10s, the aging, subsonic attack aircraft known as Thunderbolts. “They can deliver heavier bombs, and we could use them against [Russian] tank columns,” he said.
When did they change their mind and state that they did not want them?
>The A-10s "will not close our sky, they will not stop bombers and missiles," Sak said in a message. "They will be a target for Russian jet fighters and anti-aircraft defense, because we don't have the means neither to effectively cover them, nor to break through the enemy anti-aircraft defence."
>Sak didn't deny the A-10's strengths, but he believes it misses the mark for what Ukraine wants right now. "The A-10 can destroy ground targets very well, maybe better than anyone else. But, other aircraft offer Ukraine so much more," Sak said in a message. "At the same time, the A-10 will divert the lion's share of financial and human resources from the issue of re-armament to a modern multifunctional FIGHTER (F-16, etc.), which would be a strategic mistake." He compared the A-10 in combat to the Su-25, a Soviet-era jet in current use by the country's air force. While the A-10 has more modern, high-precision weapons, Sak believes it is still at the same tactical disadvantage as the Su-25. "When using conventional unguided missiles and bombs, the A-10 is practically the same easy target for russian air defense as the Su-25," Sak said
They looked for what jets the US could spare and said A-10.
They looked further into it and realized it was a meme.
From your own source:
>The planes, Reznikov said he was told, were old-fashioned and slow, a “squeaky target” for Russia’s formidable air defenses. “This was understandable to me. It was reasonable. I said okay,” Reznikov recalled, throwing up his hands in mock surrender.
Lots of snowmorons seem to be concerned about this idea given the amount of shill replies.
One doesn’t just "send" stuff to Ukraine. You send them stuff, then you must train them to use it, and then you must have a service depot nearby to maintain and fix the stuff because Ukraine doesn’t have the facilities, expertise nor the money to handle any of that themselves.
But the money is honestly a secondary issue. The main issue is that Ukraine doesn’t have command, organization, training or doctrine to use the equipment as they’re supposed to be used for maximum effect. As a result the West (the US mainly) has lost confidence in Ukraine to win. The West still wants Putin out of power but aid to Ukraine is downgraded while economic-political measures are upgraded. Ukraine will not be allowed to fall completely, but neither is Biden going to bend over backwards to make sure they get everything they want or need. Just enough to keep them in the fight.
Retire the airframes to sell as "surplus" to the resurrected American Volunteer Group, much like the ongoing Lend-Lease. Valuable Ukrainian pilots? No need. The A-10 community is a rare breed among contemporary fighter pilots, professionals with decades of practice devoted solely to littering the countryside with burning invasive slavshit. There'd be no shortage of US volunteers despite the odds - they've heard "obsolete" and "gone in two weeks of real war" their whole career.
They should have some pilots who are capable of flying it, they've been training people on A-10 simulators since last year.
A10 is for bullying nerds. Not really helpful when the nerds can shoot back. They are peak aesthetic, but they have their place and their place is not there. I'd still support to see footage of them though. I just want that hot cold war we were promised.
When you have 70km range like with JDAM-ER and you ground hug until you are near the release point then climb, drop and return home hugging ground which is what MiG's do, are you at that much more risk with an A-10? Seems like the risk is close to the same so why waste a MiG platform that can field HARM and possibly soon AMRAAM? Especially since they got a bunch of guys who have practiced on simulators
I mean I think it's a fraction the value of something like F-15/F-16's and if they can send those that would be great but I think retiring A-10's would still have a use as a platform launching long range ordinance.
just roll them down the road and brrrrt enemy vehicles
Now they’re in MANPAD and AAA range.
Only cool with this if the A-10s at my local airfield get replaced with F-15Es or F-35s. Tired of seeing all the cool shit shipped off because some gay NIMBYs were dumb enough to move next to an airfield that has been a military base since it was built. Down to the Warthogs, Blackhawks, and a bunch of ground vehicles dammit. We don't even have C-130s anymore outside of fire season. I miss spotting the Apaches watching me shoot out in the desert.
I thought you lived by me until you mentioned the desert. Same thing at my local ANG base.
NTA but Michigan?
> flying tiger
Why does the US name its hardware/units after made-up animals?
>warthogs are made up animals now
Because A-10 cause more friendly fire casualties to Ukrainian ground forces than the Russian air force.
>The Chad suicide bomber vs. the virgin market shopper
Mutts saw what happened to their precious drone and they will be very careful to avoid another global humiliation
Nice try Ivan. Flying more than 8,000 combat sorties, only five A-10s destroyed (a loss rate of . 062 percent).
The main reason is we know they would be shot down quickly, generate bad press and give the Russians some propaganda wins.
What is this? I require sauce!
A fake A-10 upgrade/replacement clickbait youtube channels keep posting.
Damn, I was hoping it might actually be real.