| Tango01 | 21 Jul 2022 4:47 p.m. PST |
"A bipartisan group of senators this week urged the Pentagon to "consider" deploying war planes to Ukraine as it continues to grapple with Russia's months-long deadly war. In a letter led by Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, to Secretary of Defense Llyod Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, a bipartisan group of six senators urged the Department of Defense to "consider fourth-generation fighter aircraft and necessary flight training" to be included in upcoming military aid packages…"
Main page
link
Also….
YouTube link Armand |
| Thresher01 | 21 Jul 2022 5:06 p.m. PST |
They're stupid if they give our Warthogs to Ukraine, on the possible eve of a skirmish, battle, or even war with any of the following: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, ISIS and the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the Mexican/Latin American drug cartels, etc., etc.. |
| Stryderg | 21 Jul 2022 7:45 p.m. PST |
They are politicians. They don't have to be smart, just electable. |
| Garand | 21 Jul 2022 8:22 p.m. PST |
I have to wonder how many A-10s are in storage, as opposed to being in service? Also the A-10 is old, & I've seen a lot of questions about its survivability on the modern battlefield. Certainly the performance f the Russians puts some nuance on the issue, but it has been questioned. Also I hardly think the US needs A-10s to go after narcos. If they need airpower for that, buying a few squadrons of Super Tucanos from Brazil would work just fine. Which is one of the reasons Brazil developed the aircraft to begin with… Damon. |
Escapee  | 21 Jul 2022 8:41 p.m. PST |
It's too bad there were no A 10s around when this war started, so many tempting targets. Like the 40 mile convoy. |
| Druzhina | 22 Jul 2022 1:14 a.m. PST |
|
| Escapee | 22 Jul 2022 6:36 a.m. PST |
In many ways this seems like it is a semi-modern battlefield to me. Old fashioned Russian artillery warfare and missiles thrown in. Old tanks and trucks. Not much combined arms tactical ops. |
 Legion 4  | 22 Jul 2022 8:07 a.m. PST |
Also saw this on Military.com today … USAF thinking about sending A-10s to Ukraine's Air Force. Ukalink Also the A-10 is old, & I've seen a lot of questions about its survivability on the modern battlefield. Certainly the performance f the Russians puts some nuance on the issue, but it has been questioned. I think the A-10s after training, if given to the Ukrainians, they would have a pretty good life expectancy regardless of what some experts, etc. may say. Based on the Russian's military performance in the war so far. Their ADA is most likely no better than the rest of their forces, AFAIK. Don't think that will change anytime soon. With all the FA assets we have sent them. If the Russian ADA is a concern. The Ukrainians can be taught SEADS = Suppression of Enemy Air Defense Systems. A US Military standard we were trained in. As I've mentioned before. FA fires on known or likely enemy ADA positions. To suppress their ability to engage our aircraft, both fixed & rotary wing. As well as the flight routes of our strike aircraft. The A-10s coming in low and fast. Like in Iraq & A'stan. Will make a harder target to engage effectively, as we know. Especially after & during SEADS, i.e. FA fires turning the Russian ADA into burning wrecks. In many ways this seems like it is a semi-modern battlefield to me. Old fashioned Russian artillery warfare and missiles thrown in. Old tanks and trucks. Not much combined arms tactical ops. Yes, no question there, IMO … Having worked a few times with A-10s, as a Bn Air Ops Officer[S3 Air] in the 101, '82-'83. They are perfect for CAS which they are designed for. Very durable, well-armed with their GAU-8 30mm Gatling Gun. Plus, a number of uploads on its wing racks. I'd think they would be very successful in the Ukraine. The Russian habit of having long convoys strung out along roads. Like we saw early in the war. They would be fairly easy to service and attrite. For the A-10s using SEADS. And yes, having been trained and have done it in training. US Army assets, i.e. FA can and does work well with USAF assets effectively. They are politicians. They don't have to be smart, just electable. So very. very true and made quite clear as we see today with the mass media, etc. As well as many of our elected officials are long passed their expiration date. They just get richer on our dime. But in fact, they should have been put out to pasture/sent to a senior citizen community/nursing home, etc. long ago. Plus some of the younger elected officials are more like activists than actual leaders. Self-serving, radical, woke, etc. They should put back on the street in a job more suited to their talents and beliefs. E.g. bartender, janitor, or a variety of jobs in the service and/or manufacturing industries. |
| Stryderg | 22 Jul 2022 11:37 a.m. PST |
I wonder if this the US Air Force trying to find a way to rid themselves of the A-10? |
| Raynman | 22 Jul 2022 11:45 a.m. PST |
Stryderg, I would say yes! They have been trying to get rid of the A-10 for a couple of decades. The Army offered to take them, refit them and use them, but the AF balked and said no. The A-10 is the perfect CAS weapon and the AF doesn't want it because it isn't sleek and spiffy. The Army would take the A-10 because it is a fully functional warhorse. It can carry just about everything, has a big cannon and has serious loiter time over the battler field. Love it! |
| Garand | 22 Jul 2022 11:50 a.m. PST |
I personally think what Ukraine could really use in this war are a combo of SEAD capable aircraft, as mentioned above, & strike aircraft. The SEAD aircraft do what SEAD aircraft do, but strike aircraft would be useful to boom n zoom at Russian artillery pieces. I think A-10s would be too slow in this role. Damon. |
| Druzhina | 22 Jul 2022 1:55 p.m. PST |
The Russian habit of having long convoys strung out along roads. These are behind Russian lines that are now well protected by Russian air defence. Both sides are forced to fly very low to survive. Russian air defence isn't rubbish. (btw Russian planes aren't even safe from their own air defence). Neither side is now making airstrikes beyond the front-line. Both sides can protect their artillery with MANPADS. It is not a matter of the lack of Ukrainian training. More ability to straff with dumb weapons is not what the Ukrainians need. A10s do not even have radar. If it is already known where the enemy is, there are better ways to eliminate them. A multi-role aircraft would make the best use of available, trained Ukrainian pilots.
Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers
|
| Escapee | 22 Jul 2022 2:04 p.m. PST |
Legion, and others, slightly off topic, but what is it like inside up to date fighting vehicles in hot weather? Ukraine is not too bad, but the rest of Europe is getting fried. And It's 126 in Iran, 105 in China. What's the affect on men and equipment? |
| Augustus | 22 Jul 2022 2:53 p.m. PST |
The Air Force doesnt want the Army using something they don't want to be used. Everyone wants a sleek plane. Hammers aren't sleek. They are effective. The USAF doesn't like the idea of hammers getting mixed up with their scalpels…. |
| rick32 | 22 Jul 2022 6:20 p.m. PST |
Is this "The Zone" being played out live? Anyone else ever read these books by James Rouch… |
 Dal Gavan | 22 Jul 2022 6:52 p.m. PST |
what is it like inside up to date fighting vehicles in hot weather It depends, mate, on the vehicles, terrain (tree cover and shadows from hills/buildings) and the temperature. Bushmasters have a good aircon/air-scrubber fitted and that works in quite hot (35°C+) conditions, but didn't work all that well parked on a concrete vehicle park in ~43°C heat (sweat and installing electronics is not compatible). Leopard AS1 (A3) were like tracked ovens in northern Australia, according to some tankies I knew. Vehicles designed in the US and Europe have always needed tweaking to deal with summer temperatures here, but deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have probably led to some improvements in interior climate control. |
| Escapee | 23 Jul 2022 8:27 a.m. PST |
Thanks Dal. I always wondered what it was like in a buttoned up armored vehicle in arid conditions. I would think air con would now be essential for peak efficiency. By the time you know you are dehydrated, you are usually already impacted without realizing it. |
| Legion 4 | 23 Jul 2022 10:40 a.m. PST |
I personally think what Ukraine could really use in this war are a combo of SEAD capable aircraft, as mentioned above, & strike aircraft. The SEAD aircraft do what SEAD aircraft do, but strike aircraft would be useful to boom n zoom at Russian artillery pieces. I think A-10s would be too slow in this role.
These are behind Russian lines that are now well protected by Russian air defence. Both sides are forced to fly very low to survive. Russian air defence isn't rubbish. (btw Russian planes aren't even safe from their own air defence). Neither side is now making airstrikes beyond the front-line. Both sides can protect their artillery with MANPADS. It is not a matter of the lack of Ukrainian training.More ability to straff with dumb weapons is not what the Ukrainians need. A10s do not even have radar. If it is already known where the enemy is, there are better ways to eliminate them. Note: the A-10 has gone thru a number of upgrades. link Well again SEADS in this case would be primarily FA. The A-10 and gunships are not good SEADS weapons. But again, FA is good for SEADS. Also note, A-10s and Gunships[and Assault helicopters too] they fly low using terrain masking, flying contour and with Gunships Nap of the Earth. They make it hard to become a target. How low do A-10s fly ? One A-10 pilot waved to us while we were on the back of cargo truck. Low & fast … Legion, and others, slightly off topic, but what is it like inside up to date fighting vehicles in hot weather? Ukraine is not too bad, but the rest of Europe is getting fried. And It's 126 in Iran, 105 in China. What's the affect on men and equipment? Dal covered this pretty well. But if you are in a vehicle without some sort of chem air scrubber/AC, like in an M113. It can get pretty hot. Especially if there is no cover from trees, etc. e.g. in the desert. In extreme temps you use a lower weight oil grade. Driver's watch the temp gauge. Stop when you can to check out the other systems on the vehicle, etc. Open the top troop hatch to get air flow when moving. Wearing a Chem suit/MOPP can make any temp over e.g. 65 degrees very uncomfortable. And worse if moving dismounted. Insure, your troops are well hydrated. If possible have trained in hot temps before. Have the medic in each platoon check them out if the situation permits it. Sqd Ldrs and Tm Ldrs have to be very observant … make sure they drink a lot of water. Get water resupply often if possible. We carried Halezone(?) tabs in a bottle on the pouch on our canteen cover. Use those to make water safe to drink. But look for clean clear flowing water over rocks, etc. Look to see if there is anything dead near or in the water. Don't use just any water … e.g. if it is not moving and you can't see the bottom … Be circumspect, alert, etc. A Chem suit/MOPP in an M113 in the Desert is not fun. Your troops must be in very good shape/physical condition. |
| Escapee | 23 Jul 2022 10:54 a.m. PST |
I remember those tabs, if you needed those it was not good. Thanks you guys. As with the current heat wave, water is the critical element. Getting acclimatized and being young helps. Air con can be a mixed bag. |
| Legion 4 | 23 Jul 2022 12:03 p.m. PST |
Russian air defence isn't rubbish. No but they are still manned with poorly trained & lead, unmotivated, etc., troops ? Regardless don't write the A-10 and it's GAU-8 off … It is not rubbish either. linkDon't forget the A-10s, etc. would go in after SEADS, primarily FA. Just saw on the news, the Pentagon is now thinking about give the Ukrainians F-16s as well as A-10s. F-16s are not rubbish either … those tabs, if you needed those it was not good. Well as cadets going thru Recon/dismounted patrol training. We'd run 48 hrs. ops out in a very rural area, in Southern OH. We'd deploy with only what was in our rucks. With only one canteen. So we used the tabs often. As there were a number of clear running streams. Plus, the area had a number of fairly steep ridges. Making the need for water frequently … Our longest ops was 7 days in the same area. Again with what we had in our rucks and could carry. Along with our weapons. So we used the tabs very often. This was a summer exercise. Our Instructors, active duty Army who served in Vietnam. Green Berets/Airborne Rangers … they knew how to train us to operate in the "bush". |
| Garand | 23 Jul 2022 2:16 p.m. PST |
I think the F-16s would be rather more useful, able to fulfil the SEAD & Strike roles I was talking about before… Damon. |
| Thresher01 | 23 Jul 2022 5:02 p.m. PST |
"Also I hardly think the US needs A-10s to go after narcos. If they need airpower for that, buying a few squadrons of Super Tucanos from Brazil would work just fine". The Narcos are better armed than I suspect you may imagine, e.g. some even have helos with MGs on/in them, and no doubt, they've probably got MANPADs too. The A-10s would be perfect to help deal with them, being heavily armored, and able to loiter and fly low and slow to identify the correct targets in high-threat environments. "I wonder if this the US Air Force trying to find a way to rid themselves of the A-10?". No need to wonder, the USAF's "Fighter Mafia" have been trying to "get rid" of the A-10 Warthog, and/or to kill the program, before it was even put into production. "The Zoomies" only like jets capable of supersonic flight. They don't like the "low and slow, ground-pounder mission" since it isn't sexy to them. |
| Legion 4 | 23 Jul 2022 6:13 p.m. PST |
I think the F-16s would be rather more useful, able to fulfil the SEAD & Strike roles I was talking about before… I was told by an F-16 pilot, everything the A-10 can do the F-16 can do as well. And in some cases, better. When you say SEADS air missions are you talking about the old Wild Weasel/Iron Hand mission ? The beauty of using FA for SEADS you don't have to risk more aircraft flying Iron Hand, etc., as well as strike missions. The downside is FA does not have the longer ranges generally. But HIMARS does … In the US Army priority targets were Russian/WP C3 & ADA. Take out the ADA frees up the local sky for CAS & Gunships. FA would be one of the primary weapons to call in on C3 & ADA. From a Grunt's or Tanker's POV on a tactical level. The A-10 is a close support aircraft. Not really designed for deep strikes. But as we saw in Iraq, they could loiter in a Kill Box, waiting for enemy targets. Plus today we have Drones for recon & strike ops too … |
| Zephyr1 | 23 Jul 2022 9:10 p.m. PST |
"I was told by an F-16 pilot, everything the A-10 can do the F-16 can do as well. And in some cases, better. " But can it get home after losing one engine…? 
(Just teasing… ;-)
|
| Legion 4 | 24 Jul 2022 9:35 a.m. PST |
But can it get home after losing one engine…? Well you will have to find an F-16 pilot and ask him/her !!! 😎 We only have C-130s at our local USAFR base. Was at a picnic there Friday !!! Them Air Force guy/gals now how to throw a picnic in a C-130 hanger !!! 🛫🛬 😁😎🤩 |
| wardog | 24 Jul 2022 12:34 p.m. PST |
legion 4
"But can it get home after losing one engine" i remember hearing years ago of one pilot that did it ,how far away the airfield was i dont remember
would USAF be giving them 30mm du rounds for that gun?
how good would standard rounds be against russian armor/equipment ? |
| Legion 4 | 24 Jul 2022 4:51 p.m. PST |
,how far away the airfield That is the rub … would USAF be giving them 30mm du rounds for that gun? Possibly … but I have not heard either way yet … would standard rounds be against russian armor/equipment ? Coming in from the top of an AFV, even with ERA, the ROF would most likely do the job. Plus the A-10 can carry other ordinance on wing racks … link |
| Thresher01 | 25 Jul 2022 8:03 a.m. PST |
"I was told by an F-16 pilot, everything the A-10 can do the F-16 can do as well. And in some cases, better". Yea, sure…………. Thanks for the belly laugh today. As some put it very nicely above, can the F-16 get the pilot home after a MANPAD hit takes out its engine, or rudder? I already know the answer to that. Also, the F-16 isn't really good low down in the weeds, flying in a high-threat environment, trying to visually identify enemy targets, AND isn't built to take 23mm gunfire and survive either. I also don't recall the F-16 having an armored bathtub in its cockpit in order to protect the pilot from enemy shells and shrapnel, either. |
| Legion 4 | 25 Jul 2022 10:23 a.m. PST |
You don't have to convince me ! The A-10 is a very good CAS aircraft. The F-16 is good for CAP and if need be CAS. As a former Grunt, I like a dedicated CAS aircraft with a big gun and loaded wing racks … And again, I don't think the Russian ADA is much better than the rest of the Russian Forces. I.e. marginal at best … I'm not just saying that. I'm repeating what a US ARMY 4 Star GEN(Ret.) said … |
| Tango01 | 25 Jul 2022 10:41 p.m. PST |
US-supplied long-range rocket systems disrupting Russia's advance in Ukraine link Armand |
| Druzhina | 26 Jul 2022 4:53 a.m. PST |
|
| Escapee | 26 Jul 2022 10:39 a.m. PST |
Yes, Legion, if you need em you need em. Dehydration can ruin your day. |
| Legion 4 | 26 Jul 2022 5:19 p.m. PST |
Dehydration can ruin your day. We were told the two most important things you must have in a combat situation is Ammo AND water … |
| Legion 4 | 27 Jul 2022 8:09 a.m. PST |
Ukraine does not want A-10s … they want CAP aircraft to take out bombers & missiles, they say. They don't have the CAP to cover the A-10s. They need CAP not CAS … link From the link :
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." That says it all … again they need CAP not CAS … |
| Tango01 | 27 Jul 2022 10:18 p.m. PST |
Ukraine Doesn't Want Old American A-10s. It Says It Needs 'Fast And Versatile' Aircraft
link
Armand
|
| Tgerritsen | 01 Aug 2022 3:16 p.m. PST |
I'm an A-10 fan boy, and my first professional job was as a designer on the A10 Tank Killer simulation (30 years ago). I got to interview a bunch of A10 pilots back then who had just come back from Iraq (the first Gulf War). I view the A-10 in modern war the way I view the P47 in its own era- a fantastic beast of a machine that was great in its time but obsolete over the modern battlefield. I am well aware of what the A-10C brings to the fight, but the A-10 is slow and designed for an anti aircraft environment that just doesn't exist any more. The A-10 is designed for survivability, but it's not impervious to damage. I asked pilots back then what they were most afraid of- and back then it was the ZSU-23, modern manpads and 'the emerging fast tracking SAMs Russia is working on'. Fast forward to today, and you have lots of ZSUs, Tunguskas (firing 30mm rounds- the much vaunted titanium bathtub is rated only against 23mm rounds), a hell of a lot of more modern manpads, Pantsirs and Tors. The A-10 is slow- slower than the P47 of WWII. A10 pilots told me then that the hot environment of the Gulf War made them even slower. The A10C has more modern systems (that they frankly should have had back in the Gulf War), but has no Radar, really underpowered engines and would be a sitting duck over a well defended battlefield. The A10s tactics helped make it survivable. Up until the Gulf War, this meant terrain masking- coming over the target and only exposing yourself for a short period- too short for the air defense systems of the time to track them. Modern systems track much faster, and modern systems can now track targets much better in the clutter. You have SA-300 and SA-400 which fire huge missiles with large warheads and can reach out and touch an A-10 at an enormous range- and if the A-10 pilot flies smart and does get in close, still has to deal with the aforementioned close range systems that are much better than the old systems that existed in the 80s. The A-10 is and was a beast for what it is, but so was the Stuka, until it wasn't. The Stuka is actually a great comparison example- a fantastic and terrifying dive bomber initially, with great morale bonuses for friendly soldiers, and revealed to be nearly defenseless against fighters in the Battle of Britain as it was too slow and too vulnerable. It spent the rest of the war in very limited roles (one as a tank buster). I love the A-10 and its amazing design, but I love it enough to let it go, as it is now a museum piece and will get pilots killed over a near peer adversary. Let it live on as a legendary warplane rather than a sour footnote because it stayed on past its prime. |
| Legion 4 | 01 Aug 2022 3:24 p.m. PST |
Well, you probably know better than anyone here … 👍👍 |
| Tango01 | 01 Aug 2022 10:21 p.m. PST |
|
| Tango01 | 10 Aug 2022 10:14 p.m. PST |
A-10 Warthog's Tusks Are Being Sharpened For A High-End Fight link
Armand
|
| Legion 4 | 11 Aug 2022 8:56 a.m. PST |
|
| Heedless Horseman | 11 Aug 2022 12:12 p.m. PST |
I would love to review the News Footage from one of the Gulf Wars… with what I 'think' was an A10 gun shooting the s**t out of a Glass Windowed High Rise building.
I cannot find it now.
Just hope it was not occupied by other than Iraqis. |
paints his favorite from 
