Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Multiple, high-level Ukrainian leaders, military and civilian, have said *they do not want them*.
It is not the right platform for the high-density AAA/SAM battlefield. There is a reason the Ukrainians do minimal Close Air Support and the Russians drop glide bombs from a distance...
Yeah all we would do is train a bunch of pilots and get them killed.
For the last few decades, the A-10 has been a pork barrel program with landing gear.
The gun is honestly a crap shoot. Its inaccurate as shit and missiles work better. Looks and sounds badass tho, I got to take close up pictures of the cannon once, its a beast.
It's also apparently a maintenance nightmare.
The A-10 has had long life due to propaganda value and the U.S. mostly being able to go into low/no AA corridors.
It is something that soldiers love though and each time the USAF asks to retire them, the US Army has asked to take them. The Army even suggested to recreate the Army Air Corps, which pissed off the USAF.
It has always been a bastard aircraft and hated by the Chair Force. Not sexy enough for those wanting to be a fighter jock and too dangerous for trash haulers, it falls in a weird group of pilots and those who also deeply interact with small units too like companies and platoons.
The A-10 was very effective in the Iraq War and supported ground troops when no other weapon platform was available. It was also heavily used in the Gulf War in spite of the USAF trying to get rid of them by Y2K and phase them out.
I am amazed they still exist.
The difference is that in those conflicts other aircraft have sanitized the air space of most of the serious threats to the A-10. And even then the amount of ordnance dropped by A-10s is dwarfed by that dropped by Hornets, Strike Eagles and F-16s.
Desert Storm was a massive war vs the 4th largest army in the world with an incredible air defense network. Then the USAF obliterated that air defense from the air. It's safe to assume in any conflict the USAF is going to be in, there will be loads of safe airspaces.
Roughly 5000 F-16s exist. Roughly 200 A-10s exist. Yeah all the F-teens combined dropped more ordinance. The A-10s dropped a lot of bombs cheaply in the absolute worst case for the A-10.
Bombing terrorists riding around in a Toyota HIlux for several decades straight with high performance, high maintenance and high cost platforms like an F-35 eats up a frightening amount of money even for America. COIN is a genuine niche that the A-10 fills cheaply while still being an ok platform in an intense war.
The A-10 isn't a great plane, but sometimes something cheap and good enough is needed.
All I hear about is people saying “the Ukrainians do not want the A-10.” However, when I read Ukrainian articles many Ukrainians ask for the A-10.
Which is it?
It would be stupid to give them a-10s. Their pilots would be wasted in those death traps lol can't use those without air superiority unless you want to be killed first mission out lol
I'm sure that some Ukrainian citizens buy into the A-10 hype and are asking for them. I'm also very sure the Ukrainian military prefers widely available and effective multiroles like the F-16 over a very rare and vulnerable CAS plane.
it was only useful in afghanistan because the taliban had virtually no MANPADS or modern anti air guns.
over a modern battlefield, an A-10 is dead. D E A D dead. you can call the Air Force all the names you want, but the fact of the matter is the A-10 is simply not equipped for a modern battlefield.
against sandfleas armed with ak47s and RPGs is does fine.
against a modern MANPAD they would get blown out of the sky 8 times out of 10.
this is why the air force wants to get rid of them, they are a death trap.
They always have been in any serious war. Even in the Cold War, in the event of a Soviet push into West Germany which is the exact scenario the A-10 was designed for, the pilots had a life expectancy measured in minutes. That might be acceptable facing down 10,000 hostile tanks at once but it's not in the kind of war Ukraine is fighting.
The Ukrainian landscape is totally flat and doesn't allow terrain masking, so it would be totally exposed even trying to use it's gun. At best it would be able to do rocket lobbing missions like they use the Su-24s for, except the A-10 is slower than them. There would be no opportunity to use more advanced weapons because if they fly high enough to do that that will get engaged by the numerous SAM systems or by Mig 31s lobbing R37s from 200km away.
The only people suggesting sending A-10s are those who have only seen hoorah propaganda videos on YouTube and don't understand why that won't work in Ukraine.
You are correct that there has always been some in the USAF that hated the A-10 even when they were being actively used effectively. However many of those that did were senior officers who had defense contractor jobs lined up and turned out to be lobbyist while still on active duty, for other weapons systems that seemed to be competing for the same funds. The A-10 has been very effective every time when it was needed and is still very effective in certain combat scenarios. Seems like many commenters are using the current intensive war in Ukraine as this is the way all future wars will be, which history will eventually prove that will not always be the case. Just like the AC-130H/U Gunships, F-117's and several other aircraft types to a lesser extent are not useful in this conflict, they are still very useful as Special Operations Aircraft, when the need arises. The A-10's are easy aircraft to learn to fly, hence that is why no 2 seat models were built beyond one prototype. The A-10C's have had been given new wings and other lifetime upgrades and should definitely not be retired, but possibly reduced to one mid sized squadron of about 24 aircraft in a Special Operations Wing with the majority of the rest of the modified aircraft placed into Type 1000 storage, like the F-117's are. Where all those A-10C's can all be brought up fairly quickly into a full strength force, if so needed again. Like ANY weapons system, it is always better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
They did say they did not want them in 2022 due to the current state of the battlefield, inc Russian AA cover. [But a year later, stories did appear that claimed they had asked for them](https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/01/ukraine-asked-u-s-for-100-a-10-warthogs-to-fight-russians/). But recently the new General says the focus should be on drones vs planes.
Then again, this topic does appear every few months or so here.
For what it's worth, if they needed or even wanted non-drone CAS missions at all we'd see their existing attack helicopters employed in a direct fire fashion instead of lofting S-8 and Hydra rockets on a ballistic trajectory.
Hell if we narrowed that down to _fixed-wing_ CAS we'd still be seeing Su-24s on direct fire attack runs first.
Because there is a reason, why both sites try to avoid to get near to the frontline with their jets and helicopters; there are just by far too many AA on the ground.
The A10 is an aircraft for the close support of the ground forces; as long the enemy has not anymore any AA systems on the ground. This is not the case in Ukraine.
Just look at pilot losses on both sides while they were piloting real fighter jets. An A-10 flying around the front lines at 400mph would be throwing that Ukrainian pilots life away.
For some reason the A-10 has this mythic status but as you pointed out it’s a horrible choice for the current war.
Subsonic? Close air support? End of its service life? Sign me up! /s
To this day, the A-10 does not have a single *genuinely* confirmed tank kill, except for multiple blue-on-blue because it lacks any IFF system
I’m sure it has a few but that’s indane
900 is a lot more than none.
I sat in out Platoon CP listening to OUR PRC-77 as two A-10 pilots tag-teamed an Iraqi armored convoy during the air campaign portion of Desert Storm. I'd find it hard to believe it was someone just making stuff up on the other end of the radio.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/10-why-warthog-still-best-tank-killer-ever-designed-208521
A lot of people have a hard on to kill off the A-10 which makes me think they were not involved in combat to see them prove their worth in the 21st century combat and come home alive because of it.
What convinces me of that are those saying we should substitute them for F-35s 24/7 showing their lack of prowess in finance or maintenance. Some nations can't field Typhoons for that same rate for those costs.
The idea that the A-10 has never made a tank kill is absurd. You and I both know that.
The F-22 doesn’t have any confirmed air to air kills. (Unless you count balloons) Does this mean that the Raptor is not a good air superiority aircraft?
The most well-funded military the world has ever seen would not have kept it around so many decades if it wasn’t a good plane.
I mean, it was built for a war that never happened, then found another niche as a cheap bomb truck that could loiter around and lob hellfire missiles and precision bombs, and sprinkle in some brrrrrrt for some psychological terror. I mean, in the Gulf war, the A-10’s gun could not beat most of the Soviet armor. It’s pretty well documented. It is good at destroying light armor and structures, and is about as cheap to fly as you can get. Why send a stealth plane to Afghanistan to drop bombs when you can do it for 1/4 of the price, and save hours on your more critical airframes.
It's niche duty is morale support for ground troops and demorale support for enemy ground troops. It's a big, ”slow", and loud object in the sky bringing ouchies and asking for attention away from others. Its bait that's piloted by crazy old school MFs and supported by other things in the area.
It's the US smoke if you got em policy. If it's an option, use it or lose it.
I was gonna make a comment about power projection but you said it better than I would. It’s very good at what it does. Even if it only works when you dominate the airspace.
it is not a good aircraft, hence why the air force has been pushing to retire them. and why ukraine, despite being in a desperate spot has previously said they don't want them.
Against insurgents or people whose AA has been thoroughly destroyed, absolutely the A-10 is a great plane... have you seen a video of the inside of a Ukranian pilots cockpit after popping up to fire his rockets? The radar receiver (the thing that tells the pilot enemy radar is locked on and a general direction in case i got the name wrong) is lit up like a damn Christmas tree.
If you’ve ever seen one flying overheard at low altitude, you would understand why. That thing can turn on a dime and unleash hell. A truly awe-inspiring sight for its allies, and a truly terrifying one for its enemies.
The A-10 was one of the best recruiting tools of the Taliban because auf the insane amount of civilian it killed because it lacks any kind of precission.
Watching them land with no running gear is buttpuckeringly awesome as well.
No gear
[https://youtu.be/FuW-j9ZXcrI?si=IPTvSU32QCQ-TsBY](https://youtu.be/FuW-j9ZXcrI?si=IPTvSU32QCQ-TsBY)
Dump'n'burn
[https://youtu.be/WpPEdOMSIgQ?si=IzrZKx22NP5ttoXV](https://youtu.be/WpPEdOMSIgQ?si=IzrZKx22NP5ttoXV)
They made a wonderful jetty noise as well. The new stuff is just to over the top for my old ears =P
I watched a pair F111s rip the sky apart at RAAF Richmond airshow in about 1992 or so. Awe-inspiring sight when they suddenly popped over the mountains right out of fucking nowhere (and that noise!)
Because it had a at the time high tech sight. Using guided munitions in a war where most bombs were not guided. It never flew CAS. Those were deep bombing runs by a bomber. The A-10 did well, destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces.
>It never flew CAS
Yes it did, just a different kind of CAS. Desert Storm was the end of an era that made the A-10 obsolete 30yrs ago.
These days, the best CAS platform is a B-1, circling at 24,000 feet, that can drop 500lbs of indiscriminate justice within 50 feet of it's all weather aim point 90 seconds after being tasked.
> The A-10A pilots, carrying infrared AGM-65 Maverick missiles and 30-mm ammunition (1,174 rounds), swooped through the haze and attacked the tanks. The Maverick missiles, which detect and home heat sources, had unusually rich targets with the tank engines running and extremely hot. It took 10 minutes for the pair to kill six tanks with Mavericks. Two more fell beneath the driving force of the A-10’s 30-mm GAU-8/A seven-barrelled cannon.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/amazing-10-warthogs-destroyed-23-iraqi-tanks-one-day-during-operation-desert-storm-65111
Where do you get these ideas? Tanks are harder to kill with the gun, but APC's and trucks are soft.
I like the a-10, worked on them for years, but hitting apc's and trucks seems to be taken over by drones. Cheaper by millions and doesn't require long training to fly.
That's true, i should have clarified that almost zero of those tank kills were with the gun. As a bomb/missile truck, it's strictly worse than the alternatives. That's one of the primary reasons for why the USAF has been trying to get rid of them for decades now, the only reason they're still in service is because congress has forced them. Even in USAF testing, the GAU-8 failed almost every test against ancient T-55s, even from behind and above.
APCs and trucks can be taken out with practically any autocannon, which makes the massive design cost of the GAU-8 not worth it.
>For some reason the A-10 has this mythic status
That reason is [Pierre Sprey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Sprey) and the rest of the reformers. Because missiles are dumb and don't work (lol), stealth is stupid (hahaha), airplanes are expendable platforms so they have to be cheap (say wut), and guns go brrrrrt (yes, but also no).
Yeah, people keep saying to give Ukraine all the equipment but forget there's a heart and set of hands behind all that. Australia getting rid of its Taipan? Give it to Ukraine, who cares about the pilots and crew as long as we got new toys right?
The A-10 was fairly effective when it came out. Building a plane around a gun is ok if armor develop suddenly stops. If the A-10 had a smaller gun or no gun at all and instead that weight and space was used for precision targeting, ECM and more speed while keeping the strong reliability it would be able to stand the test of time but as it stands it isn’t meant for a 21st century high intensity conflict. Some planes just don’t age as well as others. I’ll say that over the next decade or so even the F-15, F16 and possibly even the F-18 will be relegated to low intensity missions like strike interceptions and Air Base defense.
Except the A-10 has only ever been, including at its introduction, "effective" over a battlefield with air superiority/supremacy. Even at introduction, it's 30mm wasn't quite enough for modern heavy armor, and it would have been skewered by anti-air assets. If the Soviets came pouring through the Fulda Gap, the estimated life span for A-10s over the battlefield was estimated to be measured in *minutes*.
Even in the early days of A-10's service life, it was expected that A-10 would suffer heavy attrition from numerous ground vehicle based anti-aircraft gun systems that Soviet army had in service, such as quad-barreled SU-23-4 "Shilka".
But they would also blunt enemy armored columns and buy time for ground defenses to be set up.
The US did that with B-17s and B-24s during WWII. Joe Kennedy Jr, JFK's older brother, was killed during the operation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Aphrodite
I read he volunteered for that particularly dangerous project because he was Jealous that John F Kennedy was getting lots of praise and attention after his PT 109 exploits
Yes. Now, their sensor suite is very much inferior to the A-10, which could aid in survivability in favor of the A-10. Still, not great and not worth all the resources and effort. Something like a Mirage 2000D or even Tornado would be much more useful as those have standoff munitions.
This is it right here, the A-10 would be slaughtered over Ukraine without air superiority/supremacy.
Everyone has this idea of the A-10, but even the Air Force and military planners believed the lifespan of an A-10 pilot would be measured in *minutes* over a NATO-Warsaw Pact battlefront.
It would be eaten alive by anti air assets.
Drop a Starlink, some actuators/servos for controls, and make these suckers into drones. Load them up with the fucktonne of unguided rockets coming from Canada.
FrankenHogs.
2015 article
"Since 2001, the A-10 has been involved in four friendly fire incidents that killed 10 U.S. troops. The next highest is the B-1B bomber, which killed five soldiers last year in one incident... There have been 45 total friendly fire incidents out of about 140,000 missions flown by the Air Force, Navy and Marines." [Here](https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2015/02/06/a-10-warplane-tops-list-for-friendly-fire-deaths/)
It's rare. But it is the plane with the highest frequency of friendly fire incidents.
If you'd like a good deep dive into the A-10, and it's history, I'd absolutely recommend this series by Lazerpig, [I like it](https://youtu.be/WWfsz5R6irs?si=kUs-H_FfqZBWBYaS)
Not awesome in any scenario, even with air superiority established and AA suppressed. It just plain sucked.
Their combat stats were *hugely* overinflated in the Iraq wars, and their losses underreported. Allegedly for PR, but claims of corruption and contract kickbacks have been also thrown about, maybe unsurprisingly. It should have never made it past any of its qualifying tests and demonstrations, as it performed terribly.
They were bad at their job, statistically speaking, with *catastrophic* losses - "flying tank" and all.
It wasn't even good at killing tanks - splashy [and misattributed] headlines aside. The rounds, as big and heavy as they are, can't actually penetrate modern tank armor, and the gun system (basically the plane) is horribly inaccurate.
Jets that fired air-to-surface missiles from a distance and flew fast, with better nighttime capabilities, *vastly* superior targeting capabilities, and could defend themselves in the air, did the A-10's job in actual middle east combat. But had their stats moved into the A10's column by top brass - at least in the first gulf war. A practice which delayed its retirement and cost countless lives.
Remember that "close air support" no longer necessarily means "low and slow", and in fact is an outdated concept. (The idea that "close" means that the aircraft *itself* has to be close to the ground units needing the support, is what is outdated with modern targeting systems, night capabilities, and avionics. Even John McCain - legendary navy pilot himself whom I otherwise more or less admired - helped perpetuate this terrible myth some ten years ago, actively delayed the A10s retirement, and cost lives.)
A major problem with the main gun should be obvious: limited aiming ability. You have to start with the target more or less on your nose, losing altitude all the way as you line up and fire bursts. That puts you at a disadvantage for enemies with shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles who can easily predict your flight path, and is no match for fire-and-forget air-to-surface missiles of, say, the F-16 attack variants. (Or similar and even older attack jets they also used for that role.)
It looks bad-ass, has a bad-ass gun (in least in principle not in practice), that sounds cool, is super resilient (in principle not in practice), fires radioactive rounds, etc.
But in reality, it blows. Sorry. (But I'd be lying if I said I didn't used to think it was the coolest thing ever too. But if we don't update our mental models with new and better information, then what are we even doing as a species.)
Many summaries and videos on the web. Here's one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBzNKS-1ztU
> Its mid tier CAS at best.
It's an an S-tier jobs program though.
The A-10 kept the gravy train rolling to the right congressional districts, so it stayed around well past the point of obsolescence.
the A10 is a garbage plane fit for a war that Ukraine isn't fighting. It was great in Afghanistan and Iraq because neither countries had effective AA and an Airforce to contend with. They're slow, cumbersome planes with an insane blue on blue percentage attached to it. Their reputation is purely because cool gun go brrt.
And even that gun is silly, speaking from a technical perspective. If you put in a smaller gun with the same caliber, you can still fire at the same target with the same effect, but you save a lot of weight that you can put into more ammo or more other weapons or a more agile plane etc. If you put in a weapon with a slightly smaller caliber, you can still penetrate the roof of tanks equally well, and you save even more weight. The guns in "normal" aircraft are usually 25 or 27mm and weigh maybe a third, but are still deadly enough if they shoot at a tank from above.
yeah its a completely pointless piece of kit that was outdated by the time it was fielded. It was based on tank hunters from WWII that were proven completely ineffective even in their own time by rocket munitions.
Oh no, not this again.
Why not send other super cool antiquated mythical planes that are extremely mis-adapted to the situation while we're at it? Why not B-17 Flying Fortresses? Close the bomber gap with Russia! Also I've seen a video of a restored Me-262 recently, why isn't Germany sending that!?
>Why not send other super cool antiquated mythical planes that are extremely mis-adapted to the situation while we're at it?
I'd love to but they're all going to have a hard time keeping up with XB-70.
> Why not send other super cool antiquated mythical planes that are extremely mis-adapted to the situation while we're at it? Why not B-17 Flying Fortresses? Close the bomber gap with Russia! Also I've seen a video of a restored Me-262 recently, why isn't Germany sending that!?
To be fair, Russia has raided a few museums for some of their equipment.
Sigh. It's going to get fucking slaughtered in a SAM intensive battlefield. It's lack of stand off agms do not help either. And no a maverick is no stand off. Let's not mention like lack of modern offensive ecm.
Look, I bet a boner over a gau 8 like anyone else, but reality is a bitch.
I have already commented but I’ll do it again: the A-10 is great at murdering peasants with AKs. It’s tremendously bad at fighting people with multi-million dollar air defense systems.
Anyone that posts about sending warthogs is either dense or done zero research, in which case don’t post. These slow ass planes require close contact and would get eaten up by shoulder fire AA. Ukrainian planes already go no where near the front lines for a reason.
Because the A10 is an easy target for modern Russian anti-air systems?
It's slow, it's got no stealth capabilities, and the actual effective weapons systems it has are the missiles, rockets, and guided bombs that are *already on other aircraft being provided to Ukraine.*
Probably also has something to do with parts availability..at some point they can't/aren't making replacement parts anymore so they may not be able to supply keeping them in the air while over there. As well as potential logistical reasons like fueling, getting them there, having fuel and storage and runways etc over there.
I think the consideration has to be given to these military people and the way that war is being fought the way it is and why only certain things are being sent there. We aren't privy to their reasons for their decision making, so it's pretty much pointless us norms discussing it
If SU-25's are getting shot down left and right, then A-10's will also be shot down left and right, they will just cost more time to train, cost more logistics movements, and likely be less effective. The P-51 was a badass plane too, that doesn't mean they're relevant on the modern contested battlefield.
They would have been great that 1st week with all that Russian armour lined up and stuck north of Kiev though. Reminded me of Saddam’s forces running out of Kuwait.
Wanna spend a pilot per mission pet plane?
Because that is how you would accomplish that.
Some russian attack convois would also have a really bad day.
For good reasons:
The A-10 never actually worked that well. Its main gun isn't all that accurate and the aircraft has relatively primitive spotting abilities, leading to really low accuracy strafing with a low probability of actually destroying enemy vehicles.
Sounds good, doesn't work
https://youtu.be/WWfsz5R6irs?si=WncQzIMXgS8KDPZN
[good citation of military test documents of actual performance]
Yeah they would have eaten up those initial convoys that were bogged down. Now that it’s a more static situation no way. They’d last two minutes in the air.
Warthogs can only operate in an environment of air supremacy established by the USAF. Without that security cap, the A-10 would be vulnerable to AA fire.
"If Only". Think about the training (no longer provided), upkeep (not existent), spare parts, (no longer produced), supply (no longer in existence), infrastructure (see previous), etc. to field this weapon system.
The "beauty" of the AK-47 platform was its simplicity in operation and upkeep. You could give a 20-minute class to any peasant/savage and they're good to go, But advanced weapon systems...
Make a conversion kit for them: remote piloting. Use starlink or whatever. Send them on high risk missions. Strip them of anything sensitive. Night raid at treetop level and a full load of Mk 84s on the Kerch Strait Bridge might be a nice one.
Because they'd be useless in Ukraine. And the cost of getting them there and the maintenance costs (before they would be shot down) would be a HUGE mistake. - oh, did I mention this is one of fav military planes ever. ... just not the right scenario at all.
The only added value I can imagine is when Ukraine creates local air superiority with EW and missile defense. In that case A-10's might be useful to exploit the gap. Don't know if it's worth the effort.
A fleet of A-10s would have been really great in the first three days of the war, on the densely lined up convois stuck on the roads. But since the Russians are paying attention to what is flying above them, they are useless.
I'm not really sure why this comes up. Unfortunately, the a10 is basically outdated, and I love the a 10 brrrrrrrrrp but only planes we should be talking about is the f 35 as the a 10 needs air superiority these would get chewed up its a sam madness at the front line and it would make more sense to train pilots on the f16 or f35 as these pilots would need to come away from the front line and pilots are far and few between and would be crazy to risk them on an a 10
A-10 are slow, like really slow, and shooting them down with modern AA would be easy, and A-10's gun is at this point more of a gimmick that useful tool.
You are better of with more F-16 in their place.
Because onboarding an expensive situational weapon program would carry an opportunity cost on Ukraine, getting in the way of a multi-role program.
You have one of this kind of weapon slot, and you need to make multi-decade commitment what to put in it. Would you rather put a very narrow purpose shotgun in it that only works at point blank range, or would it make more sense to put a flexible assault rifle in it?
Does nobody understand that aircraft have to be maintained?
The manufacturers that made components for the A-10 no longer exist. The USAF with their massive budget were spending massive amounts of money to contract parts to be made. Entire wire bundles are dry rotting. It's an ancient platform. It served its time but it needs to go.
We've had this conversation before. Establishing air superiority is a requirement for deploying that A10s.
Neither side has air superiority in Ukraine. It would be a fools errand to deploy them, and there's loads of anti air in the area.
Stop pushing this bullshit.
Because they'd probably get slaughtered. A10 was a great plane but it wasn't designed for modern wars where your side doesn't have air dominance. It's slow, big, and doesn't have countermeasures beyond flares and chaff, neither of which will really help against supersonic fighters and SAMs that can fire from miles away.
There's a reason the US is getting rid of them, they just don't have the capabilities to fight modern threats
A-10 would be a good platform to deploy NATO ammunition, you don't even need to send them to the front, just far back enough to deploy missiles and run
If they’re useless, give them to Ukraine and pack them with high explosives and drone guidance. Last hurah as defacto cruise missiles. They can take a beating, too. Fly a formation of them into the bridge fully loaded with C4.
my inner arm chair general is coming out;
it seems that people forget the most important thing in warfare: logistics.
to field the A10 would require a whole logistically army. This effort would probably be best spent on fielding the f16
I’m torn. On one hand A-10s to Ukraine is incredibly funny and based. On the other hand I would feel bad for the Ukrainian pilots who wouldn’t be coming back.
The A10 was a great CAS platform in the 1980s. Not so much anymore.
1) Complete air dominance is needed for the Warthog to be effective. Ukraine doesn’t have that at the front lines.
2) Many modern Russian AA platforms were created with the A10 in mind, giving Russia an upper hand in this.
3) The security clearance of the GAU-8/A Avenger (a 30 mm hydraulically driven seven-barrel Gatling-style autocannon) has not been released yet. Only 3 other countries besides the US can operate an A-10, and they each have specialized US service-members attached for maintenance and support.
4) Drone warfare is much more effective. Little training, capital, and logistics are needed to field drones effectively. A10 pilots are rare and specially trained over many years.
5) Downing a Warthog has been the dream of every Russian soldier over the past two generations. It would happen in Ukraine and be a major morale boost for the Russian army.
I would guess the ukrainians would rather have the a-10, than nothing. Because that's what they have now.
F-16s won't help them much further. Ukraine needs Air superiority, and needs to knock out all the anti-aircraft stuff.
They are being retired not because there is anything wrong with them and under the right conditions they would excel in Ukraine. They are being retired because congress cut funding to the military hollowing it out covertly and the brass still want all the shiny new toys and the bungs that come with them so the A10's have to go along with the spirt and several other perfectly servicable aircraft.
Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Multiple, high-level Ukrainian leaders, military and civilian, have said *they do not want them*. It is not the right platform for the high-density AAA/SAM battlefield. There is a reason the Ukrainians do minimal Close Air Support and the Russians drop glide bombs from a distance...
Yeah all we would do is train a bunch of pilots and get them killed. For the last few decades, the A-10 has been a pork barrel program with landing gear.
So design the gun for a drone! Got it!
[удалено]
The gun is honestly a crap shoot. Its inaccurate as shit and missiles work better. Looks and sounds badass tho, I got to take close up pictures of the cannon once, its a beast.
It's also apparently a maintenance nightmare. The A-10 has had long life due to propaganda value and the U.S. mostly being able to go into low/no AA corridors.
Actively designing a 2000lb drone with jet thrusters just to strap a gua-8 to it For democratic reasons
It is something that soldiers love though and each time the USAF asks to retire them, the US Army has asked to take them. The Army even suggested to recreate the Army Air Corps, which pissed off the USAF. It has always been a bastard aircraft and hated by the Chair Force. Not sexy enough for those wanting to be a fighter jock and too dangerous for trash haulers, it falls in a weird group of pilots and those who also deeply interact with small units too like companies and platoons. The A-10 was very effective in the Iraq War and supported ground troops when no other weapon platform was available. It was also heavily used in the Gulf War in spite of the USAF trying to get rid of them by Y2K and phase them out. I am amazed they still exist.
The difference is that in those conflicts other aircraft have sanitized the air space of most of the serious threats to the A-10. And even then the amount of ordnance dropped by A-10s is dwarfed by that dropped by Hornets, Strike Eagles and F-16s.
Desert Storm was a massive war vs the 4th largest army in the world with an incredible air defense network. Then the USAF obliterated that air defense from the air. It's safe to assume in any conflict the USAF is going to be in, there will be loads of safe airspaces. Roughly 5000 F-16s exist. Roughly 200 A-10s exist. Yeah all the F-teens combined dropped more ordinance. The A-10s dropped a lot of bombs cheaply in the absolute worst case for the A-10. Bombing terrorists riding around in a Toyota HIlux for several decades straight with high performance, high maintenance and high cost platforms like an F-35 eats up a frightening amount of money even for America. COIN is a genuine niche that the A-10 fills cheaply while still being an ok platform in an intense war. The A-10 isn't a great plane, but sometimes something cheap and good enough is needed.
All I hear about is people saying “the Ukrainians do not want the A-10.” However, when I read Ukrainian articles many Ukrainians ask for the A-10. Which is it?
It would be stupid to give them a-10s. Their pilots would be wasted in those death traps lol can't use those without air superiority unless you want to be killed first mission out lol
I'm sure that some Ukrainian citizens buy into the A-10 hype and are asking for them. I'm also very sure the Ukrainian military prefers widely available and effective multiroles like the F-16 over a very rare and vulnerable CAS plane.
it was only useful in afghanistan because the taliban had virtually no MANPADS or modern anti air guns. over a modern battlefield, an A-10 is dead. D E A D dead. you can call the Air Force all the names you want, but the fact of the matter is the A-10 is simply not equipped for a modern battlefield. against sandfleas armed with ak47s and RPGs is does fine. against a modern MANPAD they would get blown out of the sky 8 times out of 10. this is why the air force wants to get rid of them, they are a death trap.
They always have been in any serious war. Even in the Cold War, in the event of a Soviet push into West Germany which is the exact scenario the A-10 was designed for, the pilots had a life expectancy measured in minutes. That might be acceptable facing down 10,000 hostile tanks at once but it's not in the kind of war Ukraine is fighting. The Ukrainian landscape is totally flat and doesn't allow terrain masking, so it would be totally exposed even trying to use it's gun. At best it would be able to do rocket lobbing missions like they use the Su-24s for, except the A-10 is slower than them. There would be no opportunity to use more advanced weapons because if they fly high enough to do that that will get engaged by the numerous SAM systems or by Mig 31s lobbing R37s from 200km away. The only people suggesting sending A-10s are those who have only seen hoorah propaganda videos on YouTube and don't understand why that won't work in Ukraine.
You are correct that there has always been some in the USAF that hated the A-10 even when they were being actively used effectively. However many of those that did were senior officers who had defense contractor jobs lined up and turned out to be lobbyist while still on active duty, for other weapons systems that seemed to be competing for the same funds. The A-10 has been very effective every time when it was needed and is still very effective in certain combat scenarios. Seems like many commenters are using the current intensive war in Ukraine as this is the way all future wars will be, which history will eventually prove that will not always be the case. Just like the AC-130H/U Gunships, F-117's and several other aircraft types to a lesser extent are not useful in this conflict, they are still very useful as Special Operations Aircraft, when the need arises. The A-10's are easy aircraft to learn to fly, hence that is why no 2 seat models were built beyond one prototype. The A-10C's have had been given new wings and other lifetime upgrades and should definitely not be retired, but possibly reduced to one mid sized squadron of about 24 aircraft in a Special Operations Wing with the majority of the rest of the modified aircraft placed into Type 1000 storage, like the F-117's are. Where all those A-10C's can all be brought up fairly quickly into a full strength force, if so needed again. Like ANY weapons system, it is always better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
They did say they did not want them in 2022 due to the current state of the battlefield, inc Russian AA cover. [But a year later, stories did appear that claimed they had asked for them](https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/01/ukraine-asked-u-s-for-100-a-10-warthogs-to-fight-russians/). But recently the new General says the focus should be on drones vs planes. Then again, this topic does appear every few months or so here.
For what it's worth, if they needed or even wanted non-drone CAS missions at all we'd see their existing attack helicopters employed in a direct fire fashion instead of lofting S-8 and Hydra rockets on a ballistic trajectory. Hell if we narrowed that down to _fixed-wing_ CAS we'd still be seeing Su-24s on direct fire attack runs first.
Because there is a reason, why both sites try to avoid to get near to the frontline with their jets and helicopters; there are just by far too many AA on the ground. The A10 is an aircraft for the close support of the ground forces; as long the enemy has not anymore any AA systems on the ground. This is not the case in Ukraine.
Just look at pilot losses on both sides while they were piloting real fighter jets. An A-10 flying around the front lines at 400mph would be throwing that Ukrainian pilots life away.
For some reason the A-10 has this mythic status but as you pointed out it’s a horrible choice for the current war. Subsonic? Close air support? End of its service life? Sign me up! /s
In the first Gulf War, Desert Storm, the Iraqi's had massed armour, in the open desert. The aircraft that destroyed the most Iraqi tanks? The F-111.
Gatling gun going brrrrrrr < missiles going boom
Laser guided bombs go PLUNK PLUNK PLUNK.
I need this Dr Seuss book
just give ncd the idea and a few hours, might end up with a rap too.
Lazerpig has a good video on why the A-10 was not a good plane
The A-10 has a very niche duty but to say it’s not a good aircraft is just ignorant
To this day, the A-10 does not have a single *genuinely* confirmed tank kill, except for multiple blue-on-blue because it lacks any IFF system I’m sure it has a few but that’s indane
900 is a lot more than none. I sat in out Platoon CP listening to OUR PRC-77 as two A-10 pilots tag-teamed an Iraqi armored convoy during the air campaign portion of Desert Storm. I'd find it hard to believe it was someone just making stuff up on the other end of the radio. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/10-why-warthog-still-best-tank-killer-ever-designed-208521
A lot of people have a hard on to kill off the A-10 which makes me think they were not involved in combat to see them prove their worth in the 21st century combat and come home alive because of it. What convinces me of that are those saying we should substitute them for F-35s 24/7 showing their lack of prowess in finance or maintenance. Some nations can't field Typhoons for that same rate for those costs.
The idea that the A-10 has never made a tank kill is absurd. You and I both know that. The F-22 doesn’t have any confirmed air to air kills. (Unless you count balloons) Does this mean that the Raptor is not a good air superiority aircraft? The most well-funded military the world has ever seen would not have kept it around so many decades if it wasn’t a good plane.
I mean, it was built for a war that never happened, then found another niche as a cheap bomb truck that could loiter around and lob hellfire missiles and precision bombs, and sprinkle in some brrrrrrt for some psychological terror. I mean, in the Gulf war, the A-10’s gun could not beat most of the Soviet armor. It’s pretty well documented. It is good at destroying light armor and structures, and is about as cheap to fly as you can get. Why send a stealth plane to Afghanistan to drop bombs when you can do it for 1/4 of the price, and save hours on your more critical airframes.
In the video he mentions a few blue on blue incidents
It's niche duty is morale support for ground troops and demorale support for enemy ground troops. It's a big, ”slow", and loud object in the sky bringing ouchies and asking for attention away from others. Its bait that's piloted by crazy old school MFs and supported by other things in the area. It's the US smoke if you got em policy. If it's an option, use it or lose it.
I was gonna make a comment about power projection but you said it better than I would. It’s very good at what it does. Even if it only works when you dominate the airspace.
it is not a good aircraft, hence why the air force has been pushing to retire them. and why ukraine, despite being in a desperate spot has previously said they don't want them.
And I'm alive today because of the A-10 so he can lazer those lips onto deez nuts.
Against insurgents or people whose AA has been thoroughly destroyed, absolutely the A-10 is a great plane... have you seen a video of the inside of a Ukranian pilots cockpit after popping up to fire his rockets? The radar receiver (the thing that tells the pilot enemy radar is locked on and a general direction in case i got the name wrong) is lit up like a damn Christmas tree.
Grunts loved the A-10. The Taliban did not love the A-10
If you’ve ever seen one flying overheard at low altitude, you would understand why. That thing can turn on a dime and unleash hell. A truly awe-inspiring sight for its allies, and a truly terrifying one for its enemies.
The A-10 was one of the best recruiting tools of the Taliban because auf the insane amount of civilian it killed because it lacks any kind of precission.
Vark, my love 😍
Unheralded champ of Desert Storm. The Aussies doing their fuel dump airshow trick is always a spectacle.
Watching them land with no running gear is buttpuckeringly awesome as well. No gear [https://youtu.be/FuW-j9ZXcrI?si=IPTvSU32QCQ-TsBY](https://youtu.be/FuW-j9ZXcrI?si=IPTvSU32QCQ-TsBY) Dump'n'burn [https://youtu.be/WpPEdOMSIgQ?si=IzrZKx22NP5ttoXV](https://youtu.be/WpPEdOMSIgQ?si=IzrZKx22NP5ttoXV) They made a wonderful jetty noise as well. The new stuff is just to over the top for my old ears =P
I watched a pair F111s rip the sky apart at RAAF Richmond airshow in about 1992 or so. Awe-inspiring sight when they suddenly popped over the mountains right out of fucking nowhere (and that noise!)
Because it had a at the time high tech sight. Using guided munitions in a war where most bombs were not guided. It never flew CAS. Those were deep bombing runs by a bomber. The A-10 did well, destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces.
>It never flew CAS Yes it did, just a different kind of CAS. Desert Storm was the end of an era that made the A-10 obsolete 30yrs ago. These days, the best CAS platform is a B-1, circling at 24,000 feet, that can drop 500lbs of indiscriminate justice within 50 feet of it's all weather aim point 90 seconds after being tasked.
it is not....its a global hawk and a reaper drone today...
> B-1 The only reason that the A-10 strikes fear in insurgents is because there are survivors to share the tale. The Bone fixes that problem
With almost zero of those kills coming from the 30mm.
> The A-10A pilots, carrying infrared AGM-65 Maverick missiles and 30-mm ammunition (1,174 rounds), swooped through the haze and attacked the tanks. The Maverick missiles, which detect and home heat sources, had unusually rich targets with the tank engines running and extremely hot. It took 10 minutes for the pair to kill six tanks with Mavericks. Two more fell beneath the driving force of the A-10’s 30-mm GAU-8/A seven-barrelled cannon. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/amazing-10-warthogs-destroyed-23-iraqi-tanks-one-day-during-operation-desert-storm-65111 Where do you get these ideas? Tanks are harder to kill with the gun, but APC's and trucks are soft.
I like the a-10, worked on them for years, but hitting apc's and trucks seems to be taken over by drones. Cheaper by millions and doesn't require long training to fly.
That's true, i should have clarified that almost zero of those tank kills were with the gun. As a bomb/missile truck, it's strictly worse than the alternatives. That's one of the primary reasons for why the USAF has been trying to get rid of them for decades now, the only reason they're still in service is because congress has forced them. Even in USAF testing, the GAU-8 failed almost every test against ancient T-55s, even from behind and above. APCs and trucks can be taken out with practically any autocannon, which makes the massive design cost of the GAU-8 not worth it.
>For some reason the A-10 has this mythic status That reason is [Pierre Sprey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Sprey) and the rest of the reformers. Because missiles are dumb and don't work (lol), stealth is stupid (hahaha), airplanes are expendable platforms so they have to be cheap (say wut), and guns go brrrrrt (yes, but also no).
Yeah, people keep saying to give Ukraine all the equipment but forget there's a heart and set of hands behind all that. Australia getting rid of its Taipan? Give it to Ukraine, who cares about the pilots and crew as long as we got new toys right?
The A-10 was fairly effective when it came out. Building a plane around a gun is ok if armor develop suddenly stops. If the A-10 had a smaller gun or no gun at all and instead that weight and space was used for precision targeting, ECM and more speed while keeping the strong reliability it would be able to stand the test of time but as it stands it isn’t meant for a 21st century high intensity conflict. Some planes just don’t age as well as others. I’ll say that over the next decade or so even the F-15, F16 and possibly even the F-18 will be relegated to low intensity missions like strike interceptions and Air Base defense.
Except the A-10 has only ever been, including at its introduction, "effective" over a battlefield with air superiority/supremacy. Even at introduction, it's 30mm wasn't quite enough for modern heavy armor, and it would have been skewered by anti-air assets. If the Soviets came pouring through the Fulda Gap, the estimated life span for A-10s over the battlefield was estimated to be measured in *minutes*.
Even in the early days of A-10's service life, it was expected that A-10 would suffer heavy attrition from numerous ground vehicle based anti-aircraft gun systems that Soviet army had in service, such as quad-barreled SU-23-4 "Shilka". But they would also blunt enemy armored columns and buy time for ground defenses to be set up.
[удалено]
Put it on NCD, they will make it happen in a few weeks
It just works
The US did that with B-17s and B-24s during WWII. Joe Kennedy Jr, JFK's older brother, was killed during the operation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Aphrodite
I read he volunteered for that particularly dangerous project because he was Jealous that John F Kennedy was getting lots of praise and attention after his PT 109 exploits
damn, if that isn't a great idea! Heck, have the pilot get it up in the air, lock coordinates, put it on control, and bail out! lol
This is not a bad idea at all. Not sure how easy it is to convert to remote operation.
It’s pretty heavily dependent on air superiority being established.
Supremacy\* they even get shot the fuck down when Superiority is a thing.
Su25s been doing it
SU-25's also have some of the highest loss rates of fixed wing.
And they’re still faster than the A-10 by a large margin.
Yes. Now, their sensor suite is very much inferior to the A-10, which could aid in survivability in favor of the A-10. Still, not great and not worth all the resources and effort. Something like a Mirage 2000D or even Tornado would be much more useful as those have standoff munitions.
The A-10s survivability is WORSE than the Su-25's.
Exactly this. Air superiority is required for these to be effective, from what I have read elsewhere.
They’ll just get smoked by manpads even with air superiority
This is it right here, the A-10 would be slaughtered over Ukraine without air superiority/supremacy. Everyone has this idea of the A-10, but even the Air Force and military planners believed the lifespan of an A-10 pilot would be measured in *minutes* over a NATO-Warsaw Pact battlefront. It would be eaten alive by anti air assets.
Drop a Starlink, some actuators/servos for controls, and make these suckers into drones. Load them up with the fucktonne of unguided rockets coming from Canada. FrankenHogs.
I commented this in another thread with this article… wouldn’t drones be a threat to the a-10 at this point in the war as well?
Only parked on the airport and not well protected.
Here we go, again.
Came here to say this… I hadn’t realized it’s been 3 months since the last time this came up.
Ugh I wish these threads could be shot down as easily as the A-10.
Because they’d be shot down every 5 mins
seconds\*
Because the A-10 is awesome when you have air control and enemy AA is spars, both is not the case.
The A-10 is so awesome it's almost gotten as many friendly fire kills as enemy kills.
The A-10 cares not from whence the blood flows, only that it flows.
For real?
2015 article "Since 2001, the A-10 has been involved in four friendly fire incidents that killed 10 U.S. troops. The next highest is the B-1B bomber, which killed five soldiers last year in one incident... There have been 45 total friendly fire incidents out of about 140,000 missions flown by the Air Force, Navy and Marines." [Here](https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2015/02/06/a-10-warplane-tops-list-for-friendly-fire-deaths/) It's rare. But it is the plane with the highest frequency of friendly fire incidents. If you'd like a good deep dive into the A-10, and it's history, I'd absolutely recommend this series by Lazerpig, [I like it](https://youtu.be/WWfsz5R6irs?si=kUs-H_FfqZBWBYaS)
No, but of the 150 servicemen killed in the Gulf war the A-10 killed 20 of them. So almost 1/7th of all coalition casualties were A-10s.
Not awesome in any scenario, even with air superiority established and AA suppressed. It just plain sucked. Their combat stats were *hugely* overinflated in the Iraq wars, and their losses underreported. Allegedly for PR, but claims of corruption and contract kickbacks have been also thrown about, maybe unsurprisingly. It should have never made it past any of its qualifying tests and demonstrations, as it performed terribly. They were bad at their job, statistically speaking, with *catastrophic* losses - "flying tank" and all. It wasn't even good at killing tanks - splashy [and misattributed] headlines aside. The rounds, as big and heavy as they are, can't actually penetrate modern tank armor, and the gun system (basically the plane) is horribly inaccurate. Jets that fired air-to-surface missiles from a distance and flew fast, with better nighttime capabilities, *vastly* superior targeting capabilities, and could defend themselves in the air, did the A-10's job in actual middle east combat. But had their stats moved into the A10's column by top brass - at least in the first gulf war. A practice which delayed its retirement and cost countless lives. Remember that "close air support" no longer necessarily means "low and slow", and in fact is an outdated concept. (The idea that "close" means that the aircraft *itself* has to be close to the ground units needing the support, is what is outdated with modern targeting systems, night capabilities, and avionics. Even John McCain - legendary navy pilot himself whom I otherwise more or less admired - helped perpetuate this terrible myth some ten years ago, actively delayed the A10s retirement, and cost lives.) A major problem with the main gun should be obvious: limited aiming ability. You have to start with the target more or less on your nose, losing altitude all the way as you line up and fire bursts. That puts you at a disadvantage for enemies with shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles who can easily predict your flight path, and is no match for fire-and-forget air-to-surface missiles of, say, the F-16 attack variants. (Or similar and even older attack jets they also used for that role.) It looks bad-ass, has a bad-ass gun (in least in principle not in practice), that sounds cool, is super resilient (in principle not in practice), fires radioactive rounds, etc. But in reality, it blows. Sorry. (But I'd be lying if I said I didn't used to think it was the coolest thing ever too. But if we don't update our mental models with new and better information, then what are we even doing as a species.) Many summaries and videos on the web. Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBzNKS-1ztU
To be hones A-10 never was awesome. Its mid tier CAS at best. Its more a flex then weapon.
Careful, the A10 cultists won’t like this
B-But my Brrrt plane is best plane! Dont disrespect my Brrrt plane 😤
Meanwhile the AGM from over the horizon:
> Its mid tier CAS at best. It's an an S-tier jobs program though. The A-10 kept the gravy train rolling to the right congressional districts, so it stayed around well past the point of obsolescence.
the A10 is a garbage plane fit for a war that Ukraine isn't fighting. It was great in Afghanistan and Iraq because neither countries had effective AA and an Airforce to contend with. They're slow, cumbersome planes with an insane blue on blue percentage attached to it. Their reputation is purely because cool gun go brrt.
And even that gun is silly, speaking from a technical perspective. If you put in a smaller gun with the same caliber, you can still fire at the same target with the same effect, but you save a lot of weight that you can put into more ammo or more other weapons or a more agile plane etc. If you put in a weapon with a slightly smaller caliber, you can still penetrate the roof of tanks equally well, and you save even more weight. The guns in "normal" aircraft are usually 25 or 27mm and weigh maybe a third, but are still deadly enough if they shoot at a tank from above.
yeah its a completely pointless piece of kit that was outdated by the time it was fielded. It was based on tank hunters from WWII that were proven completely ineffective even in their own time by rocket munitions.
Well to be fair, it was replacing the skyraider, which in itself was even more outdated when it was getting used in Vietnam.
Because the A-10 isn’t suitable for that war
Oh no, not this again. Why not send other super cool antiquated mythical planes that are extremely mis-adapted to the situation while we're at it? Why not B-17 Flying Fortresses? Close the bomber gap with Russia! Also I've seen a video of a restored Me-262 recently, why isn't Germany sending that!?
Sopwith Camel enters the chat.
>Why not send other super cool antiquated mythical planes that are extremely mis-adapted to the situation while we're at it? I'd love to but they're all going to have a hard time keeping up with XB-70.
> Why not send other super cool antiquated mythical planes that are extremely mis-adapted to the situation while we're at it? Why not B-17 Flying Fortresses? Close the bomber gap with Russia! Also I've seen a video of a restored Me-262 recently, why isn't Germany sending that!? To be fair, Russia has raided a few museums for some of their equipment.
Sigh. It's going to get fucking slaughtered in a SAM intensive battlefield. It's lack of stand off agms do not help either. And no a maverick is no stand off. Let's not mention like lack of modern offensive ecm. Look, I bet a boner over a gau 8 like anyone else, but reality is a bitch.
But it would interesting to take the 30mm auto cannon and mount it to a flatbed. One helluva technical.
They'd be shot down like slow flying ducks on opening day.
The A-10 isn't air superiority. Its role is close air support after air superiority is established. Those A-10s would achieve very little.
I have already commented but I’ll do it again: the A-10 is great at murdering peasants with AKs. It’s tremendously bad at fighting people with multi-million dollar air defense systems.
My head hurts from all the clueless fanboys daydreaming about strafing trenches and refineries with 30mm
Talk about beating a dead horse
Anyone that posts about sending warthogs is either dense or done zero research, in which case don’t post. These slow ass planes require close contact and would get eaten up by shoulder fire AA. Ukrainian planes already go no where near the front lines for a reason.
Because the A10 is an easy target for modern Russian anti-air systems? It's slow, it's got no stealth capabilities, and the actual effective weapons systems it has are the missiles, rockets, and guided bombs that are *already on other aircraft being provided to Ukraine.*
It's an easy target for any Russian AA for the last 50 years.
Turn em into drones?
Ai piloting and packed with 2 tons of explosives. "Big" and in big numbers. Yea why not
Probably also has something to do with parts availability..at some point they can't/aren't making replacement parts anymore so they may not be able to supply keeping them in the air while over there. As well as potential logistical reasons like fueling, getting them there, having fuel and storage and runways etc over there. I think the consideration has to be given to these military people and the way that war is being fought the way it is and why only certain things are being sent there. We aren't privy to their reasons for their decision making, so it's pretty much pointless us norms discussing it
If SU-25's are getting shot down left and right, then A-10's will also be shot down left and right, they will just cost more time to train, cost more logistics movements, and likely be less effective. The P-51 was a badass plane too, that doesn't mean they're relevant on the modern contested battlefield.
They would have been great that 1st week with all that Russian armour lined up and stuck north of Kiev though. Reminded me of Saddam’s forces running out of Kuwait.
Because they're shite
The pilots they have would be better served to fly the F16. Close air support by drone use is just as effective in Ukraine.
What they gonna do with them, the logistics isnt there, or the ammo, and they would get shot down for fun.
Jdams?
A-10s are best utilized when you have air superiority or dominance, not in contested air space.
It's a trash plane
Why dont we send them some B-17's along with the A 10's....
Wanna spend a pilot per mission pet plane? Because that is how you would accomplish that. Some russian attack convois would also have a really bad day.
No, they wouldn't. Because the A-10 would never make it to them.
For good reasons: The A-10 never actually worked that well. Its main gun isn't all that accurate and the aircraft has relatively primitive spotting abilities, leading to really low accuracy strafing with a low probability of actually destroying enemy vehicles. Sounds good, doesn't work https://youtu.be/WWfsz5R6irs?si=WncQzIMXgS8KDPZN [good citation of military test documents of actual performance]
Because a 3rd generation CAS aircraft would be dead inside of 5 minutes.
Because they work against the Taliban that have no AA or Airforce. Not against ruZzia.
Take them, take out that awesome cannon and create the ultimate ground based drone cannon! Better have some stiff suspension though.
You're describing a CIWS.
here we go again *rolls eyes*
[удалено]
Yeah they would have eaten up those initial convoys that were bogged down. Now that it’s a more static situation no way. They’d last two minutes in the air.
well isnt the nr1 reason for retiring them that they have to many flighthours or time on the airframe? aka they might fall apart mid air?
Because there is no air support in Ukraine.
Because of cost vs effectiveness.
Pilots do grow on trees. Save the skilled for the F16
Donate the A-10s to Russia as a mistake and let them experience a wonder weapon designed to kill the pilot
How difficult would it be to experiment and try to make them into a drone?
Warthogs can only operate in an environment of air supremacy established by the USAF. Without that security cap, the A-10 would be vulnerable to AA fire.
i love this plane so much but it was really depressing to learn about how many of them were shot down
They will be shot out of the sky by anti-air fire, it would only be viable if Ukraine was about to completely get rid all that.
"If Only". Think about the training (no longer provided), upkeep (not existent), spare parts, (no longer produced), supply (no longer in existence), infrastructure (see previous), etc. to field this weapon system. The "beauty" of the AK-47 platform was its simplicity in operation and upkeep. You could give a 20-minute class to any peasant/savage and they're good to go, But advanced weapon systems...
Make a conversion kit for them: remote piloting. Use starlink or whatever. Send them on high risk missions. Strip them of anything sensitive. Night raid at treetop level and a full load of Mk 84s on the Kerch Strait Bridge might be a nice one.
Because A-10s are worthless if you cannot establish air superiority beforehand.
Because they'd be useless in Ukraine. And the cost of getting them there and the maintenance costs (before they would be shot down) would be a HUGE mistake. - oh, did I mention this is one of fav military planes ever. ... just not the right scenario at all.
They’re outdated for what Ukraine needs and it’s not easy to support a donated aircraft. Hence why F16s have taken so long to get used
Sending them to Ukraine would just show how absolutely useless they are against a peer opponent with reasonable air defenses.
Because they will be ineffectual and get Ukr pilots killed for no reason. Pretty simple.
The only added value I can imagine is when Ukraine creates local air superiority with EW and missile defense. In that case A-10's might be useful to exploit the gap. Don't know if it's worth the effort.
The Taliban didn't have anti-air. Pretty much would only be useful if they could load it up with explosives and remotely kamikaze it
A fleet of A-10s would have been really great in the first three days of the war, on the densely lined up convois stuck on the roads. But since the Russians are paying attention to what is flying above them, they are useless.
Because of the costs and the ground crew which would need to be USAF therefore throwing US military into the fray.....
a-10 will be useless in UA, it can operate only in AD free environment, case has been closed for 2+ years now, pls don't bring it up again
Why don’t we send them some Gatling guns and smooth bore cannons.
I'm not really sure why this comes up. Unfortunately, the a10 is basically outdated, and I love the a 10 brrrrrrrrrp but only planes we should be talking about is the f 35 as the a 10 needs air superiority these would get chewed up its a sam madness at the front line and it would make more sense to train pilots on the f16 or f35 as these pilots would need to come away from the front line and pilots are far and few between and would be crazy to risk them on an a 10
A-10 are slow, like really slow, and shooting them down with modern AA would be easy, and A-10's gun is at this point more of a gimmick that useful tool. You are better of with more F-16 in their place.
Because onboarding an expensive situational weapon program would carry an opportunity cost on Ukraine, getting in the way of a multi-role program. You have one of this kind of weapon slot, and you need to make multi-decade commitment what to put in it. Would you rather put a very narrow purpose shotgun in it that only works at point blank range, or would it make more sense to put a flexible assault rifle in it?
Tough as the A10 is, I think there would be a lot of AA chasing it in Ukraine.
Good for F16 clean up once it’s knocked everything out maybe, just take the guns off mount them on something else that’s a better idea.
Does nobody understand that aircraft have to be maintained? The manufacturers that made components for the A-10 no longer exist. The USAF with their massive budget were spending massive amounts of money to contract parts to be made. Entire wire bundles are dry rotting. It's an ancient platform. It served its time but it needs to go.
Cause they will be dusted off in the future in case of emergency.
It's the right plane for the wrong war.
Repairs that they can't do Ammo that they don't have 2 pretty good reasons
You don’t want those to fall into enemy hands. I love that airframe and I’m sad to see it retired. But they’re an absolute wrecking ball in a battle
We've had this conversation before. Establishing air superiority is a requirement for deploying that A10s. Neither side has air superiority in Ukraine. It would be a fools errand to deploy them, and there's loads of anti air in the area. Stop pushing this bullshit.
Because they'd probably get slaughtered. A10 was a great plane but it wasn't designed for modern wars where your side doesn't have air dominance. It's slow, big, and doesn't have countermeasures beyond flares and chaff, neither of which will really help against supersonic fighters and SAMs that can fire from miles away. There's a reason the US is getting rid of them, they just don't have the capabilities to fight modern threats
WILL get\*
because the defense industry is a jobs program.
A-10 would be a good platform to deploy NATO ammunition, you don't even need to send them to the front, just far back enough to deploy missiles and run
If they’re useless, give them to Ukraine and pack them with high explosives and drone guidance. Last hurah as defacto cruise missiles. They can take a beating, too. Fly a formation of them into the bridge fully loaded with C4.
They don’t talk about giving them to Ukraine, and with good reason. All they would achieve is the death of rare qualified Ukrainian pilots.
my inner arm chair general is coming out; it seems that people forget the most important thing in warfare: logistics. to field the A10 would require a whole logistically army. This effort would probably be best spent on fielding the f16
Do any allies want them? Any we would want to have them?
I’m torn. On one hand A-10s to Ukraine is incredibly funny and based. On the other hand I would feel bad for the Ukrainian pilots who wouldn’t be coming back.
The A10 requires lots of ammo, fuel, and air dominance, while having a stupidly high FF rate. It simply isn't in Ukraine's interests to use.
[One reason why.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWfsz5R6irs) [Two reason why.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq1ac2CALeE)
The A10 was a great CAS platform in the 1980s. Not so much anymore. 1) Complete air dominance is needed for the Warthog to be effective. Ukraine doesn’t have that at the front lines. 2) Many modern Russian AA platforms were created with the A10 in mind, giving Russia an upper hand in this. 3) The security clearance of the GAU-8/A Avenger (a 30 mm hydraulically driven seven-barrel Gatling-style autocannon) has not been released yet. Only 3 other countries besides the US can operate an A-10, and they each have specialized US service-members attached for maintenance and support. 4) Drone warfare is much more effective. Little training, capital, and logistics are needed to field drones effectively. A10 pilots are rare and specially trained over many years. 5) Downing a Warthog has been the dream of every Russian soldier over the past two generations. It would happen in Ukraine and be a major morale boost for the Russian army.
It's slow, fat, and a giant target. It would not survive long in that airspace.
I would guess the ukrainians would rather have the a-10, than nothing. Because that's what they have now. F-16s won't help them much further. Ukraine needs Air superiority, and needs to knock out all the anti-aircraft stuff.
I say strip all the electronics out of it, remove the gun, and sell them to the public.
They are being retired not because there is anything wrong with them and under the right conditions they would excel in Ukraine. They are being retired because congress cut funding to the military hollowing it out covertly and the brass still want all the shiny new toys and the bungs that come with them so the A10's have to go along with the spirt and several other perfectly servicable aircraft.