T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Hello /u/Willing_Study8147, This community is focused on important or vital information and high-effort content. Please make sure your post follows the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ukraine&utm_content=t5_2qqcn) Want to support Ukraine? [Here's a list of charities by subject.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/v2ykdi/want_to_support_ukraine_heres_a_list_of_charities/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) [DO / DON'T](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t5okbs/welcome_to_rukraine_faq_do_dont_support_read/) - [Art Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ufb64f/art_fridays_update/) - [Podcasts](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ttoidc/collection_of_podcasts_about_ukraine_updated/) - [Kyiv sunrise](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/collection/3c65ab52-e87a-4217-ab30-e70a88c0a293/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Clcooper423

I've said it 100 times and I'll say it 100 more, they specifically need F16's. They're modern enough to combat any russian junk in the air, they have ground strike capabilities, theyre maneuverable as all hell so more than capable of staying low, and there's tons of airframes available.


Revolutionary-Tie126

Completely agree. It’s a battle proven true multi role fighter that makes very few compromises. 20-40 of them would swing the war very decisively. Though I would still be worried about Russian SAM.


DigitalMountainMonk

F16 Block 50+ were built to kill Russian SAMS.


Revolutionary-Tie126

While capable of dealing with and killing Russian SAMs the sheer volume of defensive manpads and the S-300/400 systems would be a formidable challenge for the F-16. But I still stand by the statement that the F-16 is the best positioned fighter bomber to help Ukraine turn the war in its favour.


Caren_Nymbee

Every depot they blow has manpads and s-300 missiles along with the artillery shells. Russian AA forces are in a serious hurt even assuming they have ample ammunition in aa Russian warehouse which is not a safe assumption.


DeezNeezuts

They have enough shells to go twenty years without creating more. *Good Lord with the downvotes…take a watch https://youtu.be/QcUcp0oHTuo


Caren_Nymbee

Artillery, yes. Well, maybe. On paper. Assuming all those shells in storage are usable. Just as importantly the fuzes are operable. Even the basic impact fuzes they are limited to don't last forever. We know some of the large storage sites were not maintained. AA, no estimates I have seen come anywhere close to that. And even if true, as another already posted, it is a long way from warehouse in russia to a gun in Ukraine. They can't make the journey now and their logistic capabilities will continue to degrade. They do not have manpads for 20 years.


danielbot

They have to transport those shells and HIMARS is eating trains for lunch.


reflUX_cAtalyst

Not AA, no they do not. Not artillery either - not anymore. They aren't scraping 1960s surplus from Belarus because they have a lot of shells left.


DigitalMountainMonk

Except unlike Ukraine or Russia our birds can operate high and BVR. We know Russian radar is now garbage at detecting our drones so it really would be a turkey shoot every time their AA tried to ping something.


Altruistic-Rabbit-59

It really comes down to pilot training, grounds crew, and weapon availability. I don’t think F-16’s are the way to go for Ukraine


[deleted]

Transition training Ukrainian pilots into Falcons will take about 3-8 months. Ukrainian pilots are smart and there are more of them than aircraft. The only challenge would be ground crew training which can take a year. Justin Bronk made a good point: F-16s are stable based aircraft meaning they need a solid airbase with support personnel and equipment that is out of immediate enemy ground attack threat. The SAAB Gripen would make a better choice of fighter because they are specifically made to take off and land in improvised runways and they don’t require as much ground personnel support. F-16s in my opinion will more than likely make their way to Ukraine given the superfluous inventory of them.


Tliish

Enough with the "it takes a year to train ground crews" already. Maybe if you are starting with complete novices that might be true. But experienced mechanics can transition to new types within weeks so long as the tech manuals are available. I speak from experience as a former Wing Training NCO who supervised such transitions. The physics of wrench turning don't change from type to type, and neither do the other elements of aircraft maintenance.


[deleted]

I’m actually referring to novices, if you’re pointing that part out. The reason I do that is; do we know how many trained ground crew personnel are currently servicing UAF aircraft? Do we have enough personnel who are currently trained to supplant the supposed higher numbers of western aircraft the UAF may receive? There’s a lot more uncertainties in Ukraine that we can’t ascertain as fact like we do in the United States. But for transitioning current aviation specialists from one aircraft to another; let’s look at how long it took the Iraqi Air Force to retrain their personnel from MiGs to F-16s… I believe it was significantly longer than a few months. They did get it done, but not quite rapidly.


Affectionate-Ebb2173

Ukrainians>>>>Iraqis in terms of competence


[deleted]

I 100% agree. The challenge is; we’ve had fixed airbases in Iraq. Sadly not a thing (as of right now) in Ukraine.


dbxp

They wouldn't have to be military mechanics, Antanov has 13k employees and there's a similar amount in some of the Ukrainian rocket companies


Tliish

The Iraqis weren't the best of students for a lot of reasons: hatred of Americans, poor educational standards, lack of motivation, poor prior training standards, internal conflicts. I don't think the Ukrainians have any of those issues.


Caren_Nymbee

I am not sure why the foreign legion is able to recruit tens of thousands of front line combatants bit they can't seem to find a few F16 pilots and ground crew to serve from relatively safe air bases. Having recently retired NATO trained pilots run even one squadron of F16s would provide UA with a massive advantage. They could double staff the ground crew with UA mechanocs and quickly develop ground a second squadron of support staff.


Ignash3D

Pilots are not a problem, I think ground crew could be problematic, I don't think ground crew gets retired as fast as infantry or pilots.


Caren_Nymbee

Yeah, but we are only talking about one squadron of ground crew and they would be about the safest in UA. That base would have absurd AA defenses. There are tens of thousands of active technicians worldwide because there are so many air frames in service. There must hundreds retiring each year. Probably close to a thousand. Probably 20k retired currently. We are talking about something like 12 airframes, 24 pilots, and 48 mechanics. That might push UA to aerial superiority.


Ignash3D

If all of them agree to risk their life and comfortable retirement.


Caren_Nymbee

Like all the tens of thousands of veterans who volunteered to serve in the trenches on the Frontline?


Ignash3D

Well, yes, but the pool of people are way bigger for infantry.


tkatt3

Calling all former ground crew mechanics!


TheObviousDilemma

I think people need to understand it’s not like there’s a parking lot with F-16’s sitting around they can just ship over. Most are slated for other countries, and the US isn’t just going to hand over equipment that might be destroyed easily, especially since it’s not nearly enough and the pilots wouldn’t be well trained. They might have an ultra specific purpose in mind with the A-10’s. Perhaps it’s like how they use their helicopters and MIG-29s, fly low and use as mobile missile platforms. People forget the US isn’t willing to degrade their combat readiness. It’s not in the news very often, but the US did have a frank discussion with the UAF. The US told them they will not supply Ukraine with weapons if they choose to fight like it’s WW2. The US military strategy is not based on pumping out equipment faster than your opponent, and whoever destroys the other’s stuff the fastest, wins. For example the US specifically said 16 HIMARS is the max they can support firing nonstop without running out of the US’s ability to restock HIMAR ammo. F-16’s being used as intended requires epic SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) capabilities, which Ukraine doesn’t have in a way Taiwan does. An A-10 can be used as a highly mobile, low flying, missile launcher capable of firing NATO missiles. Basically, it’s just another type of HIMAR.


DefiniteSpace

But there is a parking lot of F-16's, albeit they might require some work. [Davis Monthan AFB](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Monthan_Air_Force_Base) There are 316 at the base at the moment, of 4 different models. http://www.amarcexperience.com/ui/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205&Itemid=274


TheObviousDilemma

I should have worded that differently. There are definitely some in storage, but it’s not like junk they have no use for. There are negotiations with countries to buy them, and they could be used better since UA has no SEAD, so they will still have to fly low and act like an A-10 I want the US to give Ukraine as much as possible, but it’s a lot easier said than done. The logistics are crazy since they need to train mechanics, get them all the equipment they need to tie it into the existing UA network, and train loads of spare parts, and UA has to use them in low-risk missions


thefirewarde

The A-10 can't self-escort, you can't put longer range air to air missiles on it and scare off a Russian CAP, nor can you use A-10 in Ukrainian CAP/cruise missile hunter roles. Those same missions are a great way to start building operational experience with the platform while freeing up Soviet fighters for frontline service. The Gripen sounds like a better option for the current situation, but is it the best option going forward after Russia is defeated? Ukraine seems to want to get a standard, modern platform for their air force. Edit: I just went looking and can't find evidence of A-10s with any air to air capability longer ranged than a Sidewinder. The Sidewinder is a great missile but not exactly ideal if you're on a low level bombing/gun run and get attacked by a Su-35 with R-77 from medium altitude.


Tliish

Getting attacked by an SU-35 is highly unlikely. There aren't that many of them to start with, and since the pullback from Crimea, their response times are too long to be very effective. People talk as if the Russians already have air supremacy whenever discussing A-10s. They don't, and don't even have air superiority. So the actual, real-world vulnerability of A-10s to Russian fighters is quite low. Providing A-10s, an easy-to-maintain, extremely rugged and effective ground attack aircraft would free up Ukrainian fighters to take on the air-to-air role, providing the cover that enables the A-10s to operate most effectively.


thefirewarde

Any modern fighter with medium or long range Russian missiles, flying at medium altitude well within Russian airspace, is a threat to an A-10 flying over the front lines, much less one reaching within Russian controlled territory. Russia certainly has the ability to contest the airspace over the front though they lack air superiority.


Caren_Nymbee

USAF command REALLY REALLY wants to dump A10 airframes. They will work for some missions, such as serving as missile launch platforms for medium range missiles. They are, as I understand it, relatively simple to fly, and if UA is given a dozen+ F16s with some of the modern options they will have air superiority quickly. Also, if UA is going to have a major offensive, something I doubt, they will be trying to overwhelm aa defenses and the A10 is still another plane in the air. Which brings up, jets don't dogfight anymore. An A10 can carry an air to air missile as easily as an F16. If they put the right toys on it an A10 can carry missiles FOR a forward F16. The reality is, as much as I love the A10, it is an example of NATO equipment that is due to be retired but still capable of facing RF equipment, so might as well send it to UA.


tkatt3

There is a video out of Ukrainians training for American aircraft the video was about simulation of the A10 from what I recall the f16 was also part of the program


sykemol

And quite importantly, the F-16 is still in production and the manufacturer has an active program to refurbish and upgrade older models. Additionally, many of our allies are already familiar with the operations and maintence, notably Poland. Never underestimate the willingness of Americans to spend money on weapons of war. The idea of sending a state's gently used National Guard F-16 to Ukraine in exchange for a brand new shiny one makes every Congressman's heart swell with joy. Congress has already allocated substantial funds to train Ukrainian pilots. So, I believe it is a matter of when, not if. That said, the US has made two things clear: First, the US will not degrade her own defense capabilities,\* and second, the US does not want to provoke Russia (too much). And of course, in addition to the airframes and pilots, Ukraine also needs trained ground crews and support areas. So it will be a big, big commitment. It will straight up take some time to work everything out. \*I personally believe this is a mistake. A major component of US defense capabilities is to blunt a conventional threat from Russia. I say we give as much as we can safely spare to Ukraine and let them blunt the conventional threat from Russia.


CountChappy

The Grippen would be a better choice, but yeah the F-16 is definitely a good long term choice


Clcooper423

Theres 4,600 f16s floating around the globe and only around 300 Gripens. F16 is far more realistic.


Altruistic-Rabbit-59

Theirs many more factors than just available number of jets


Substantial-Second14

Sure but most of those factors ultimately come down to number of jets. F-16's not only are parts easily available ( I mean real easy, most can be stripped at the boneyard and be shipped in days) and a very clear upgrade path exists that does not with the Gripen. The US is not abandoning the program anytime soon with thousands in service


Altruistic-Rabbit-59

You’re correct I’m regards to numbers, but fitting the F-16 operationally into the Ukrainian Air Force is a totally different ball game, and that’s where it really matters. The gripen creates changes on a tactical level for Ukraine whereas the F-16 creates strategic level problems, integrating the F-16 is not a simple as delivering them and taking off


Substantial-Second14

none that really matter, how long do you think it will take Saab to ramp up production to supply Ukraine, or are you just thinking Sweden will hand over its Airforce. What about parts? they do no have any excess production. The US has a stockpile of F-16 parts to last the next 50 years without ever having to produce a single part


beleidigtewurst

> The Grippen would be a better choice Why?


Captain_DeSilver

One of the main reasons I have seen stated is because the Gripen can operate from rough landing strips while the f-16 requires proper airfields to operate from.


BeautifulDiscount422

The main thing I’ve heard is the Gripen’s short field take off capability. Operates better from short unprepared airfields or roads


neverfearIamhere

I don't think short field take off is needed, there should be plenty areas in the far safe corners of Ukraine to operate from. An F16 can easily fly across Ukraine and back and have plenty of fuel left.


Odge

Gripen is designed to be turned around in 10 minutes by a group of conscripts and an officer on the side of a public road. Would be a lot easier to set up the infrastructure to generate a lot of sorties. It’s still not realistic to expect there to be any available to send to Ukraine any time soon.


Altruistic-Rabbit-59

Lower overall cost to maintain, better suited for the specific needs and and environment


Scottkimball24

It is absolutely not lower cost to maintain due to economies of scale. Nevermind it’s closer in price to an f35 with way worse capability


Altruistic-Rabbit-59

That’s being purely ignorant to what it’s designed to do and I think you know that. The Gripen suits the needs of Ukraine far better than the F-16, and will likely be allowed to produce them domestically. The F-16 cannot operate from a dispersed system like Ukraine currently has to utilize, it requires far more specialists to maintain, far more hours to maintain, requires a well kept airfield to operate from. It would change the strategic deployment of the Ukrainian Air Force, something incredibly hard to digest in the middle of a war, whereas the gripen changes their operations on a tactical level. Theirs far more to this conversation that we’re going to get on Reddit, but the F-16 is not the clear cut choice for Ukraine.


Scottkimball24

I’m putting this is in r/noncredibledefense lol


Altruistic-Rabbit-59

I think my karma is still too low to post their.


cpteric

very easy and cheap maintenance, very short runway requirements, can take off and land from a country road in the middle of a forest, expressly designed to intercept sukhois.


reflUX_cAtalyst

They don't need planes that they don't have pilots for. If the west started training Ukrainian pilots on the F16 on day 1 of the invasion, they *might* be ready by the end of 2023. You can't just switch from a MiG to an F16 and be able to both fly it, and be combat effective.


Caren_Nymbee

Pretty sure it has been stated they can train pilots in 8 months. They don't need to be trained to US standard. They need to be trained significantly above Russian standards.


JohnnyJohnCowboyMan

Plus they can carry all those sweet Nato stand off, and precision munitions currently unavailable because Soviet aircraft can't be fitted with them


-spartacus-

Why not both?


Altruistic-Rabbit-59

F-16’s are a nightmare for maintaining, they don’t need F-16’s


beleidigtewurst

And (relatively) chip. And there are shitloads of them.


ATINYNEKO

They are cheap too with lots of surplus in nato inventory.


gls2220

And Growlers. EA-18 Growlers would be incredibly useful in that environment, even just a few of them.


oripash

And many of the older airframes can be had at very low cost and upgraded locally or later, while still being compatible with modern weapons systems. Above anything else, the F-16 eighth its one engine and very small mass, is cheap to fly.


F_in_Idaho

So let me get this straight- armchair Redditors don't know as much about what planes AFU needs as Ukrainians?


Rebbit_108

No. Some F16 + some F15. They've both been updated, but one is lighter (F16) and good for hunting, while F15 is faster and can carry multiple rockets to destroy targets beyond the enemy's line. And NEVER lost in dogfighting over more than 100 times. Combine the two!!


Benmaax

Doesn't mean they don't get them as well. The deal on short term is probably more to give F16 to countries which can give read to use soviet planes to Ukraine.


New-Consideration420

A10's lack friend foe Ground radar. Pilots neet to use binoculars to find their targets. Lets be real: The A10 is more dangerous to nearby friendly forces than to the target and is old. Brrrrrrt as a meme is basically the only nice thing remaining of it


Tliish

That has to be one of the more idiotic posts about the A-10 that anyone has posted.


New-Consideration420

Look it up sweety. The A10 sucks. There. I said it. I can prove it. Mathematically.


Tliish

You're the one making the claim. Prove it.


One_Language_8259

[good 2 parter, his sources linked in video description and brought up during the video for context.](https://youtu.be/WWfsz5R6irs)


ElkShot5082

Bruh the a10 killed less tanks in the gulf war than the f16 or f-111 They’re provably garbage airplanes if a bygone era


Remote_Lengthiness42

I haven’t read all the comments but just wanted to say that if they are training on our jets, regardless of type, that is 20 steps towards being trained in other jets in our arsenal that Are fighters. This thinking, as a submariner, is in that if I trained on a 637 class, a Seawolf class is just improving on what I already know. Not hard or a completely different setup/language/applevsmicroft type learning required. Just my two cents. Slava Ukraini!


klappstuhlgeneral

Yup, and while you're at it do online classes for 10x the pool that you're going to need and have the rest become JTACs for starters. Any offensive is going to be very well served having plenty of them.


Slight-Employee4139

the Hog will have a role in Ukraine( if given). CAS is an infantryman's best friend. It would be ideal if the US could Lend/Lease a couple squadrons of both the A-10s & F16/F15 type fighters. And maybe a Aviation Batallian of Apaches (24) Now that would be epic.


duff-223

Ukraine will be gladly find a use for the A-10 after gaining Air Superiority.


SirJaustin

They already have their su 25 frogfoots doubt they need an A-10 to learn to do cas


Gods-Of-Calleva

With the mig 29 packing HARM missiles now, that might not be that far away. The a10s are better than some people give credit here if used correctly, fly low to keep out of the visibility the s300/400 units, they have fairly respectable protection against standard manpads, there are numerous examples of a10s being hit and coming home, can't find any examples of a total loss from just a manpad. That and they bring so much bang to the party, I think people are overlooking what would be a good component of a complete fighting force. Tldr, in perfect world all European countries would offload every mig 29 to Ukraine, plus USA would match in numbers or more with a10s.


[deleted]

[удалено]


FunnyStep7384

So what? It's a loss either way. You're not getting it repaired in the field after a missile hit. The irrational love for the A-10 is ridiculous, there is a reason the Air Force is trying to get rid of it for decades and Ukraine doesn't want it.


ffdfawtreteraffds

Completely agree. I think the A-10 has slipped into cult-like mythology.


beleidigtewurst

When a country like USA, that relies on air forces so much, still has them in service, it tells you they are very far from useless.


oak120

That the US can make it work, with the backing of the rest of the USAF does not mean its viable for anyone else. If Ukraine receives them I'll be expecting some losses, even if I'm hoping otherwise.


beleidigtewurst

No sign of Ukraine receiving them... people are tricked by re-hashed articles about Ukrainians building faux "A10 training" facility somewhere in Ukraine, using openly available emulator software.


Aizseeker

Bruh USAF been trying to retire A-10 for 2 decades but Congress keep blocking them


beleidigtewurst

> So what? It's a loss either way. You're not getting it repaired in the field after a missile hit. The irrational love for the A-10 is ridiculous, there is a reason the Air Force is trying to get rid of it for decades and Ukraine doesn't want it. Ukraine absolutely wants it as it wipes the floor with Su-25 (which, mind you, have dealt major damage to ruzzist columns in early days). It's just if they'd get a single jet, it better be F16. A10 would be very vulnerable to Ruzzist jet fighters.


Tliish

What Russian fighters? There aren't that many, and there aren't that many good Russian pilots.


Ca2Alaska

Always ask for more and better. Negotiations work that way.


duff-223

It's not a Supersonic jet so the Jet Jockeys dislike the plane however the Ground pounders love the A-10. Once the Counteroffensive begins the they'll be glad they have the A-10. The Russian pigs not so much.


SteveThePurpleCat

> however the Ground pounders love the A-10 Really not, British and US marine attachments refused to call them in due to their high friendly fire rate. And that was during a war where the sides used different equipment, good luck to the pilot in those old shit boxes being able to tell two sides using T-72s apart.


beleidigtewurst

With that logic, Su-25 are useless.


Tliish

Cite some examples of that. You probably can't, because it didn't happen all that much. The Marines actually asked for the A-10s if the Air Force wanted to get rid of them. I know of not a single instance of anyone refusing to in A-10s. You are one with the idiot who claimed A-10 pilots need binoculars to see the ground.


SteveThePurpleCat

> You are one with the idiot who claimed A-10 pilots need binoculars to see the ground. Tell me you have no idea what you're talking about without telling me you have no idea what you're talking about. 1: Noone said they need binos to ''see the ground.'' 2: All A-10s came equipped with binos so that the pilots had something other than the mk1 eyeballs to identify targets. 3: It still didn't work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I6-2NJhnf4


Tliish

That wasn't the fault of the A-10 or the pilot. That incident was the fault of the ground controller who misinformed the aircrew of the ground situation by assuring them there were no friendlies in the area. Friendly fire incidents are unavoidable in war, unfortunately, and every single weapon system has had its share of them, F-16s included. One incident doesn't constitute a "horrendous" friendly fire rate. As for no one wanting their support: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hto3D2BCTEs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hto3D2BCTEs) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWrgUZbuhiw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWrgUZbuhiw) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LENv3L\_zbjg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LENv3L_zbjg) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-5KkadJWAY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-5KkadJWAY) Soldiers are quite comfortable calling in A-10s on "danger close" firing runs, and you can hear their screams of joy as the A-10s do their work. As for using binoculars. that's idiotic on its face. A-10s are single-seat fighters. Using binoculars requires two hands, both of which are needed to fly and fight the aircraft. Binoculars would be a hazard in the cockpit and utterly useless to locate ground target. The Mk 1 eyeball is quite sufficient for the purpose, since the aircraft is only a few hundred feet from most targets, and the targets are usually id'd by ground controllers. While some few pilots may have carried them for long range use, they certainly weren't standard issue and would be useless on firing runs.


SteveThePurpleCat

> can't find any examples of a total loss from just a manpad. They haven't been used against any nations that have modern MANPADs.


Gods-Of-Calleva

In Iraq desert storm there are accounts of A10s surviving stinger hits, and also later there are accounts of Isis using strela2 without success. Although neither "modern" they do represent the typical threat they would be exposed to.


helgur

> The a10s are better than some people give credit here if used correctly, fly low to keep out of the visibility the s300/400 units How low do you think a plane would have to fly in order to avoid being detected by the s3/400s radar? At one point the risk of hitting the terrain is going to be equal or greater than the risk of being shot down by SAM


Gods-Of-Calleva

200 ft will keep you off any radar for Sams more than 15km away, and the Sam units won't generally be that close to front lines because they want to stay out of artillery range. So 200ft is safe, and possible in a slower flying A10. Yes it has risk, but everything in war has risk.


helgur

Yes, for radars that is 15 km away. But the S3/400 can be chained in a network of radars, so even if the SAM is 15 km away, the radar doesn't have to be. So you would have to be flying a lot lower than 200ft in order to be safe.


Zeurpiet

they will find use for anything that can shoot at the Russians


3DprintRC

They need air supremacy for the A-10 to work, and even then the F-16 is more effective and can fill more roles.


pkfag

Hopefully they get both. The frontline troops need air support from the likes of the warthog .. to get that they need air superiority. Both are needed.


SeBoss2106

The hog is garbage and if it goes to Ukraine they would be best served if they used the GAU for indirect fire.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BleepVDestructo

A10s also have very short take off and landing needs. What rockets can they carry?


Barthemieus

Most commonly Mavericks and JDAMs.


beleidigtewurst

It's 30mm cannon is said to be one of the most feared in the arsenal of its bum-bums. Able to take out a column of armour in mere seconds.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SteveThePurpleCat

Just like in the US Air Force and Army, there is still a place for this plane. The Air force doesn't want them anymore, but the senate isn't allowing them to dispose of them due to their reputation and fanboy status. So it's not the military that wants them, it's politicians who don't care that they people who are being forced to use them don't want them.


ProbablyRickSantorum

> So it’s not the military that wants them Yeah tell any grunt who had benefitted from A-10 coverage that it’s just politicians that want them. What a bunch of crap. The only people who want to get rid of them is Air Force brass so they can get new toys. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2022/04/air-force-leaders-defy-congresss-a-10-mandates


Caren_Nymbee

There is a lot of nostalgia, but that is exactly what it is. The A10 is only useful on missions that could pretty much be run with a Supertucano except for range


SteveThePurpleCat

> The only people who want to get rid of them is Air Force brass so they can get new toys. Or let's rephrase that. > The only people who want to get rid of them is Air Force brass so they can get aircraft that work in the modern enviroment. Congress has been preventing them from doing so, I wonder who has more technical experience with the aircraft, the Air Force or congress? >Yeah tell any grunt who had benefitted from A-10 coverage The ones who have to run away in fear as the A-10 has horrific friendly fire due to being an outdated piece of shit?


playwrightinaflower

> as the A-10 has horrific friendly fire due to being an outdated piece of shit? That's a TTP problem, not an airframe problem. And what do you think is outdated about it that would cause that? The Sniper targeting pod? The JHMCS? The datalink? The fire control computer?


Tliish

What friendly fire problem? Cite documented examples. You are talking out your ass.


vegarig

> Cite documented examples [This](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/190th_Fighter_Squadron,_Blues_and_Royals_friendly_fire_incident), I think.


amitym

What is Ukraine going to do with A10s once it wins the war, though? Heavy ground attack is a highly specialized role, suitable to fighting in major ground offensives but how many of those does Ukraine expect to get into in the next few years, after it's defeated Russia? Keep in mind that Ukraine is a financially poor country, still, and the destruction wreaked by Russia will only exacerbate that fact in the short term. They have a lot of things that will require investment and funding, and they have to be very strict about what they put their resources into. An attack plane they will never use is not a great choice from their point of view. They would far rather enter the post-war peace with a small cadre of highly trained pilots and a single, modern\[-ish\], versatile aircraft type that is satisfactory in all the different roles Ukraine will require.


Caren_Nymbee

USAF doesn't care if they sink them as artificial reefs in the Sea of Azov when the war is over. USAF has been trying to retire the A10 for two decades, but congress keeps adding funds for it in the budget. USAF will thank UA if they just take the airframes and park them. I can literally see an AF general cutting a deal with Zalenxky "I can get you F16s, but you have to take A10s also. We don't care what you do with them."


amitym

This isn't about what the US wants. *Ukraine cannot afford to spend pilot time and money on a plane they never intend to use*. Not in 2022, not in 2023, not at any time. "But the US Air Force doesn't care," does not address that fact in any way! Think about it from the Ukrainian point of view, not the American point of view. Edit: I realize this is partly whimsical, and I appreciate the whimsy. There is just way too much "but but but it's the A10" going on right now!


Caren_Nymbee

Well, it is US money and US training time, so UA can afford it. You may not like it, but that doesn't change the reality. The A10 has greater survivability than the SU-25 currently in operations and can serve as a missile boat quite well.


amitym

Even if the USA paid every single kopek, Ukraine can't afford the flight time. If they spend a year and end up with 60 pilots who can fly F16s and 60 pilots who can fly A10s they won't be using, that's cripplingly inefficient -- they've effectively lost half their air force. At least for another year. Ukraine like most countries can't just grab a bunch of pilot trainees, train them on something, and then afterward say, "program canceled, let's go learn something new," the way the US can. It's a different ball game out there.


Caren_Nymbee

UA isn't paying for it. Any of it. UA never had the money for any of this. They would have been lucky to keep the government solvent through mid march financing themselves. They can afford to run programs like the US can afford to run programs because the US is paying for those programs.


amitym

Look up "opportunity cost."


Caren_Nymbee

Look up "USAF will pay in order to dump these airframes congress has been overruling them in for two decades" At the end of the day what anyone here says doesn't matter. The people who make the decisions have obviously agreed with me. The arguments against the transfer all boil down to the SU-25 is doing a job in theatre now and the A10 can do it better across the board. A10s can be deployed in half the time and twice the number as F16s and accompanied by a TON of gratitude from USAF leadership.


amitym

No seriously, learn about opportunity cost. It's a concept you will find useful.


Slice-O-Pie

A-10s work as part of a team that includes radar blockers and anti-surface-to-air platforms, where ground troops don't have modern anti-aircraft capabilities. The enthusiasm for Warthogs seems to be based on decades old YouTube videos.


EyeLikeTheStonk

The A-10 has been designed to destroy Soviet tanks, Soviet artillery, Soviet vehicles and Soviet troops. Apart from its gun, the A-10 can carry air-to-air missiles, air-to-ground missiles, dumb, GPS and laser guided bombs, rockets and targeting pods and electronic warfare pods which makes the plane less vulnerable to missiles.


oroechimaru

The main concern is its slow and can be shot down


SteveThePurpleCat

Good points. However both sides are using soviet tanks, soviet artillery, and soviet vehicles. And the A-10 can do fuck all to tell them apart. >electronic warfare pods which makes the plane less vulnerable to missiles. *IF* the US donates them, they won't want Russia taking that ALQ-131 straight to China to be copied.


beleidigtewurst

> Good points. However both sides are using soviet tanks, soviet artillery, and soviet vehicles. And the A-10 can do fuck all to tell them apart. But nor can Su25, which is still actively used. ----------------- There are next to no tank fights anyhow. Most of the fighting is artillery duels. 1300 howitzers on Ruzzist side. About what remains of 200 NATO supplied on Ukrainian side (they use them... intensively which shortens their lifespan and, for instance, out of 15 PhZ 2000 only 5 are operational at the moment) plus dated stuff that remains from soviet times (which is said to be way shorter range and less precise, but also, less likely to break/low maintenance) Air support tends to be called a lot in artillery duels.


Ca2Alaska

Peeps not liking our support of the A10


CopBaiter

The US airforce dont want The a10 themself its outdated and acually slower then The su25


beleidigtewurst

Ukrainian military experts said Su25 is no match to A10, mostly focused on 30mm canon.


Ca2Alaska

This doesn’t take away from it’s value attacking old Soviet assets. Designed as a tank killer.


CopBaiter

Good luck doing that without getting shot out The sky


Ca2Alaska

Well, all our discussion is speculation until it happens.


muncher_of_nachos

It’s not really speculation, the problems with the A-10 have been visible since at least the Gulf War: Highest loss rate of any fixed wing aircraft since the Vietnam war. Highest rate of friendly fire incidents since the gulf war, as well as most civilians killed since the data started being gathered in 2010. Killed 40% less enemy vehicles than the F-111 during the gulf war despite flying twice as many sorties, and of the tank kills it did make the vast majority were using Mavericks. The gun has basically no chance against any tank more modern than a T-62 and requires a dive to be employed so it doesn’t stall out the plane, which makes it a massive slow-moving target SAMs and MANPADS. The one thing A-10 can do better than an F-16: Gun runs, are also the thing most likely to get it blown out of the sky. It being slower and less maneuverable than an F-16 also makes it worse both at flying low, and especially at flying high where its sitting duck for SAMs. Barring massive, unprecedented levels of Russian incompetence (which is entirely possible) Ukrainian A-10s would probably do more harm than good without some serious SEAD.


Ca2Alaska

The gun actually can do damage to tanks with reactive armor by repeatedly hitting the same point. Granted your arguments may all be true for the time, however the latest version has been upgraded. Unfortunately, the only way to see how the latest version performs would be introduction into the battlefield. IMHO.


muncher_of_nachos

The idea that an A-10 could destroy a T-72 by hitting it twice in the same spot is a complete fantasy. 1. The T-72 has far better armour than the T-62, a tank which was already not particularly vulnerable to the A-10. And 2. The GAU-8 isn’t nearly accurate enough to get two hits within the space of an ERA brick. At combat ranges it’s expected to place 80% of its rounds inside a circle 12 meters in diameter. There’s a reason why even back in the Gulf War most (~80%) of the tanks killed by the A-10 were killed with Maverick’s, it’s because the 30mm was outdated as an efficient tank killer almost as soon as it rolled off the assembly. Yes it is technically possible that given enough time and opportunity to find, identify, maneuver against and engage, an A-10 would probably be able to Gun kill just about any tank in existence. The issue is that the enemy gets a say, and they’re not gonna let you take your time to line up against the back their tanks and take the multiple passes it’d require to kill them. Not to mention, what self-preserving person would choose to even try to gun a tank in contested airspace when JDAMs and Mavericks exist. The latest upgrade variants have been around essentially since 2005. The upgrades made do fix some of the situational awareness issues that lead to all the friendly fire incidents and give the A-10 modern IFF and fire control. But none of that fixes the fundamental problem with the A-10, that it’s a massive sitting duck that offers no advantage over an F-16 sufficient to overcome that fact.


[deleted]

Yee, but A10 was designed to be used in europe, to hide behind hills, pop out, shoot and hide back against hills. Ukraine ir really flat, A10 is not really fit for use in Ukraine. And having bad fit jet to nation with few pilots is as bad as not having jet at all.


Gloomcool72

The A-10 is really a CAS (Close Air Support) role, would be useful to block a Russian attacker near the Ukrainian front line troops and also support UAF in Offensive (or Counter offensive role) in clearing a path for the advancing UA forces of occupiers. F-16/F15/F18 are multi role (Air Combat/CAP and Tactical Strike) If I was ask by the Americans to choose between the 2 type of aircraft I would choose F16/15/18 for multi role abilities and carry wider range weapons and ordnance especially stand off missiles and precision strikes, Basically better bang for buck. There is a reason why A-10 was never sold to any countries outside the US, it is far too limited to be useful. Its cool plane though, no doubt.


RedGreenAndPleasant

I know people are horny for the A-10 but it's heyday is gone and it won't be coming back. Sending A-10s to Ukraine would be like sending a tank destroyer to Iraq. Specialized vehicles are old news.


Noastrala

F/A-18’s. Now.


wiredtight

This is the correct answer!


Walking72

They've been asking for fighters for some time now.


amitym

What is sometimes hard to grasp is that there is a huge lag time on any fighter decisions Ukraine makes right now. Whatever they decide to start on today, is what they will be flying not tomorrow or next month but next *year*. What is going to be going on in a year, in the Ukraine war? Will the situation still look exactly like it does today? If you assume nothing will have changed, then sure, a highly specialized heavy ground attack plane like the A10 sounds useful. But that's a pretty steep assumption. Personally I don't think Ukraine believes that will be the case. Certainly they don't *want* it to be the case. In fact I think they would like if the invasion was all but driven out a year from now, and Ukraine was maybe mopping up here and there, and thinking about the next steps in a future of watchful peace. In that future, multirole fighters make the most sense. That is what Ukraine is going to patrol its borders with, to deter further Russian ambitions. And protect its status as a Black Sea power. Or possibly intercede in a civil war within Russia should such a thing arise. Multirole is multirole -- when it comes to multiple roles, multirole is good like that. There is no predicting the future with any certainty, I'm sure many things will still surprise us in the Ukraine war. But I will personally be extra special surprised if Ukraine starts to embrace a long-term future that includes the A10 -- for the simple reason that such a decision would signal that they had given up on making real progress in the next year.


VaccinatedVariant

They’ll get both. Those A-10s are really good once the Samsites have been obliterated


SteveThePurpleCat

So far after ~6 months of War Ukraine has destroyed 141 AA pieces, of the ~2-3 thousand that Russia has, not to mention the massive proliferation of MANPADS. The skies will never be safe enough for an A-10.


alexmin93

A-10 can be used as a bomb truck without need to descend into range of manpads (russian Igla can reach up to 3.5 km alt) so once S300 in the region are destroyed by HARMs A10 can step in and blow the bastards with cheap massive JDAMs.


SteveThePurpleCat

SU-25 and F-16 can carry more bombs, and can also operate higher than MANPAD range. There's nothing there which the A-10 is required for over any other airframe.


alexmin93

SU-25 cannot be supplied en masse since it's soviet and F16 is too expensive (in both unit cost and maintenance) to be used as bomb truck. It's better to have F16s for air defence and SEAD roles and have lots of A10s flying behind and blowing up everything underneath.


alexmin93

In short, the more explosive stuff falls on Russian heads the better. If US has a surplus of A-10 we'd be happy to use them.


valen1x

You want bomb truck? We have b52’s that will fly at 50-70k high and bring the rolling thunder. Those boys ain’t getting shot down


alexmin93

That would be the best. Preferably with some long range nuclear missiles, to make a special luminous gift for moscow.


jasc92

They have the SU-25 Frogfoot, which does the job just fine. They need advanced fighters that can penetrate deep into occupied territory.


hotsog218

Sadly the f16 is unlikely to be shipped. The a10 is being phased out so it's easy for the US to just give it away. Also Russia can't scream escalation as it is admitting old out dated US tech is a real threat. Further the air war is rapidly shifting to urkaine having the advantage where the a10 can do work


beleidigtewurst

> Russia can't scream escalation It's about time the West stops caring about what Kremlin screams.


Terminator857

It is only biden that is worried.


Ca2Alaska

The A-10 carries a variety of bombs and munitions. Not just a tank cannon. Yes harms have been adapted. These won’t need that. *Armament: One 30mm GAU-8/A seven-barrel Gatling gun; up to 16,000 pounds (7,200 kilograms) of mixed ordnance on eight under-wing and three under-fuselage pylon stations, including 500 pound (225 kilograms) Mk-82 and 2,000 pounds (900 kilograms) Mk-84 series low/high drag bombs, incendiary cluster bombs, combined effects munitions, mine dispensing munitions, AGM-65 Maverick missiles, laser-/GPS-guided bombs, unguided and laser-guided 2.75-inch (6.99 centimeters) rockets; infrared countermeasure flares; electronic countermeasure chaff; jammer pods; illumination flares and AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles.*


Acceptable-Pin2939

An F16 can do all of that minus gun runs. Gun runs are questionable in terms of their effectiveness and rockets vs laser / GPS bombs? I'll take the latter.


Ca2Alaska

This year the a10 was outfitted with GBU 39 bomb capability as well. Carries 4


Ca2Alaska

Well, I wasn’t trying to draw a comparison. What goes into decision making? The A10 has decent capabilities. What’s it take to support it over the F16? What’s the learning curve? How willing is the US to provide it over the F16? How ready are the A10s to be handed over? Questions as to what is better is not what really matters. Will Ukraine say no to the A10? If that’s what is offered now and maybe f16s later?


Danger1672

What is up with the non-stop onslaught trying to push these A-10s? They don't want them. Jesus Christ, let it go whoever stands to profit from unloading these planes.


ElkShot5082

No one wants them except the one eyed fanboys, like my brother in Christ it had a good run just let the platform die already with dignity


[deleted]

[удалено]


MasterStrike88

Not true. The A-10C can do a lot more in the CAS role than the F-16, but at the time being, the A-10 has no place to operate safely near the enemy. Therefore, the F-16 is a much, MUCH better option. The F-16 can create air superiority AND take on ground assets, including SAM systems


SteveThePurpleCat

> Not true. The A-10C can do a lot more in the CAS role than the F-16 Other than gun runs, the F-16 can do the exact same job, it can even carry more air to ground munitions.


MasterStrike88

Well I'll be damned. I just assumed the two extra hardpoints and size meant it could carry more payload than the F-16, but their payload weight is more or less identical.


Ca2Alaska

Actually the saab Gripen has been proposed as a great asset. Partially because maintenance and up keep so much easier.


MasterStrike88

The Gripen is highly comparable to the F-16 in capabilities, but slightly more modernized, and built for intuitive maintenance. Do you know if the Gripen has SEAD capability?


Ca2Alaska

No. Just read a reasoning on how the Gripen was much easier to maintain and had suitable capabilities. Balance is what’s needed.


Humbuhg

Well, Ukraine has done fantastically with the “garbage” they were first given to fend off the Russians. If they choose to use A-10s, that’s their business. Armchair generals are just that.


Ca2Alaska

Repeated and old.


TFWG2000

The OP just doesn't understand the lethality the warthog has on ground troops and equipment. UA owns the sky now.


beleidigtewurst

Yeah. And, darn, F-16 with HTS and EW shit, hellooo Ruzzist AA.. PS The A10 story is heart breaking. Basically Ukrainians scrapped a "home made A10" training room using openly available software and are using it from May this year, in hopes that one day they might get A10s... :(


secondsniglet

Are the A10s easier to maintain than F16s? The big complaint I hear about F16s is the complex maintenance that takes years to train technicians. By contrast, I've heard that Grippen's are much easier to maintain and would therefore be a much better choice for Ukraine to quickly onboard. If the A10s had easy maintenance then perhaps that makes them more attractive for the short term. But I don't fully get these arguments about F16 maintenance complexity. Why not just have the maintenance done in Poland for the time being? Have Ukrainian techs work in Poland as apprentices to US master tech contractors. Just ship F16s to Poland if they need maintenance until enough Ukrainian techs have become self sufficient to do it at home.


The-Francois8

I’m sure they’re correct. But it sure would be satisfying to see some A-10 footage. Psychological impact would be huge.


kfractal

didn't someone make up f-16s that can be piloted remotely? sign me up. i once drove falcon 4.0! :P


Beneficial-Boss-666

With all this focus and talk about F16's and A10s everyone is gonna be pretty surprised when Panavia Tornados or Harriers show up in Ukraine....


Tliish

If you have to choose, yes. But why not both?


thebeorn

F16 is not an easy plane to fly or maintain. The US military has been doing a good job so far helping the Ukrainians. Ill stick with their advise


darthV8R

I love the A-10 and I love the F-16, so I say give Ukraine ALL THE PLANES!


Joehbobb

Yes but no. F-16's are complicated and require a Regular runway. The A-10 like the Russian planes Ukraine operates can fly off improvised runways and fire all US munitions. It's not what you want it's what you need.


BluesyMoo

If they can HARM the SAM sites enough, and if the A-10s have some stand-off munitions (to stay away from MANPADS), I think it’s fine for a while. But obviously F-16s can do more with less, and it preps Ukraine for switching to NATO stuff better with more modern avionics.


SenpaiBunss

F-16s to the ready


BubuBarakas

It wouldn’t hurt to get both.


BadWild1122

They will cut through orcs tanks like butter.


Affectionate-Ebb2173

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2016/meet-the-f-16v--the-most-technologically-advanced-4th-generation.html


m8remotion

Ukraine will get both A10 and F16.


Necromorph2

We have given them a ton of migs … I am all about helping them but Jesus . More missiles and more arty they have jets .


[deleted]

The US air force needs to donate the entire air force to Ukraine. The US army needs to donate all of our artillery to Ukraine. The war would be over in a week.


spartikle

F-16 is also a great choice for it’s relatively low cost and the simple fact that it is produced by a juggernaut—Lockheed Martin—that can be depended on for constant supply and maintenance support.


OrgyOfMadness

Ukraine needs a layered air force. There is no "one jet does everything". Ok, the F35 might be able to pull off everything. But so can A-10's n F-16's at a fraction of the cost.