As a former US Army Infantryman whose 2 favorite aircraft are the A-10 and the AC-130, I believe that first Ukraine needs to get air parity if not superiority before the A-10 can truly be effective. My vote goes to the F-16 to help control the airspace.

@aln5832

Жыл бұрын

Aerial surveillance is also needed. Possibly drones and Hawkeyes?

@davidclaudy4822

Жыл бұрын

Good enough response I’ll not make my own. The F-16 is the ideal choice. If…. We don’t decide to change our mind at the last second. The Allie’s are great for that sort of thing.

@ott1887

Жыл бұрын

11c here, yeah, we're used to fighting with Air Superiority, I don't recall the a-10 ever being used without it.

@EugeneSlavnyi

Жыл бұрын

@@ott1887 yeah It’s more like a universal go go but in a safe airspace

@waynesworldofsci-tech

Жыл бұрын

The F-16 has normal landing gear. Ukraine runs off roads, not runways. Ukraine needs carrier planes, or the A-10 with rough capabilities.

The F-16 is the preferred choice for the best control of airspace. In specific applications I believe the A-10 will be a big plus in Ukraine. It is designed to be refueled, rearmed, and serviced with minimal equipment. Its simple design enables maintenance at forward bases with limited facilities. An unusual feature is that many of the aircraft's parts are interchangeable between the left and right sides, including the engines, main landing gear, and vertical stabilizers. The sturdy landing gear, low-pressure tires and large, straight wings allow operation from short rough strips even with a heavy aircraft ordnance load, allowing the aircraft to operate from damaged airbases, flying from taxiways, or even straight roadway sections.[

@dragonsdynamite6403

Жыл бұрын

A peace deal. Isn’t it enough death?

@UNITED24media

Жыл бұрын

Let the invaders leave Ukraine, and the war will end.

@richbattaglia5350

Жыл бұрын

The multiple levels of redundancy with the A-10 is how modern weapons ought to be. Amazing design.

@zaphod22

Жыл бұрын

@@richbattaglia5350 used by 24 countries.

Best option. Both F-16 and/or F-15's, and the A-10. The A-10 would be an ideal ground support aircraft for Ukraine, being capable of using less than ideal airfields, less complicated to fly and maintain, and capable of carrying a wide variety of munitions. However it would be susceptible to heavy ground fire, MANPADS's, etc., and especially enemy aircraft. Paired with either the F-16 or F-15, as air, radar, and missile, suppression, they would certainly give Ukraine's ground forces the edge in the upcoming counter-offensives.

@cut--

Жыл бұрын

I was going to say 'both' The two are so different.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

The A-10 is extremely hard to maintain - there's few parts available. The company that made it went out of business two decades ago.

@cut--

Жыл бұрын

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Grumman Corporation from Fairchild Republic Company, and are now part of the Northrop Grumman Aeronautics Systems, presently partnered with Lockheed Martin Systems Integration as a member of the A-10 Prime Team.

@cut--

Жыл бұрын

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD google

@sergepitter9639

Жыл бұрын

For bombing and close air support old F117 could also be used.

How about both? And to assess someone's capabilities you have to train them on the equipment you want them to handle.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

It would make no sense. Instead of wasting time training Ukrainian pilots and maintenance crew on a dead aircraft, they can just focus on the F-16s.

@matthewgaines10

Жыл бұрын

You know more about training pilots than the USAF? Everything in USAF fighters is in English. What needs to be switched over vs trained? Glass cockpit aircraft will require software modifications because you can’t slap a label over a screen and call it done. Many NATO countries design cockpits the same so it’s easier for one NATO pilot to jump into a plane they never sat in from a foreign country and know what’s up immediately. Russian aircraft are not designed with those same common themes and are more gauge oriented. On top of all that, proficiency in an airframe takes time. Time these pilots don’t have. In combat, some things need to be a reflex. That’s why the U.S. scrambled to try to get types they could use today and they had experience with such as Russian aircraft. US fighter pilots are considered proficient and acclimated to an airframe after about a year in the type. We would be throwing them into the fight with limited experience in the type. We did that in past wars and while possible, it’s not idea. It may be necessary today for Ukraine but the US is trying provide the most effective weapons they can use today.

@Isaacsbased

Жыл бұрын

How about neither Stephanie.

The A-10 & the F-18 are the only two US jets with landing gear strong enough that they can operate from the rough runways & highways that Ukraine has during this war.

@markiyanhapyak349

Жыл бұрын

18‽ 🤔 🤔

@johncogswell2890

Жыл бұрын

@@markiyanhapyak349 Yes, the F/A-18 was designed for carrier landings and it's landing gear is very robust compared to the F-16 and F-15. Also the fact that it has two engines as compared to the F-16's single engine means it has a potential for greater survivability in combat, and the air intakes are mounted higher than the F-16, reducing the chance of FOD (foreign object debris) entering the intake on an airfield.

@markiyanhapyak349

Жыл бұрын

So great!!

@badlt5897

Жыл бұрын

@@johncogswell2890 And F/A-18s are available. C/Ds are being retired AND so are Finland and Australian ones.

@angepano8591

Жыл бұрын

The F18 is an excellent option for Ukraine, of course. It may be the best, if the countries who are replacing C models can hand over a few.

My vote is for Gripen, but there are not enough so A10 and F16 it is. Let’s gettem both !

As a combat Paratrooper, they need A-10's and F-16's. Warthog for close air support and the F‐16's to protect them plus drop bombs. Both are a winning combo

@Teak701

Жыл бұрын

Sounds like you need both A-10’s and one of the F’s to protect the A-10’s in combat. F-16 maybe. But Kofman says ammunition is the priority right now. So glad Poland and Slovakia have made a move with the MiG’s. Maybe that will get the US moving. Just like the Challengers finally got you your Leopards and M1 A1 Abrams.

@Isaacsbased

Жыл бұрын

They need neither.

@murphy7801

Жыл бұрын

Given that A10 has caused more friendly fire incidents than all other USA aircraft combined it's truely staggering how bad a cas aircraft it is. It once killed 17 marines in one run and injured 24 more. It's also super easy to shoot down. Maybe don't try and apply coin experience in peer to peer combat.

@WhiteFalcon-tw9wc

Жыл бұрын

@@murphy7801 I do believe that was the shot callers fault for not identifying. We had the same thing happen when a ANGLICO called in fire on our brigade TOC

@215rwg

10 ай бұрын

@@murphy7801just exactly how many a-10s have been shot down? I know some amount but not an exact number. I'd also be interested in how many landed safely while shot up enough to bring anything else down twice.

Just give the air force what they need

@wecanhelpnowatunited24

Жыл бұрын

ASAP 4 🇺🇦

@Isaacsbased

Жыл бұрын

Dumbest thing I’ve read all day.

Has anyone considered the Saab Grippen as it is very diverse and can land almost anywhere other planes can not.

@mike4480

Жыл бұрын

It’s bases can be hidden away in forests…great aircraft….yes and can take off and land on short stretches of roads…💙💛💙

@thatotherguy7596

Жыл бұрын

Last I heard, the Swedes are unwilling to provide Gripens.

@crissdiamond1907

Жыл бұрын

@@thatotherguy7596 nope, they did say that nothing was off the table when it come to Swedish military gear!

@thatotherguy7596

Жыл бұрын

@@crissdiamond1907 That's good to hear.

@jeff6633

Жыл бұрын

I just commented that Ukraine should use F-16s , but I forgot about the rough run ways and the Grippen. I think you might be right. The Grippen is the way to go.

Ukraine needs air superiority to use the A-10 affectively. Otherwise it’s not much better than the Su-25. F-16’s are a better choice to get. The US has hundreds of old Block 30 F-16’s in storage which have better radars than the Mig 29 and can fire Aim-120C/D fire and forget missiles as well as other modern missiles.

@koekiejam18

Жыл бұрын

Including the AGM-88 which is already in Ukraine! Even with aerial supremacy the A-10 will be a hastle, the older A models are lacking quite a bit of sensors. (and i have my doubts as to wether the A-10 or F-16 come with any for of Targeting Pod besides the Pave Penny)

The A10 is amazing if you have air supremacy, sending them in alone now would be suicidal. Of the ones listed the F16 seems like a realistic option. They're available in large numbers, many countries operate them, and they're currently being retired due to the arrival of the F35.

@murphy7801

Жыл бұрын

I mean the A10 took plenty casualties in the gulf war which was air supremacy. What you want it air dominance. Ukrainian is contested and there are s300's and s400s and manpads and 2K22 Tunguska. It's litterally suicide. I don't even know why it's even a conversation 😂

@NotJustAnotherAverageJoe

Жыл бұрын

@@murphy7801 Yeah, but considering how much damage one can do with a single A10. It's well worth it. Imagine doing runs on the Russian trenches...

It can't be denied that the psychological effect of the A-10 firing it's cannon is HUGE for all those on the ground, especially those on the receiving end. In Iraq just the sound of an A-10 flying over quite often caused the attacking insurgents to run. However combine A-10's and F-16's together and I think you have all bases pretty well covered.

@paulhare662

Жыл бұрын

Ooo yeah. The middle east is so much different and better now since you guys covered all the bases.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

Ukrainians and serious volunteers have complained about soldiers who fought insurgents and thought that they could just show up in Ukraine. The experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has no carry over.

@MissEldira

Жыл бұрын

Yes I can imagine that friendly fire does have a big psychological effect on your troops.

@TrineDaely

Жыл бұрын

THIS.

@Stephen85

Жыл бұрын

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD yep

I think that Gripen would be ideal. Second i think F16, but there is alot of maintanance hours on them. Slava Ukraini!

@marinrealestatephotography

Жыл бұрын

The other issue is that the F-16 is particularly susceptible to foreign objects entering the engines and causing damage to them, which is problematic for Ukraine's runways. The Gripen is better suited to the situation in Ukraine.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

​@@marinrealestatephotography It would be, if Saab's marketing wasn't writing checks that their designers and manufacturers can't cash. There's too few Gripens to spare.

@jathalan

Жыл бұрын

F-16 is actually still in production, so the jets may be decades old with hundreds of flight hours, or still have that new fighter smell (honestly unlikely for a freebie.) We do have a tendency to fly more than most countries though. Slava Ukraini!

The F-16 has excellent SEAD, DEAD and A-A capabilities. The problem is its landing gears and maintenance. The A-10C ispratically unmatched in CAS roles and loiter time. But its very vulnerable both to air threats and SAMs. The F/A-18 has a more rugged landing gear and is "suppose to be" easier to maintain. But its more of a jack of all trades

@koekiejam18

Жыл бұрын

The A-10c is also unmatched in friendly fire incidents, It is overmatched in the amount of armored vehicle kills it got during desert storm (F-111 1500 vs A-10 900, most utilising GBU's and AGM-65's) The F-18 you mentioned is an amazing suggestion, sadly they are out of the question (for now!)

@johnbigelson7471

Жыл бұрын

​@@koekiejam18 Hornet gets no love 😢

Harrier GR9s with Brimstone would have been perfect

@stupidburp

Жыл бұрын

The US Marine Corps still has some Harriers that have been recently phased out or about to do so. But they require specialized extra training to use effectively that Ukraine probably doesn’t have time for.

I think they need both.

I must repeat my opinion because this is the perfect video for which to do it. Why is the question always "which one"? It seems to me the pool of Ukrainian pilots who have been flying Su-25s could easily transition into the A-10, but maybe not so easily into a supersonic fighter of any kind. Similarly, the existing pool of Ukrainian pilots who have been flying MiG-29s should be able to transition easily into F-16s or F-15s or Grippens or [fill in the blank with your favorite 4th generation fighter]. Furthermore, the USAF doesn't win battles with a single type of aircraft. Do you think A-10s might get much improved survivability if they are operated in conjunction with electronics warfare aircraft like the F/A-18G growler and the E-2 Hawkeye? We should be providing and training Ukraine how to use a variety of aircraft types. It's not a "which one" situation.

@dont-want-no-wrench

Жыл бұрын

whoa, slow down tony, you are talking too much sense.

@koekiejam18

Жыл бұрын

A-10's have been pushed for retirement time and time again, only to be stopped by politicians. It underperformed during desert storm and it is the No.1 aircraft in the USAF when it comes to friendly fire incidents Transition between aircraft will be an absolute nightmare regardless of which pilot goes to which plane. Most F-16 models can perform every role the A-10 and F-15 can, no reason to not utilise that. (Also very good mention of the E-2 and Growler but i have serious doubts that those will see ukraine since they are USN assets. Perhaps an agreement surrounding the western E-3 entries can be made to allow ukraine to tap into DATALINK. (although this would be very unlikely due to the security risks it would pose)

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

Because it's a waste of time and money.

@KawaTony1964

Жыл бұрын

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD It would not be a waste of time and money.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

@@KawaTony1964 It would be. Diversifying a force always costs more. You're having to split your training of pilots and maintenance crews, your logistics, etc. The A-10 is a museum piece. The reason it's being considered for retirement is literal lack of parts.

I've read there was discussion between Finland, UA, and others regarding F18 hornets.

Guys please, even if Ukraine were to achieve air superiority they would still have to conduct SEAD operations, otherwise an A-10 would not last a second against Russian SAMs, in fact under current circumstances it wouldn't perform much better than the Su-25.

A10 x Grippens, they can land on highways, 'these two types are complementary, Grips are very much built for this region, this task.....plus of course ATACAMs. (amateur advice). Hope and wish UA gets the best mix, best choice! Slava Ukraini!

@ikda12

Жыл бұрын

Especially in context of flexibel start/landing and ease of maintenance in war times, the A10 x Gripen looks like a good combination. Unfortunately the available number might be an issue for the Gripen. Sufficient numbers (5 digit+) of JDAM and GLSDB I would see as more promising in context of price/value ratio. The only real value for ATACAMS might be the bridge, but when using JDAM and GLSDB in combination with Russian tactics it should be reachable by other means.

A 10 is much cheaper and practically ruled out, but it would help a lot, but in a squadron with some F 15 or F 16. That duo would do more damage than a bachelor party ))

Besides train pilots, what would Ukraine need to do to accept and use a new aircraft system because you don't just get planes, it's all the support that they need. Is Ukraine able to absorb a new system without compromising other areas of defense? But definitely the F-16s are the better option than A-10. Ukraine has done a stellar job denying air superiority to the moscovians with its assortment of ground air defense, Su-27s and MiG-29s. My hope is that something happens fast because this war needs to end and the only legitimate end is victory for Ukraine.

I think it should be a combination of all three planes. tactics will be the key.

Not to mention the US will never use the A10. They're decommissioned and just sitting there. They could help compensate for the lack of tanks, and they can absolutely shred the hordes of zombies with toy helmets and BTRs. Vulnerable, sure, but cheap as dirt, easy, and rugged. I suspect they wouldn't be as vulnerable against this particular military's capabilities as it might seem. A10 for support; F15/16 for HARM strikes to wipe out the radar systems that would detect the A10s, and to give their fleet something to think about besides blocking grain shipments.

@Helperbot-2000

Жыл бұрын

the problem with the a 10 is that it isnt cheap anymore, more specifically, the a 10c (the upgraded ones necessary to be in any way competitive in todays battlefield) became the very thing it swore to prove wasnt necessary, it had to get upgrades that are expensive and more dificult to repair or replace

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

They're "sitting there" because of no parts.

Very informative

There’s a U.S. military contractor flying retired F-18 A / B models that perhaps can be UA’s modern “Flying Tigers”

I've seen the A10 in action for ground attack it is phenomenal, plus it can take a lot of damage and still fly.

@donnewton7858

Жыл бұрын

Best armored plane in the fleet.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

Modern missiles would just shred the aircraft in half.

@donnewton7858

Жыл бұрын

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD If a missle hits ANY plane it's going to destroy it. That's why planes have countermeasures and pilots who know evasive maneuvers. I'm thinking you don't really know what you're talking about, you're just one of those people that like to talk shit and stir people up. Am I close?

What is best, FA-18s. Because of their reinforced landing gear for carrier landings they can better handle rough runways than F-16s. Either way you need to establish air superiority which you can't do with an A-10.

It’s great that the Mig 29’s have been adapted to carry NATO munitions and are being sent to Ukraine, but Saab Grippen and A10’s would be great combination to send too! Though I understand that the A10 does suffer from tremendous shaking when attacking ground positions, but the footage I have seen makes it look fearsome. Maybe a couple of AC130 gunships would be really good for chewing up the Russian orcs on the ground, they have incredible firepower, but would still need the Saab Grippen, or the F16 for escort missions, and securing the airspace. Victory to Ukraine!🇺🇦Slava Ukrajina!🇺🇦

@markiyanhapyak349

Жыл бұрын

What is the “Saab Grippen”?

@garyfilmer382

Жыл бұрын

@@markiyanhapyak349 you have drawn my attention to a spelling error in my post, most likely caused by a ‘typo’. Saab Gripen, and as I type it again, I see that my software has slipped another ‘p’ into the word, which I have just deleted. It is a Swedish, multi-role combat plane of very high performance, but I feel sure that you are aware of this. Anyway, thanks for pointing out the error in my post.

@markiyanhapyak349

Жыл бұрын

No, I didn't know it; I’m *ALL* for the *PEACE.* 👋🏻

I'd rather have 50 A-10s than one F-16. That's as simple an answer I can give!

Both is best!

There is *_no_* one plane that will do everything for Ukraine. Also, when speaking of aircraft, what Ukraine needs most is air supremacy over the area of combat. And to fulfill that specific task, you need *_two_* types of aircraft, for two very specific missions. 1) Combat Support: Here there are three US aircraft that can fulfill that role, but one only with a caveat. _(The C-130 Gunship is a night fighter only. Meaner than the A10 & AH64 put together, but super slow and big, so easy to shoot down during the day.)_ Everyone looks at the Warthog, but there's a more versatile and cheaper alternative, the AH64 Apache. Yes, even slower, but easier to maintain, and can land almost anywhere, thus be located closer to areas of combat. _(A10 doesn't need as fancy of a runway as a F15 or F16, but it still needs a decent one.)_ 2) But before you can send in A10s or AH64s, you need to clear close AA _(radar)_ out. But more importantly, you also need _air to air_ during A10 and/or AH64 operations. While something like a Mig-29 can work, of the two US options, the F-15 has more _awareness_ than the F16. In a direct comparison of _air to air_ combat, the F15 beats the Mig-29 & F16 easily. They are targeted long before they can even get a lock on the F15. And as a Foot-Note, here are the listed costs _(in their combat ready packages)_ : A10 Warthog: $20 million AH64 Apache: $13.9 million F-16 A/B: $14 million F-15 C/D: $30 million C-130 Gunship: $165 million

A-10 is a great compliment in conjunction with a strong fighter force, but by its self it would be a liability. Reform a strong air force first and once the reformed air force has dominance then the A-10 can do what it does best. In the air it is the same as on the ground with tanks and infantry, tanks or infantry work best when working together in coordinated efforts.

I say send both F-16s and A-10. A-10s for air to ground attacks and tank busting, F-16s fly high cover for the A-10s and air to air battles.

F-18 and Grippen just because they can operate from the rough runways. Also unlike the A-10, they do not need the fighter cover to protect them from other fighters.

I live in Tucson, Arizona. The A-10 equipped 355 Fighter Wing is stationed here, and these amazing machines fly over my home nearly every day. Still, as others have noted, F-16s are Ukraine's best first choice for air superiority reasons, and the simple fact that there are many of them available.

I think F-16 or F/A-18 would be the best choices as far as US jets go, both are versatile and can use a range of stand-off weapons. The Russian SAM threat is still significant so use of any bombs other than JDAM would be risky. Supplying A-10 in addition to a multi-role fighter could be useful as Ukraine's Su-25 fleet has taken losses and the A-10 fills a similar role. The only issue with A-10 is it would have to basically serve as a platform for launching AGM-65 Maverick missiles because it's not worth risking pilots on gun runs.

F-16s are more versatile. If you could get ones with HARM targeting systems and the latest AMRAAMs that would be ideal. Everything's a bit limited without good C3 though.

The A10 is a morale destroyer

The combo would be great, and the noise of an A-10 could probably help cover the sound of helicopters being used as well, I think. I also hear a lot about the noise of A-10s being great for the morale of the troops being supported by it, its durability, and being much less fussy about runway conditions than the F-16. There are complaints that the A-10 is not a dogfighter, and it isn't designed for it - but that doesn't mean it can't win. Look up "1988 A-10 vs F-16 Dogfight: Why Did The Warthog Win?" from the channel Grim Reapers for an example, and then roam the comments. From the video: "There's an anecdotal saying we have in the Reapers, which is that if you're flying a fast jet, never get in a dogfight with an A-10... Which we learned from experience." It might not be the worst idea to get them some practice on moves similar to Sarajevo landings, too. I know early on, by April '22 I think, I was definitely hearing more A-10 flights out of the local Air Guard base at all times of day and night and suspected there was additional training, possibly even training Ukrainian pilots. Any additional training for the pilots would be helpful to them, and that goes for the heli pilots as well. If they can get training on Apaches and master those, they should be able to master any heli after that pretty fast. Additional items to consider: getting cigarette boats and the plans for the homemade submarines that were used to skirt the US Coast Guard by drug smugglers in the 80s. Turning those into suicide drones could possible, or in the case of the subs turning it into a mine sweeping drone as well.

At the very least a squadron of each should be trained up and provided as a test, esp. the A-10's. I can envision air coordination, have to have clear vector zones enforced, CAP and HARM strikes from the 16's. It would work initially, could even focus on taking out additional Z electronic warfare air assets. They'll adjust sure, but it would be another smack in the face. Like the Reaper drones, HIMAR and a great deal of other hardware provided, most slated for retirement, storage or scrap, esp. far as the A-10's concern. With the coming counter attack in the works, and keeping the Z eye focused on Bakhmut...be interesting to see just where the Ukrainians decide to strike next. Slava Ukraini!

Give Ukraine everything they need, pronto! 🇺🇦🇺🇸

The A-10 is a "one trick pony" but it is very good at that one trick. It is hands down the best plane in the world at that one trick. After watching MI 8 helicopters doing rocket attacks along the front lines in Ukraine it made me think how can the A-10 possibly more vulnerable than these guys are? Along with the U.S. Air Force, there will always be haters of the A-10. It would be interesting to see it clear WWI trenches and take on convoys of BTRs and BMPs. It can defend itself too, just not as well as an F-16. I doubt many SEAD missions have been flown using A-10s either. The F-16, back when I first went in the US Air Force some 35 years ago this was "The Jet" for me! (The US Air Force didn't see it that way). This is a plane that is good at almost everything. What more can you say. This plane first flew in 1974 and is still in production today. There is a production backlog for this plane! It can do what ever Ukraine needs a plane to do including what the A-10 does. It isn't as good as the A-10 at that job but it is still really good. After doing the A-10s job it is still capable of taking on anything the Russians can put in the air. The A-10 really can't do what an F-16 can when it comes to air combat. The poor A-10 pilot has no radar. I would think they would be BVR sitting ducks. If I can only choose one then it should be obvious, it has to be the F-16. The best choice would be both. My choice isn't based on my Air Force preference either. After all the plane the US Air Force decided it wanted me to work on was the A-10. I was an armament systems specialist 462x0 all those years ago. I was very familiar with the weapons carried inside and outside the A-10A as well as the parts of the plane that allowed the A-10A to use all those weapons. I would be lost in the new A-10Cs cockpit. It was buttons and knobs back then, and a 4200 rounds per minute 30mm Gau 8. It is pretty loud when someone fires it on the flightline by mistake. That's what happens when you think you know better than the people that wrote the book.

@ProfessorFickle

Жыл бұрын

You are correct ! It’s good at the one “trick “ Russian S-400 SAM don’t care about A-10 armor.

I have no clue but the A10 is terrifying

A-10 and F/A-18

need 3 types 2 f18-g growlers th jam air defense 10 f16's for high cover and 20 a-10 thunderbolts for close ground support

Pro's and con's: F16 - lots available via the USA - either directly, or backfilling other countries' stocks, but very different pilot interface and a lot of the higher-end secret stuff will be stripped. However, as long as the US refuses to supply, or let others supply, F-16's (or A-10's) this is a moot point. A-10, maybe a great ground attack and low-end fighter but will likely suffer at the hands of the first near-peer adversary - and Russian has excellent SAM missile systems that have a long reach. No sign of US permitting provision. Saab Gripen: on a technical basis, this would be my choice as it is designed for very much the environment within which Ukraine will operate aircraft. Namely: they are relatively simple to maintain and can be done by draftees and using mobile support vehicles. They can land and take off from roads, which is a huge advantage as Russia is likely to attack conventional airfields that other jets need. Further a Gripen can be fueled, serviced and reloaded within about 15 min, according to materials from Saab. Gripens can also work in groups as wolf packs, sharing data and targets. Problem is availability. Saab have limited production capability and are currently tied up with export orders and upgrading the Swedish AF with the newest Gripen E model. Still, some older Gripens might be able to come available eventually.

I was in Germany when the F-16 arrived in Hahn guarding F-4s

Got to be a mix of A10 and F16 👍🇬🇧

I personally vote for both the F16 and the A-10. Hell the USAF wants to retire half of the F-15E they should send them to Ukraine instead of some bone yard in Arizona.

It is really simple. You setup air dominance then bring in the ground attack aircraft (A-10, helicopters). Air dominance doesn't have to be with a US fighter but the US has the largest pool of aircraft. DO NOT get a hodge-podge of different western aircraft. It will be hard enough for familiarization & maintenance for one aircraft. Also don't get wrapped up in the news about F-16 weak nose gear. It is 'rough field' rated just as they all are. If you follow the news the Gripen it goes dead stick with no control inputs, I think it was the Eurofighter ejecting a pilot coming in for a landing, the F-16 has a weak nose gear, and on & on. When they are actually all very good fighters. The only one lacking is the F-15 with few maintenance facilities in Europe. You will need something easy to fix (relatively). I would say either ground attack helicopters or the A-10. I would even say the Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance (LAAR) aircraft would be perfect for Ukraine when you start buying your own. Prop driven & much cheaper than an A-10 or top end helicopters. Look at all your options then. You may have A-10's by then anyway.

Gadfly here 😉. I like quantity AND quantity

They need a mix. F16CJ/DJ for Sam suppression and f16 block 70 for air to air. And I would be willing to bet a lot that the USAF would gladly give Ukraine all of its A10’s.

@koekiejam18

Жыл бұрын

Mate the first F-16's that are going to be sent to ukraine will either be nation specific variants or Block 20's and 30's potentially even without the MLU. (Granted these are still superior to alot of other options ive seen around but Block 70's are only flying since this year!)

@gavinrebtoy3375

Жыл бұрын

@@koekiejam18 my point is the a10 is garbage and the USAF would love to get rid of them. They have been trying for years. In a ideal world it would be nice.

@koekiejam18

Жыл бұрын

@@gavinrebtoy3375 why include the block 70's then?

@gavinrebtoy3375

Жыл бұрын

@@koekiejam18 the block 70 are coming off the line in North Carolina right now.

@koekiejam18

Жыл бұрын

@@gavinrebtoy3375 That is not an asnwer, i know that. I wanted to know why you included them even though they will never be sent to ukraine?

It would be super helpful if Ukraine could get a few F-16CJ/D, EF-111A Ravens or EA-6B Prowlers with their Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) capability. The ability to defeat extensive, redundant, and overlapping air defense systems was successful by the United States in Operation El Dorado Canyon and Israel's dismantling of the Bekaa Valley air defense systems.

@stupidburp

Жыл бұрын

Super Hornets + Growlers. Suitable for rough conditions, highly capable, used airframes available in significant numbers that could be rapidly refilled with newer variants, and these two types are based on the same airframe for easier training, maintenance, and operational organization.

@stupidburp

Жыл бұрын

Perhaps 80 Super Hornets plus 20 Growlers would be enough.

I would say a combo of both. F 16s for air superiority and A 10s which can be covered by F 16s.

Interesting to hear that the A-10 is able to shoot down helicopters! How about shooting Shahed drones then?? If they could do that then I think they would be in fact very useful. And also what about weapon stations to launch western air to ground like Brimstone (2) or maybe even the anti radar HARM missiles?

A squadron of each working as a package is your jam. Air-to-air F-16s up top providing regional air superiority while the Hawgs feast on fleeing Zs down in the dirt would be absolutely GLORIOUS! Any old Cold Warrior / Desert Stormer like myself would love to see this. This would be fabulous as well clearing the battle space for a thunder run all the way to the sea. And beyond. Sick ‘em Hawgs!

I think we need to send several squadrons of 15,s 16s, amd 18s. But im not specialist just think we need different planes for different roles. A10s i guess too. Im good with whatever experts think

The A-10 is not a good choice as long there's no air superiority they are easy target for dog fights and ground to air missels, and it makes great ground support platform with air superiority

Australia has FORTY F/A-18As they are trying unsuccessfully to find a buyer for. The legacy hornets are in great condition. They are more flexible in terms of runways and operating costs than a F16. The airframe can deploy nearly all of the NATO weapons and any that are available to Ukraine currently. Australia needs to be getting pressure to consider sending these too. 40 F18s would be sufficient for at least a squadron or two with backups. A superb platform and a great gateway into potentially later getting the newer Rhino's/Super Hornets or other NATO based airframes.

@koekiejam18

Жыл бұрын

This is such a good suggestion

@simonleonard8154

Жыл бұрын

@@koekiejam18 especially if Finland can follow through with more F18s later as they were suggesting

F16 as it is a multi role aircraft as much as the A10 is potent air to ground platform it is naked when faced with a dedicated fighter.

F-16s are a longer-term solution due to complicated maintenance and logistics, and the A-10 indeed needs some sort of airspace control assistance to be effective (but look up pics and stories of them coming back missing nearly whole wings and such - truly impressive) So I'd say Gripens ASAP and get F-16s moving (though the 2 pilots in the States might suggest the decision has been made but is being hushed for security purposes), maybe line Ukraine up to be part of the F-16X and F-15EX programs

A10's hitting trench lines would be devastating. Brrrrrrrrrrt, brrrrrrrrt. 100's of meters of trenches and small bunkers destroyed.

I think overall the A10 in the right situation would be useful but it is still vunrable and to slow as mentioned compared to the SU25 which is a lot faster. Overall I think the Sweedish JAS39 Grippen would be the best fit for the type of war Ukraine is fighting because of its cost and ease of maintainace and is very capable fighter. The other good western fighter would be the F18 the Super Hornet even better as it has a way stronger undercaride compared to the F16 as Ukraine has very rough runways not smooth concrete ones.

How about the Gripen?

if we compare the price of a single antiaicraft missile with that of a warthdog and if we consider them with the huge tactical usability, we could argue that, if Ukraine wants them, to give them. The survability of pilotes can be mitigated and improved trough missions of AA fire suppresion beforehand, artilerry softening, second stage of large counteroffensive where the antiair capability of the russians were degraded, etc. Their compatibility with a number of western long range missiles, antiship antisub missiles cannot be understated.

Wouldn't an A-10 be a sitting duck for an enemy-fired MANPAD? Or don't the Russians have enough of those to pose a threat? Second, aren't tank and infantry elimination already being taken care of effectively by mines, drones, and Stugnas? If so, then wouldn't the A-10 be redundant, and wouldn't their presence risk the lives of trained pilots (a valuable commodity) with little to no additional return on the battlefield?

A-10’s are great. If Ukraine is provided the opportunity to pick A-10’s up, no other plane will provide Ukraine’s Infantry with more confidence. No more getting pinned down in open fields, as the enemy will be running for their lives as soon as they hear it coming. With that said, you’ll still need a multi-role to secure the sky, and allow the A-10 to work.

@marinrealestatephotography

Жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, there is a lot of ground-based air defense near the front lines, and an A-10 would have a very difficult time making it near the target without getting hit by a manpad or two. Not to mention that Russian fighters have been keeping Ukraine's SU-25s at bay already, which is a pretty comparable plane to the A-10. What Ukraine needs is a delivery vehicle for the long-range Meteor missile (200KM effective range) and a way to acquire those targets (i.e., some sort of AWACS to provide targeting data).

Use scout drone helicopters as gunships for CAS. Possibly harrier ii as they can operate from improvised air strips in short take off role. Us marines are about to replace them anyway

I’d like to see squadrons of A10s before the F16s. My wish would be for Ukraine to receive our AH64. The grunts love them!

🙏🙏

You want quick easy learning curve…and pounding the ground …maintenance wise and with migs being given ,thats your fullback in the backfield .

The viper would be the better choice. It is capable at both air superiority as well as ground support. The strike eagles would work as well but the 16 would be the better.

I just heard in the news that the Philippine military had surplus small arms ammunition that were a product of overproduction during the 2017 Marawi Crisis. In a phone call with President Zelensky, Pres. Ferdinand Marcos Jr. said that he will help Ukraine in any way if it asked for his help. Which begs the question. Will the Philippines help Ukraine?

I think Mig 29 and A-10 would be a good combo deal.

F-16 and the A-10 compliment each other; you are going to need both platforms to be successful.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

The F-16 does more CAS than the A-10.

@jamesbohlman4297

Жыл бұрын

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD The F-16 is a "fast mover" coming in on a series of fixed vectors if not in the presence of air-to-air refueling; the A-10 is a subsonic loiterer working directly with the ground forces via a foward-observer cadre. The A-10 can utilize prepared roadways; the F-16 can't. The F-16 is designed to crush systems like the S-400 and that miserable SU-35; which is to say that the F-16 creates an envelope for the A-10 to work and conversely the ground forces to move fast. My uncle and his cronies flew from a 27-Alpha which is now a museum ship; each one of those planes was sophisticated for the time and had a purpose. I don't know when there is going to be a substantive discussion about early warning (E-1), In flight refueling (A-3W), electronic countermeasures (ADE model), who is going to fix the runways when they are blasted, and what exactly is wrong with the Grippen in light of the fact that it's designed for this sort of work?

Please send as much planes as possible to Ukraine The Russian air defense will be happy

We should send both

Ukraine need to clear the sky 1st for the A10 to assist ground forces and shine. F16 are needed 1st hope you get them from California ❤🇺🇦🇺🇸

They should go for gripen

Give them both simple

F-16 and A10 are completely different aircraft that do different things in different ways. There is no comparison between them.

Any word from this assessment training or whatever they are calling this??

The A-10 is freaking AMAZING. I know from personal combat experience that when you have an A-10 on standby for close air support you feel A LOT safer as an infantryman. That being said however, the A-10 would not work for Ukraine. Not right now at least. In order for the A-10 to be as effective as possible, you need to control the airspace or at the very least have fighter aircraft alongside it to protect it from enemy fighters. The F-16 is what's needed. It was actually kind of meant for an air force like Ukraine's. It's able to do multiple missions so it can take the place of 3 different airframes meant for specific roles. Those being air, ground and electronic. The only problem is since it's good at everything, it's not the best at anything. The F-15 is too maintenence intensive for Ukraine to be able to keep them flying for very long and since the F-16 is flown by so many nations, there are a lot of parts available and numerous countries that could provide support. The biggest problem in providing F-16s to Ukraine though isn't finding and training the pilots. It's training enough maintainers to keep the fleet going. It's something like for every 1 F-16 pilot there needs to be like 10 maintainers and it's even more for the F-15. A full F-16 program would take at minimum 2 years to implement and that's if EVERYTHING goes right and Murphys law makes sure it never does. The question everybody should be asking isn't if NATO should supply F-16s, it's if Ukraine has the time and resources to risk investing in setting up a functional F-16 program at high enough numbers to make a difference.

Support UA ! Help light fighters to resist and win!

The A-10 is made to operate without infrastructure from dirt if needs be. They could do some awesome night work. They have the most chaff and flare dispensers of any US aircraft. They usually fly with a jammer pod and sidewinder missiles. I wish that Northrop had been allowed to develop the F-20 Tigershark. That would've been perfect.

I'm no military guy - armchair at best - but I would lean more toward the F-16 if I had to choose. I think the airspace is probably a little too contested for the A-10, but that ground attack capability sure would be sweet if it weren't also vulnerable. Given the proliferation of various anti-aircraft systems on both sides, I have apprehension that neither is really ideal in this particular conflict.

They should put the GAU-8 Avenger on the F-16.

@Helperbot-2000

Жыл бұрын

no they should not, that would not only be extremely difficult and extremely expensive, but more importantly it would achieve absolutely nothing, the gau 8 is highly ineffective against old armour of the era it was build in, and against anything even slightly more modern its in practice useless. altho in fairness the russians are using older and older scrap piles

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

This was attempted in the 90s, it's not feasible.

Couple of each would work. Some for ground support and the f16 for long distance and taking out Russian missiles and planes

Saab Gripen would be a good choice to.

They must come at the same time, can't have one without the other

Both F16 & A-10 .

F-16 is more useful but there would definitely be a psychological benefit to a few warthogs. They will be dangerous to operate but so is fighting in a trench, they could be used sparingly in safer areas or maybe during a big offensive to help create chaos or as a diversion. It's bad enough for the Russians having to worry about tiny drones with grenades without BBRRRRRRTTTTTT as well.

You've already got some great technical comparisons here; seems to come down to control of airspace versus a more robust aircraft better suited to the current conditions. ONE thing though; since vladimir putin does not recognize the ICC or The Hague and has just had a warrant issued for his arrest as a War Criminal - there IS one word more the A-10 could say - once he and all of his body-doubles are lined up in the sites of said A-10. That is.... BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT The End.

I like the a10 but it only works in countries that don’t have missile defense systems I don’t think it has modern technology

Everything helps at this point

F/A-18's would be best for Ukraine. Australia is trying to get rid of about 40 F/A-18B's The 'B' models are a little old, but will do the job.

@stupidburp

Жыл бұрын

I think that Australia should replace the last of their Super Hornets(24) and Growlers(12) with 36 F-15EX. Any number of these could potentially be configured for electronic warfare as needed just by adding some external pods with a little bit of development and integration work. No need for a separate variant. They would increase the patrol range and strike range beyond the limits of F-35s and with much greater firepower. 36 F-15EX would be a good complement to the 72 F-35A that they have.

Both!

Warthogs only seem to make sense if the airspace can be controlled effectively.

You need both. A-10 requires air supiriority. Given the cost its a no-brainer to add some A-10 if you have the pilots and IF there are enough F-16 for local air supiriority.