Not taking out that Russian convoy was a huge missed opportunity

The Stuka is the perfect analog for the A10. Once modern British fighters went up against the Stuka. It failed. The A10 needs to be retired. I know these birds well. I was a 431 crew chief on A10A's for 5 of my 8 years in the USAF.

@_HONK

Жыл бұрын

finally someone said it! in a world of Brrrt fanboys someone understands where the a10 belongs, a museum.

@haruruben

Жыл бұрын

I haven’t heard about the Ukrainians flying the “frog foot “ but if they are, why not give them some A10s as they are analogous to the “frog foot”

@TB-zf7we

Жыл бұрын

@@haruruben The Ukrainians are still flying the Su-25, the Russian 80's less capable answer to the A10, knap of the earth. They may not be doing direct missile attacks against armor but maybe mimicking the Helo's maneuver with unguided missile lobs.

@michaelsoland3293

Жыл бұрын

@@criticalevent drones or Super Tucano’s for COIN

@Igor-xl4wz

Жыл бұрын

James, that is short-sighted. Yes, its old and in a situation with saturated AA, its not going to survive flying high. But they are continually operating the SU-25 and doing what they can with what they have. Just because a musket is old doesn't mean it won't kill. Yes, a rifle is obviously more effective, but you shoot what you have. Additionally, the A-10 is great at not sucking up crap from a runway with debris.

A couple of things to add, recall what the A-10 was originally designed to replace, as well as the mission. That's the A-1 Skyraider and the A37, the mission being close air in relation to combat rescue missions. Which it is a most capable player in that role. These days, one mission is it's use for day time close air, when AC-130's lose darkness and have to come home. Obviating, if your flying AC-130's you already have air superiority. But the Hog wouldn't be using it's gun in most scenarios involving tanks these days, rather it would be using missiles that are much more effective and also have a fair amount of standoff. And as far as manpads, the current Hog does have active jamming. And in operation they'd have already sent forward aircraft equipped with HARMS to take care of layered defense arrays. The big question about it is, would we be giving them the various missiles, training, electronic warfare suites, datalinks, and re-supply of all that? I don't think so. That, and they already have a faster, and for them, more capable platform in the Su-25. I don't believe they need run of the mill F-16's, but rather the CJ variant, which would be a crazy hard sell with the state department. But if anything, the best all around platform for killing migs, close air, and being quite efficient about it, is the Jas-39. And that's a lower cost alternative (per flight hour) that could get them a whole lot of bang for the buck and into the NATO pilot training pipeline.

@breakingmoney3077

6 ай бұрын

Exactly I have zero clue what he's talking about. I've seen the damage to all kinds of vehicles and tanks first hand. He's full of crap!

As a former A-10 battle damage repair engineer, I can attest the A-10 can take a lot of damage and still come home. A lot of this is down to redundancy. For example, it has one wing on each side of the airplane, so if one gets shot off, it can fly using the other. ;)

@bo45

7 ай бұрын

Very funny. But they are a very tough bird. I've heard of them being shot all to hell. And still make it home.

@jaymoore332

7 ай бұрын

@@bo45 We had one come back from Kosovo with more than 300 shrapnel holes from a manpads. Hydraulics out, back to good ol’ steel cables for control. One of the first female combat pilots at the stick. She brought it back.

@bo45

7 ай бұрын

@jaymoore332 First, thank you for your service. I wasn't in the service, but about half my family is and/or was in the service. So I have the utmost respect for what you and those you served with have done. Thanks Again! I'd talked with my brother (was with the teams, US Navy 23 years) about what his thoughts were about sending A-10's to Ukraine, and whether or not they'd just be "targets" for other fighters. His opinion was that the A-10's were a lot of things. Targets wasn't one of them. He thought that they're capable of defending their selves against other aircraft (especially Russian aircraft, or pilots he hasn't got a favorable opinion of the Russian military) if they have the right ordinance on board. He told me about an exercise the military (I forget which branch) did trying to determine the survivability of "Apache" helicopters, against fighter jets. The "Apaches" won 4 out of 5, on average. So I figured if an "Apache" could, more times than not, take out high performance fighter aircraft, an A-10 should be able to do the same. They're highly maneuverable, and can pack a wide variety of ordinance, including that monster gun they built that plane around. And can take a beating, and make it home. By the way, kudo's to that pilot that brought that bird home. That little guy must have had angel's watching over her that day. Was she injured at all? That's a lot of air conditioning, even for a A-10. I'm curious as to what your opinion is, with your experience and all, on those planes being used in Ukraine ?

@jaymoore332

7 ай бұрын

@@bo45 Thanks. Full disclosure, though: by “we” I mean a couple engineers from my unit higher on the deployment order than me. I was fortunate the conflict ended before my turn came. I think two things are true: 1) Ukraine really needs A-10s, and 2) A-10s would not survive in Ukraine right now. The best strategy is to get some F-16s in there to clear out the fighters and SAMs, creating the conditions for the A-10 to operate successfully. MANPADS would still be an issue, but without Flankers and telephone poles to worry about, you might reach a favorable risk/reward balance. Ammo is such an issue right now, if you could use the GAU-8 to take out Russian artillery without expending any 155 rounds on counterbattery, it could make a big difference.

Regulating the A10 to just a flying Gatlin gun is a mistake. it carries a plethora of smart munitions and missles capable of taking out any tank, but yes air dominance is needed.

@nanonano2595

Жыл бұрын

smart munitions and missiles which all can be carried by other aircraft that can be much more effective in ukraine's situation. A-10 fanboys keep going on about how it can come back missing 1/2 of its parts or something...problem is that even if it can, thats basically a ruined airframe right there. You're not sending that back out. Ukraine using the A-10 effectively means the US will need to back it up with a lot more assets, replacements and ideally everything needed for the A-10 to operate. Meaning send enough to secure air superiority. Sending a bunch of A-10s without all that is just wasting everyone's time and money.

@SOS-ds8gq

Жыл бұрын

@@nanonano2595 The real threat or target is artillary 20mi away from front line, A-10 Gatlin gun can have a very good efficiency against soft target and short distance would make Russian anti-air pretty streached out and only have very short time for reacting. Plus lost a few a-10 is not big deal russia have the similar philosophy of getting rid of acient platforms, real losses are pilots. Of course general platforms are more capable but they are much more high tech and losses would leak military tech thus not likely for US to give most capable variant. A-10 is not the best choice but isn't useless either. It seems Ukraine really want to close their skys, F-15 with upgraded radar armed with AMMRAM i.e. missile truck could do that much better than any thing else while not stepping into enemy terrirory.

@cockatoo010

Жыл бұрын

"it carries a plethora of smart munitions and missles capable of taking out any tank" To quote MAH does it matter if a Maverick is fired by an F/A 18 or an A10? Face it. the A10 is overkill for COIN and too vulnerable for near-peer it's a niche platform for a niche that doesn't exist

@TeensierPython

Жыл бұрын

There are better aircraft that carry the same weapon systems. The A-10 should go away. For the same mission they could use the Super Tucano. Cheaper and fine for permissive airspace.

@haakonsteinsvaag

Жыл бұрын

@@TeensierPython cheaper for who? Remember its not just the plane that you need to buy, its pilot and maintenance/ground crew, replaceable parts and logistics. For US its cheaper to keep what they have, for other countries though you might be right.

You completely missed all of the others weapons carried by the A-10. The gun is one of the many weapons available for the anti armor missions. Arguably the best anti-armor weapon carried by the A-10 was the Maverick. I’m sure we would be happy to supply a bunch of Mavericks to the Ukrainians.

@toto-yf8tc

Жыл бұрын

And you miss the main point: the A-10 life expectancy would be a couple of sorties. So what's the point?

@44R0Ndin

Жыл бұрын

But if that's the case, there's other aircraft that can fit the Maverick. Like the F-16 mentioned at the end of the video. They even have (mostly) the same targeting pod, I think, so the systems involved should already be compatible.

@subtomeandgetabsolutelynot4154

Жыл бұрын

All of which the su25 fills in

@44R0Ndin

Жыл бұрын

​@@subtomeandgetabsolutelynot4154 SU-25 can't fit Western weapons on it, the data-link systems are incompatible. F-16, now that can fit everything (except the gun) that the A-10 can (more or less), and then some. For instance. The US has produced and exported a pretty neat kind of munition that can take out a lot of armored vehicles with just one of them. It's called the CBU-97 Sensor-Fused Weapon. While it's technically a kind of cluster bomb, it's not a dumb one. It's very, very smart. Each CBU-97 carries 10 submunitions, ejected by airbags in 2 groups of 5, and each of those individual submunitions carries 4 Skeets. When the submunition reaches a certain altitude, it fires a pair of solid rocket motors, which both push it back up into the air and make it spin rapidly. After that, the submunition releases Skeets in 2 sets of 2, with the timing calculated to fling the 2nd set of skeets at 90 degrees from the first set of skeets. Each Skeet is an integrated package of sensors, power supply, and a warhead which fires an explosively formed penetrator at whatever the sensors pick out as a suitable target. And it's not stupid about picking targets, it uses both laser and IR sensors to gather data, and when it gets a pattern match to a known hostile vehicle it fires the warhead on a trajectory to impact the top of that vehicle. Oh and I said it's smart, well it's not just smart about finding targets. If it doesn't find a target, it is designed such that it self-destructs at an altitude of 50m, to mitigate the UXO problems such a cluster munition could cause. And if that fails, the system is designed to dis-arm itself a short time after it hits the ground.

@qurshet

Жыл бұрын

The more importance you put on weapons systems that the A10 can support, the less relevant the A10 becomes. Would you rather be in an A10 with a maverick or an F16 with a maverick when someone launches a guided missile at you? What about in a dog fight?

So fascinating and spot on. Thanks for the great analysis.

Thanks for the analytical breakdown Alex, excellent work once again.

Another extremely good video Alex. Highly informative, analytical and technical terms such as "bad guy flavored oatmeal". Thanks - great stuff

A common oversight in considering the A-10 is it's effectiveness in taking out tube artillery, rocket launchers, supply trucks, APCs, IFVs, bridging units, recovery vehicles, etc. Without which tanks are worthless.

@karmpuscookie

Жыл бұрын

Duh...like any Air to ground platform.

@aaroncabatingan5238

Жыл бұрын

Good luck getting the A10 past Russia's air defense to target those.

@Canbilly2

Жыл бұрын

@@aaroncabatingan5238 those would be taken out by our stealth aircraft.

@jerryalbus1492

Жыл бұрын

@@Canbilly2 why waste time and supplies for Stealth Aircraft to bring down AA for your tin can to do its job when those Stealth Aircraft can do the tin can's job instead without the risks?

@Canbilly2

Жыл бұрын

@@jerryalbus1492 they can't. They don't have the loiter capability of the Hog.

Thanks for sharing

great info, loved the visual shell comparison

OH BUT - The A10 was designed to fight the Soviet Army , developed initially to provide an aerial counterpunch to the mass of Soviet tanks poised along the borders of Western Europe. In the 1991 Gulf War the “Warthog” earned its nickname, getting pilots back to base despite heavy damage from ground fire while destroying 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 armored vehicles and trucks, and over 1,200 artillery pieces. Just four A-10s were lost to Iraqi surface-to-air missiles in over 8,000 sorties.

@bonedoc4556

Жыл бұрын

Agree with all the above. Have to add that air dominance was established to present the A10s proper environment.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

Six A-10s were lost, and they were re-tasked. The F-111 killed more tanks.

@FirstDagger

Жыл бұрын

And the expected life of the A-10 in that role against Soviet armor was minutes, A-10 pilots where literally told they would die. Almost all tank kills the A-10 did in ODS were with Mavericks, the F-16 and F-111 did more work against enemy armor than the A-10.

The main factor with the A-10 that needs to be addressed in a fighter is the time on target. An F-16 has very little time to deliver its weapons, only 4-5 passes and bingo fuel. F-15 EX can do better, but an A-10 can stay for a very long time.

@Trigger_Treats

Жыл бұрын

A very long time? No, not really. Unless they’re on already on station supplying CAS for a specific hit, dealing with the A-10 can be a PITA. When troops call TIC and had air sent their way, with the A-10 it usually meant a pretty long wait. Unless it’s already on station for a specific hit, the A-10 can (and has) arrived way too late to help. Our TACPs/CCPs/JTACs have pushed A-10's elsewhere because they weren’t capable of being on station fast enough. When the Hogs finally did show up, they’d spend another ten minutes trying to figure out exactly where the controller wanted ordinance, which way they wanted the Hogs to come in, proximity of friendlies, etc. At that point, after running at full throttle to get to the location, they’d hang around for 20 minutes then need to go tank. Vipers aren't much better, but they can get to TIC a lot faster, and they can hit just as accurately. CAS is more time sensitive than time intensive.The days of needing an aircraft to loiter at low altitude and low speed are over. What is necessary is providing ordnance on demand, accurately, in any environment. The A-10 can’t begin to do this. If a soldier wasn’t listening on the net, often times they wouldn’t even know or see which aircraft were in the stack. They’d just hear that the aircraft released, an ETA on impact, and then the explosion. A large percentage of the total tonnage of bombs dropped in support of CAS comes from aircraft the troops never even saw. If you need copious amounts of bullets and bombs and rockets, then you’re probably doing it wrong because that means you’re not hitting your target(s). If you’re in a long battle, then the loiter capability of the AC-130, KC-130J Harvest Hawk and B-1B are FAR superior ,and they have more than enough ordinance to keep flinging ammo long after the A-10s had to go home. A single B-1B has far more firepower than a flight of four A-10s. And the B-1 can stick around for hours, slinging dual-mode JDAMs on demand, aka “the bomb’s on it’s way in less than five minutes.”

@robertryan7204

Жыл бұрын

Yes it will linger, in time unfortunately a great target for Russian BUK anti Aircraft

@TheSpectralFX

Жыл бұрын

Except, no. "loitering time" is just more opportunities given to the adversary to shoot you down. Mission planning is what matters. Have the pilots on standby, paint the target, blow up the target, everybody goes home safe. In a A-10 world everybody (including boots on the ground) have to standby for hours while it circles around, tries to visually identify the target, then proceed to blow up a friendly convoy cuz derp.

@whitescar2

Жыл бұрын

That is only true when you have the luxury to loiter. If the airspace is contested, it's not your fuel that's determining your ability to stay, but the number of enemy AA missiles flying towards your airframe.

@robertryan7204

Жыл бұрын

@@whitescar2 exactly

You changed my mind, Thanx.

I love your content! We should just stay out of that conflict!

While you make a good argument that the A-10 is not a good match against Russian tanks, the war in Ukraine is not a tank war. It is an artillery war. How good would the A-10 be at destroying artillery is the real question.

@danjames8314

Жыл бұрын

cant destroy shit if it gets hit by any AA and is literally dead, like its not an uncontested airspace, far from it, besides the fact that hitting the ammo dumps is something the HIMARS is already doing so those guns cant even shoot in the first place. they need fighters, not a shot down CAS plane

@aaroncabatingan5238

Жыл бұрын

Even worst. Artillery would be covered by SAMs, BUKS and Pantsirs. While Russian air defense is overhyped garbage, against America's version of the T72, they should do fine.

@scottcampbell4678

Жыл бұрын

The A10 showed just how effective it is against Russian tanks repeatedly. It is also spectacular against personnel. It can be equipped with HARM anti radar missiles. It is easy to fly and survives almost anything. The only downfall it has is against fighter jets. That is easily remedied by a mixed squadron of A10s and any American fighter or interceptor.

@z34yearsago18

Жыл бұрын

Real good

@randy206

Жыл бұрын

It's only as good as it is alive. It's absolutely useless if the plane is shot down before it can put round on targets. If we were to send us pilots to fly f15s and f22s in support of the a10s, it would be pretty effective. But that would mean that the us would be at war with Russia.

I really love that you are one of the very few people and channels that stick to objectivity no matter what. It is really refreshing to see that people with common sense, honesty and objectivity still exist in these days. It is sadly far and few inbetween. Most are only interested in spreading their opinion and agenda without any factual basis, they spin everything to from it into their world view. And if that was not enough many get even emotional and angry if they face opposition or valid criticism. I hope that you also include neutrality and inpartiality on your list because they are very important too. Please keep the good wrok up and dont get discouraged because of some people who offend you just because they cant deal with common sense. You are doin great work and I support you happily.

Aching to see A-10 join the fight 🤣🤣 You made my day 🤣🤣

I got it, contested airspace is not good for ground support aircraft. Though, I do remember that when the USAF was rescuing the pilot of the F-117 after it was shot down. There were 2 A-10's for security as the helicopter picked him up. What I'm trying to say is, 'Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.'

@tedmoss

Жыл бұрын

Naysayers are almost always wrong.

I think what you are forgetting is that the Russian tanks are less than 8 miles behind enemy lines, a distance which would make the A10 sortie just 4 minutes long. The only snag being that the vehicle columns have now dispersed, an opportunity missed.

@weegaz22

Жыл бұрын

doesn't mean there wont be a "new wave" of mobilisations and columns in the future, also perforating armour isn't "telling the whole story" high energy projectiles hitting 1960's level metallurgy means that even though it might not "penetrate" it'll probably spall off enough internal metal on the inside of the tank to render the crew (and therefore tank) combat ineffective.

Very informative

Very informative and realistic!

I completely agree the A-10s are good for uncontested close air support attack craft and in an environment such as the battle in Ukraine with Soviet S-300 missiles launching at Ukrainian aircraft all the time its stands to reason that the pilots are good in what they fly currently, if you stuck them in an A-10, yes they would have considerable fire power but lack the speed to outfly any air interceptor the russians send after it or any hope of evading S-300 missiles. While the GAU-8 Avenger is the signature weapon of the A-10, the hellfire missiles are the best thing to deal with the tanks not the GAU. Instead of sending A-10s, it would be better to send over F-16's C or D models as we have plenty of those and they can be configured for multi role to deal with air and ground targets, not to mention they are way more agile and smaller target so it would be easier to dodge S-300 missiles and bug out.

@squgieman

Жыл бұрын

Maverick, jet launched hellfires dont really exist yet personally i suggest cluster bombs on F-18s

@MarioHernandez-ky8tg

Жыл бұрын

According to info that I read they are to be send with F16 also. And the russian proyectiles have been defeated by the ukranian pilots already. Also the cannon with depleted ammo is not the only weapon of the Hog. Estas mejoras incluyen un designador avanzado “HObIT” (Hybrid Optical-based Inertial Tracker) montado en el casco del piloto, integración de las nuevas bombas GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) para minimizar daños colaterales, introducción de una nueva gran pantalla central multifunción, integración del sistema de comunicación Link-16, que permite enlace en tiempo real con otros aviones, buques y sistemas en tierra y por último un “pod” con un pequeño radar de apertura sintética. Con todo esto el A-10 Thunderbolt II o 'Warthog', como es conocido por los pilotos, seguirá en activo como mínimo hasta 2030.

@edgardovillacorte7012

Жыл бұрын

It would be better to send drones instead

@HouseholdDog

Жыл бұрын

It's actually far too inaccurate to be a true close air support plane.

@artnull13

Жыл бұрын

US Airforce brass is just trying to get rid of those A-10’s

Yeah... The A-10 has no place in a conflict with a modern military.

@youtubeurevil

Жыл бұрын

Thats sarcasm right ?

@FLanklinBadge

Жыл бұрын

@@youtubeurevil No, it's a plane that's been outdated for decades. It's only useful when you're fighting insurgents that have no anti-air capabilities as discussed in this video. It's most useful as a missile truck, dumping a bunch of precision ordinance from a distance. If they get close to an enemy with anti-air anything, the A-10 is toast. The F-16 has proven to be incredibly proficient in an air-to-ground role, and the F-15EX has the missile capacity of an unrealistic video game (F-15E not as much, but it's still a great option). Both are much, MUCH better options than the A-10. That's why the USAF has been begging to retire it for ages, with Congress telling them no.

@youtubeurevil

Жыл бұрын

@@FLanklinBadge mwah and why haven`t they ??? Give them to ukraine they certainly know how to use them.....(As desperately needed missile trucks dumping a bunch of much needed precision armament )

@FLanklinBadge

Жыл бұрын

@@youtubeurevil I'm now convinced you haven't watched the video. But also, look no further than Ukraine literally stating in the last few days that they don't WANT the A-10, they'd rather have F-16's.

Totally agree!!!

Very good accurate no biased analysis which people see things like you

The upgraded a-10 have been upgrade for night runs. The top down would peel any tank armor open. That’s why javelin goes for the top of tanks. Tops,sides, back are weakest on every tank. They use the depleted uranium rounds on the A10 cannon. Depleted uranium is used in the Abrams turret cheeks which hasn’t been penetrated yet. Yes it’s too slow and best used when air isn’t contested, but anyway it would penetrate them. Also 1 last thing the upgrade to the a10’s not only makes them effective at night as well, but they’re compatible with newer weapon system in missiles or ordinances. Like the videos keep it up.

Although the A-10 wasn't the best anti armor weapon in the middle east they still managed to destroy about 1500 pieces of armor. However most of those were taken out with maverick missiles and other anti armor weapons.

@randomcanadian1913

Жыл бұрын

A-10s achieved about 1000 kills, F-111 Ardvarks achieved 1500

@stephenfowler5699

Жыл бұрын

@@randomcanadian1913 Depends on who your sources are. The numbers vary. I wasn't just counting tanks. F-111's were credited with a larger number of kills. During that conflict.

@robertryan7204

Жыл бұрын

@@stephenfowler5699 F111's have been retired

@kekistanimememan170

Жыл бұрын

@@robertryan7204 ok and?

@robertryan7204

Жыл бұрын

@@kekistanimememan170 Then they have to use F35's

The Airforce recently conducted test that showed the A10 gun is still effective against modern armour.

@wilmersandstrom2826

3 ай бұрын

Right me if I'm wrong. But those test only showed that it was effective against explosive reactive armor, which is just added on top of the vehicle. That wouldn't show that it's any better at taking out tanks, with thick composite and steel armor, than the old tests did. It would only show that it's still capable of taking out lightly armored vehicles, like a Russian BMP or BMD even if they have added ERA.

@mrp8488

3 ай бұрын

@@wilmersandstrom2826- If it only took out the e.r.a. than the gun would be ineffective. The study shows the gun can take out heavy armour that has the extra protection of e.r.a. Think about it like this, the gun is firing around 4,000 rounds a minute; e.r.a. was designed to stop 1 H.E. tank round.

Agreed on the contested airspace threat. But wouldn’t the A10 use maverick missiles and target pods to take out tanks and the cannon to take out other soft targets ?

@aaroncabatingan5238

Жыл бұрын

Any other plane would be better suited for the role if that's how its gonna be used. Also, good luck getting close enough to a target without getting shot down by a BUK or SAMs.

@konstantinshev1320

Жыл бұрын

@@aaroncabatingan5238 SU -25s do that very often to throw dumb rockets. Had they had any platform capable of shooting Mavericks or Hellfires though... And no, any other aircraft was not designed for that mission. When the A-10 came out, Buks were already a thing.

It would have been perfect for taking out that massive convoy in the early days of the war when they were pushing for Kyiv. But once Russia pulled back and shipped out all their MANPADS to the front lines the usefulness of ANY aircraft significantly diminished to the point of being completely impractical. It's not just the A-10 that wouldn't work, ANY jet that isn't stealth will be shot down.

@erasmus_locke

Жыл бұрын

The A-10 also has more weapons than just it's gun. The real strength of the A-10 it's ability to haul tons of precision bombs and missiles into the air and keeping them there for hours at a time. T-72s may be relatively safe from the gun but they don't stand a chance against the anti tank missiles that put the javelin to shame.

@isumelli

Жыл бұрын

Stealth is a misnomer. Low observable radar cross-sections are an advantage in a very narrow area of the electromagnetic spectrum. Acoustics, Infrared, UV, & passive detection all negate LO qualities, & the downside is it’s horrible to maintain. You can’t generate the MASS of sorties / weapons needed to execute a war of this size for the high price. Is LO useless? Absolutely not. But quantity has a quality all its own. An integrated mission of LO & mass of non-LO fighters carrying more weapons has a greater chance of repeated success than trying to sustain a purely LO force in a protracted conflict.

@RaderizDorret

Жыл бұрын

I love the A-10 as much as the next man, but it just isn't equipped to handle the battle we're seeing in Ukraine. It was designed to follow F-4s and Teen-series fighters (F-14, F-15, etc) that had swept the airspace clean of airborne threats and the Wild Weasels before coming in to do their work. The A-10 is a VERY effective in roles like CAS, Light Bomber, interdictor (deep strike at very low altitude to cut supply lines), and on-scene commander for downed aircrews (the "Sandy" role)... but it is totally mismatched against the situation in Ukraine. Even in its heyday intending to unleash hell on the Fulda Gap, we expected to lose Warthogs at a rate similar to what we saw with the F-105 Thunderchief (50% casualty rate). Given that we can't sweep the airspace as we would need for the Warthog to do what it does best without kicking off a world war, it is best that the Warthog sit this one out.

@robertryan7204

Жыл бұрын

@@erasmus_locke problem your a loitering target for Russian Air Defences

@sedanchair2

2 ай бұрын

@@erasmus_locke... This video is a year old. You are seeing more and more garbage Ivan is throwing into the fight Like the t-55's not to mention the thin skinned troupe carriers.

I just hope that whatever they give them actually helps to get back as much ground as possible

OMG THANK YOU I know I'm late but I've been saying this for years - the A10 isn't as good as people think

Close air support doesnt mean just anti tank It will chew up every dug in postion

The F-16 (Block 50) variant is optimized for the SEAD/DEAD role yet is also capable of carrying out all other F-16 missions. This would be my first choice for the Ukrainian Air Force. Unfortunately the Block 50 was never manufactured in massive numbers and the USAF is still using all of its Block 50/52 squadrons except one. When Cannon AFB transitioned from a fighter wing into a special operations wing in 2007, all of its F-16s were absorbed into other squadrons around the Air Force except for my sister squadron the 522nd Fighter Squadron. This was the only Block 50 squadron in the wing and it’s aircraft were preserved in the boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB with approximately 2,000 flight hours left on those airframes. They were put there to replace any Block 50s that might crash in the future since the USAF stopped purchasing F-16s in 2003. Perhaps the DoD & USAF would consider lending these 20+ aircraft. My greatest concern is how the Ukrainian AF would deal with S-300/400 SAM sites several miles behind the Russian border. They would have to operate relatively deep within Russia and Crimea in order to destroy these sites.

@DeeEight

Жыл бұрын

THe ukrainians need more of what they already trained their soldiers and airmen on...ex soviet tanks, ex soviet aircraft. They do not need the maintenance headaches of an F-16. For the expense of sending A-10s to their air force, it would be more cost effective to find other countries which bought ex-soviet aircraft in the western world, GIVE them aircraft out of the boneyard collection, so they can send their russian jets to ukraine. Lots of south american countries bought Mig-29s, Su-25s, and so forth. Peru for example has 8 of each type in service, along with a dozen Mirage 2000s, and the operate 20 Cessna A-37 Dragonflies (which they got from the USAF) still for COIN work. They'd be a country to provide F-16s and A-10s to, in exchange for their Mig-29s and Su-25s. The only modern "western" multirole aircraft at all suited to Ukraine's air force personnel would be the Saab Gripen, a plane designed for short field operations from roads and dispersed runways, that can have all its maintenance done by a 7 man team of conscript soldiers with hand tools. The Czech republic and Hungary adapted to them fairly easily (czech replaced Mig-21s and Hungary replaced Mig-29s) when they joined NATO.

@KPX-nl4nt

Жыл бұрын

@@DeeEight Ukraine recently sent an estimated 90-100 pilots to the U.S. for fighter training so it’s already a forgone conclusion they will be receiving American built aircraft. There hasn’t been any official word on what type of aircraft or which country would be donating them but they have expressed interest in F-16s. As for maintenance, I’m all too familiar with Viper maintenance as I was an F-16 crew chief in the USAF for ten years and while it can be a bit complex and time consuming, I have no doubt that current MiG-29 and Su-27 maintainers can learn the F-16 with proper training and time. Unfortunately, more MiG-29s and Su-27s won’t make much difference without the capability to target Russian SAM sites. The F-16 Block 50 was built for that purpose as well as certain F-18s. They are the only two American fighters that employ the AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missile. Russia manufactures a similar missile but those are hard to come by for obvious reasons…even harder than Russian fighters. Not to mention Russia never optimized any of their aircraft for the Wild Weasel role. Additionally, Russian built aircraft have extremely limited capability employing precision guided munitions while the west excels at it. The SAM sites will have to be taken out before the Ukrainian Air Force can conduct successful strike missions and considering how slowly Russia’s ground forces are advancing I predict they have enough time to cross-train their pilots and maintainers in the U.S. And as far as giving someone else our only airworthy Block 50s from the boneyard, I haven’t heard of any resent requests or need of Wild Weasel aircraft in those other nations. We’re only talking about 22 aircraft (perhaps fewer now) so it’s kind of niche but this was the type of conflict it was designed for.

@georgetincher7859

Жыл бұрын

@@DeeEight Ex-Soviet aircraft are garbage. The Ukrainians need aircraft that can employ modern western stand-off weapons for which there is a source of supply. Aircraft like the MiG-29 and Su-25 aren't going to be very helpful, either for air to air or air to ground missions. They need aircraft that can sling AMRAAMs, SDBs, JSOWs, JASSMs, HARM, SPICE and other weapons of this type. Precision guided weapons that can strike from 40, 50 or even 60 or more miles away is going to keep the aircraft out of range of most enemy air defenses. The F-16 and F-18 seem like the best U.S. options for capable multi-role fighters.

@FirstDagger

Жыл бұрын

The F-16CJ is no longer a thing, all have been upgraded in the CCIP program, and are F-16CM now.

@KPX-nl4nt

Жыл бұрын

@@FirstDagger Yes, I’d nearly forgotten but I recall the 522nd’s aircraft rotating into depot starting in 2005 and completing their CCIP upgrade in 2007 about a month before being transferred to the boneyard. Many of us thought it was a complete waste of money to upgrade the squadron only to send them straight to the boneyard.

Its very simple The A-10 excels at air to ground but Ukraine needs more than that . more to point, they need flexibility The plane for Ukraine is the F-16 The F-16 can carry AIM-9s and AIM-120s for counter air operations. The US can provide older model AIM-9M and AIM-120C-5 so even if the missiles ended up in Russian hands both are late 90s but still very effective It also can carry the AGM-84 Harpoon which opens to the door for Ukraine to knock out the Black Sea fleet completely as well AGM-65s and GBU-10/12/24s for general purpose The AGM-84 also has land attack capability which opens to the door for Ukraine strike Russia at targets previously out of reach Some would agree a combination of the F-16 and A-10 but for quick, easy and simply, just one plane and the F-16 is the plane

@totalnerd5674

Жыл бұрын

I should mention that the F16s being considered for Ukraine are variants that cannot carry the Harpoon, as only a few export variants can do that; although they could be upgraded to that standard.

@LentPanic7

Жыл бұрын

How does the F16 handle austere environments and takeoffs from highways?

@verdebusterAP

Жыл бұрын

@@totalnerd5674 That doesnt track as most F-16 block have been heavily upgraded

@verdebusterAP

Жыл бұрын

@@LentPanic7 Its can to a degree but the JAS-39 and F-18 are far better austere operations

Also the ammo has changed out of sight It's unreal now 🎉

Hey thanks for the NEW information, I had no idea. Go ahead and roll your own vids, I like them all.

1) A10 aproches to a tank at a different angles so the sloaped armor are deleted it could be 0 degree or 10 degree but not constant 60 2) there are not only tanks are main landbased problems BUT russian artilery MLRS and this could be main pray for A10

@FirstDagger

Жыл бұрын

You can do the same to an MRLS with a drone or with the 20 mm of a Viper, or even better with standoff SBDs and thus not put the pilot at risks because of the SAM threat.

@Five_Seven7

Жыл бұрын

@@FirstDagger thats good idea but how many SDBs can carry a single drone? Per flight mission

@FirstDagger

Жыл бұрын

@@Five_Seven7 ; SDBs aren't used on drones. F-16 can carry eight.

@Five_Seven7

Жыл бұрын

@@FirstDagger both plane would be ideal option to use there

Great video and lots of good points as well. As an ABM and former JTAC I think the A-10 would be very effective if used against supply convoys, artillery positions and infantry, javelins and NLAWS can kill actual MBTs. But is all a moot point without air superiority. As well any 4 gen fighter we give Ukraine would have to be able to operate off rough airstrips and roads not western style airbase facilities which are huge targets. The Swedish Gripen might be a jet to look at as they are designed to operate off roads with minimal support equipment and serviced by conscripts. F16 would also be a good choice but they’d have to be able to operate off roads as the Russians wouldn’t let them fly off established airbases for long. But then you have the issue of SEAD, there’s no ignoring the SAM threat. A fleet of F16s with proper training and weaponeering could provide limited SEAD, air superiority and CAS / BAI and would be easier to support as a single platform fleet with many dozens available from European countries and USAF units transitioning to new fighters … SEAD is a very complex mission that requires a lot of intense training, it’s why the USAF has dedicated SEAD squadrons. What about a plan like the WW2 AVG Flying Tigers. Give Ukraine 4 gen fighters and have them hire western volunteer pilots and techs to fly in the Ukraine AF like the AVG in China.

@youtubeurevil

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for your service and rather fine analysis

@kronk3892

Жыл бұрын

That wouldn’t work because it takes a lot of ground support

@Yuki_Ika7

Жыл бұрын

I 100% agree, an AVG would be optimal! And the west can still train some Ukrainian pilots how to use the jets too, be it in the home country's of where the jets are from or (if they want to get risky) in Ukraine, or find a balance in let's say Poland or Germany

@DeeEight

Жыл бұрын

The only "western" multirole aircraft intended for conscript militaries, and austere airfields/roadways is the Saab Gripen. There's a video on youtube from some excercise where a small team of conscript swedish air crew pull the engine out of a Gripen and do all the maintenance in a couple hours and totally stunning a USAF maintenance team that was in attendance at how easy it was done. That's the sort of aircraft Ukraine needs.

@moochoman9948

Жыл бұрын

As soon as one of those pilots is shot down they'll be on Russian TV. No way US is going to risk that. In theory a good idea though. SAAB Gripen would be a beast over there though.

YES! Agree whole heartedly!

Great explanation.

This seemed like 14mins of ignoring that Russia employs plenty of armored troop transports that the A-10's cannon *could* easily shred; BUT ALSO ignoring vast array of ordinance the A-10 can wield, both missiles and bombs, smart and dumb. 😕 It may have been designed around that gun, but it's _far_ from being a one-trick-pony! But on a non-snarky note... Why couldn't the F-16 with an electronic warfare package -- which are apparently already patrolling within NATO borders and providing a tiny bit of help -- be used as wingmen to the A-10? As from what I've seen reported, the F-16 has also been claimed as being on the table alongside the A-10. Now to really let my ignorance shine, but still, a serious question: Why couldn't the A-10 be equipped with an Electronic Countermeasures pod, to provide its *_own_* protection? Slava Ukraini, Heroyam Slava! ✊🇺🇦 🔱

@DUKE_of_RAMBLE

Жыл бұрын

@@somebody700 Personally? NATO needing to send in troops has been something I've felt AND been saying, for just about three months now! 😏 Coincidentally, I also said exactly what you are claiming is rumored about HIMARS, except I was suggesting it before HIMARS was on the table and havef US or NATO troops manning the artillery being sent (M777, etc; sparing Ukrainians 1mo+ of training, *just* to reach _minimum_ "operational" level). *_TL;DR - Putin is an adrenaline junky and is getting his fix right now. He doesn't want it to end, especially in a way that would result in the loss of his power or life. Granted, operations have become spite-fueled, but only because we've shown that he can do that AND still get away with it, as he's been left unchecked since coming into power, and remains to be even to this day. However, he won't go nuclear unless we take it inside Russia. Stick to Ukraine, but certainly, send in those with the training to put a stop to this quickly, and with precision! That means NATO, F-16s, A-10s, etc!_* Only because I've come to multiple realizations about our tart bowl of Puddin... - First and foremost, he's bored these days, after having first lived a risky life in the Soviet spy agency doing whatever he did -- even if a desk job, data he'd sign off on would directly impact field agent's lives and undoubtedly have induced a chemically release (dopamine, adrenaline, etc) and therefore a slight natural-high, which is imagine would've increased as rising through the ranks would result in higher risk+reward scenarios that he experienced... As just about always is the case, that peak level can only satisfy a person's desires of the rush for so long. I figure, at that job, he had either reached the top or had sinking achieved the maximum thrill possible from it... as by that point I suspect he had been directly involved in the intel-gathering or planning of 'conflicts' engaged in between Russia/militias/governments/etc. What's more, it's this period was probably what really got him involved with the whole "Mafia" style of business that Russians have felt is the best way to run a government, or even an entire country (😔). That's getting ahead of ourselves though, as here, it's have been low level stuff, in order to "grease the wheels" so that things would happen they way they wanted/needed. Of course, by the end of his agency career, he no doubt had a least one credible threat to his life, which only fueled -addiction- cravings even more! Eventually? It was time for him to pursue a new position in government, one that would allow him to satisfy this now-larger itch he needed scratching: _El Presidente!_ And thus, he became... This afforded him all manner of new thrilling risks to take, money to be made, ..... power, to make large groups of all armed people do what you tell them. 😒 _Roll the footage depicting crimes against humanity... _ _Donny? The montage, Donny!!_ To.... try and cut out some rambling, we witness... egregious acts, seeds of corruption sewn, a phony display of being "all about the electoral process" where he doesn't get elected (but is effectively vice-pres), coming into power... again..., harvesting and re-sewing seeds of corruption, more (worse) egregious acts, rigging his reelection to *remain* in power, _further_ egregious acts, another bountiful crop of corruption, egregious behavior that's once again unchecked, oh yea poisoning his oppositions over the years, and sprinkled throughout are him spending inordinate amounts of ill-gotten money on items and property... both to make him seem powerful/important, but also act as financial securities for when he needs them. I think we've covered most of the going-ons, and just now passed the *"Annexation of Crimea"* in this _Timeline of Voldemort Puddin..._ =INTERMISSION= A LIKE-MINDED INDIVIDUAL BECOMES PRESIDENT OF A POWERFUL COUNTRY; POTENTIAL ALLY TO ASSIST IN PLANS OF WORLD DOMINATION? ALLY'S COUP ATTEMPT FAILS; ISN'T REELECTED. =END INTERMISSION= Well, he can't make it obvious that taking over Ukraine has hinged on the other president being in power again, so he waits... Subtly laying some groundwork to make things easier for what's to come, such as making Russia's free-press unable to report on certain activities, such as covering any space launches happening outside of Russia so that parallels cannot be so easily drawn and therefore won't make their hardware seem as interior or antiquated as it actually is. Now, future press-blackouts will not seem so out of place... Enter, Feb 2022: He needs another adrenaline fix and can't wait anymore... After all, his subordinates have all reported nothing but good news this entire time! Plenty of _will trained_ troops. Stockpiles of well maintained ordinance, with plenty of far more advanced and new variants. Well maintained, capable and modernized ground and air equipment. Flawless logistics chain. Solid intelligence gathered about the enemy, concludes a short 3-day conflict before surrender and insertion of pro-Russian government within a month. Iron-clad cover story in place, told to both their own troops and the whole world; no shenanigans will happen, _we promise._ FF>> 3mos... things have gone off the rails! But, this turns out to be in Voldemort Puddin's favor! How thrilling that now he gets to fire so many inept generals, and become Supreme Commander of his military and their campaign: all hail Fuhrer-Tsar Voldemort Puddin 🙄🤦‍♂️ BUT, again, this is fun for him now... Why would he want to stop it or do anything to prevent it continuing?? He still has goals: take over Ukraine, at least in some part. This in turn means that to use nukes, even small tactical yield artillery shells, would render their newly occupied territory completely unusable in random pockets. That would cause even further problems since those pockets would need to be (rather, *should* be) avoided, and that isn't always possible OR conducive during a battle. Strategic nukes would end up being either, political suicide at best, or result in his death at worst... But he had to much to live for, so he isn't about to take THAT sort of risk! Which, it would take invasion OF Russia for his subordinates to be onboard with that level of stupidity... They also are the ones feeding him lies to save their own asses, so certainly they know how bad things really look, and what it'd mean for them if they didn't try to stop him if it came to it... In other words yea, I think NATO should officially deploy! As long as we limit it to taking back Ukraine -- which involves Crimea -- while not setting foot inside Russia's borders (those formally recognized by the world). I'd love to stick it to them on their side, to teach Putin that his actions have consequences... but it's more important right now to make Ukraine whole *and* safe! At the very least, offer government-merc programs where we're not officially sanctioning deployment, but don't expect mass volunteering either, so to offer compensation for those who do. (officially label it lend-lease for all I care lol) So send A-10s, F-16s, F-22s, F-35s, BOnes, whatever! Just so long as the pilot in the cockpit has about a thousand hours training already. To do otherwise, would genuinely be an unnecessary loss of life (and hardware, but that's trivial by comparison), which is precisely why I wish NATO would get involved in that capacity: to stop, or at least lessen, the current unnecessary losses of life that are happening on a _daily_ basis! Slava Ukraini, Heroyam Slava! ✊🇺🇦 🔱

It would be affective as it can maneuver to shoot at the sides or back of a tank. But tanks are not the best targets for the A10 to shoot at. It would be far better for the A10 to shoot at ammo/fuel trucks and depots and cargo trains. Without fuel or ammo tanks are just tens of tons of a paper weight.

@Trigger_Treats

Жыл бұрын

HIMARS are already doing a great job of dealing with ammo depots. And train tracks aren't moving targets, so they can handle those too. As you've alluded to, Russia's logistics is heavily reliant on rail, but they are only running trains just across the border into Ukraine. From those depots in the occupied region, trucks from the forward unites are doing the ammo and fuel runs (Russia doesn't have dedicated transportation units like the US does). The problem there is, you never know when those trucks are going to be making those runs. But as UKr has shown, a couple of guys with Javelin or N-LAWs are just as, if nor more effective of dealing with that.

@mauryballstein8863

Жыл бұрын

It seems like their tanks have enough trouble as it is though from what I’ve been seeing

@aaroncabatingan5238

Жыл бұрын

Good luck getting an A10 past Russia's air defense. Their S300s and 400s might be overhyped garbage, but against America's version if the T72, they would do perfectly. And not to mention the BUKs and Pantsirs.

@the-lag-gamerita5446

Жыл бұрын

the A-10 can't effectively kill tanks from the late 40s, it is useless against modern day tanks. it would be completely and utterly ineffective.

@robertryan7204

Жыл бұрын

@@Trigger_Treats More like long range Artillery. Short range Anti tank good in Guerilla war type situation

“Bad guy flavored oatmeal” you just took me tf out with that my guy 😂😂😂

5:50 you're confusing anger with people who are simply debating

Whatever they send, it should be shock and awe.

Totally agree. They do need a fast light attack plane. A plane that can fly low fast and have a reasonable amount of fire power. Harrier would be my choice. Vtol capability, easy to conceal, no need to use military air fields, use the forests as bases. Subsonic speed and does bag a punch. Just my opinion.

Great as always 😁 As for the avengers efficiency against modern armor, I think it is not necessary to actually penetrate a tank. It would destroy tracks, gun barrels, optics, engines and ERA blocks, effectively disabling the tank. Not to mention the psych effect of such a metal rain for the tank crew inside…

@kwonekstrom2138

Жыл бұрын

Soft kills are sufficient. Tanks that aren’t mobile can be easily targeted with artillery. They can block other vehicles from passing and just gum up the works.

@midgetydeath

Жыл бұрын

It works perfectly well against modern tanks and the Russian tanks are anything but modern. Remember that on top of the very long barrels (which greatly increases velocity) and huge shells with huge amounts of brass powering them, the plane's speed as well as gravity further increase their strength. On top of that, the tops of vehicles are lightly armored.

I don't believe the 'weaknesses' of the A10 keep it from being successful in Ukraine. The fact that Ukrainian pilots can operate today with far less technology than is available to the A10 is testament to that. The real reason we cannot and should not send them A10s is they would have no one to fly them. Its the same reason we can't send them aircraft like the F35 or other US/NATO aircraft. Its why the idea of trading modern aircraft to Poland who would then send Ukraine their older Migs at a 1:1 trade was such a great idea.

You mean it's dangerous where they're going to send the A-10 Warthog? I never knew war could be dangerous.

Thank you for doing this. I have been saying the same thing about A-10s for a while. They are not survivable in Ukraine or anywhere that has significant air defenses.

@robertryan7204

Жыл бұрын

Exactly that is why rhe US Airforce wanted to retire them

@konstantinshev1320

Жыл бұрын

No airplane really is, but full scale war is about not surviving a lot of the times. You just deal with it.

@Paul-hj1vt

Жыл бұрын

That's absolutely not true, easy for you to say in yor peaceful country. Ukraine doesn't wsnt perfection they need weapons now

A lot of tracked armoured vehicles are commonly called tanks, but have nothing like the armour protection of a main battle tank. Against these a warthog should do quite well, but would still be vulnerable to modern anti-aircraft weapons and enemy fighters.

@ElderWillows

Жыл бұрын

Oh wait what, a A-10 would do well vs low armored vehicles? No way that's crazy!

@midgetydeath

Жыл бұрын

What most people mean when they say "tank" is indeed a tank. They don't know the terms for the rest such as IFVs and APCs. The catch-all term is, I think, Armored Fighting Vehicle, AFV.

@Valhalrik

10 ай бұрын

Just to loiter on the front lines would put the fear of god in the Russians and the Convicts they employ. And still get back in to friendly airspace.

@James-dg4te

7 ай бұрын

Like any other plane.

Good analysis.

Nice job Sandbox. I’ve always advocated use of A10 in Ukraine because of it’s demoralization of enemy personnel. This advocacy however, always presumed F35s air superiority, actually dominance, in accordance with USAF doctrine. That doctrine would also envision strikes of heavier ordinance from F16s relying on the F35s for air superiority and jamming. This is the beauty of NATO. Those aircraft allow Ukraine’s neighbors to help protect her

@stuartemmanuel3735

Жыл бұрын

Sure NATO protects.... only in cheap words of encouragement and so little actual support.

@oppotato5440

Жыл бұрын

@@stuartemmanuel3735 what dude? We are sending jets, artillery, intelligence, and much more. We are not trying to start world war 3, if NATO joins it boots on the ground then world war 3 is immanent

I fail to see how the frogfoot is still an asset but the A-10 wouldn't be. The warthog would also come with extremely effective Western standoff weapons. 30mm cannons on the ground have been chewing up tanks pretty good. One of the lessons of this war is that cannons on light armored vehicles are still very relevant. Much to many people's surprise. I'm sure we'd see some A-10 gun kills. Ukraine is very good at PR.

@felipearriagada6725

Жыл бұрын

Watch lazerpig video

@benghazi4216

Жыл бұрын

@@felipearriagada6725 Let's help him out even more Part 1: kzread.info/dash/bejne/iYua1dxugpnPotY.html Part 2: kzread.info/dash/bejne/maVlw8Vrc6Sylag.html

@Xenomorphine

Жыл бұрын

Cannon isn't the A-10's primary armament. Maverick missiles are. Even during the 1980s, pilots who went 'guns first' during training immediately got killed.

@thedillo

Жыл бұрын

Familiarity with the platform is the key here.

@verdebusterAP

Жыл бұрын

The simple fact is that A-10 is not the plane for this kinda of job They need the F-16

I think most service members realize the A 10 is a ground attack jet, It is not for fighting jet fighters, a fighter might fly 2 1/2 times the speed of sound. The warthog goes slower than the speed of sound. It should have fighters above them.

Excellent vid, great and logical explanation

This seems to be another chapter in the "fast movers vs ground-hogs" debate, where the Airforce (backed up by lobbyists from various aerospace companies) have been trying to dump the cheap, slow but accurate & effective ground support A-10 in favour of expensive multirole fight-bombers that generally can't loiter, nor provide accurate and timely support in the way that the A-10 can.....but the fighters look more glamorous and sexy, and for the price of one F-35, you can purchase and crew (with all associated maintenance costs) a dozen A-10s......which were designed from the outset to operate in heavily contested - permissive - combat environments...

from my very limited knowledge of either plane, I would think the F 16 is what is needed now, but down the road, the A 10 could really clean up on lines of tanks fleeing a battle field. I'll leave this up to the professionals. All the best Ukraine Military!

@mrp9498

Жыл бұрын

Down the road the only troops that will be fleeing are Ukrainian. After the Donbass area it’s literally open terrain with nowhere to hide. I’m not pro or anti anybody just it’s reality.

@josephkush1032

Жыл бұрын

The Ukrainian airforce doesn't exist anymore, how would that even help?

Good info

I've noticed high performance aircraft doing cartwheels when they try low speed ,low level turns that the A-10 do all the time.

I'm from Tucson AZ and Davis-Monthan is the home of the A-10. It's a well proven 50 year old design. It works great in a permissive environment. Ukraine is not the right environment for the plane. As a former infantryman, I have a great deal of attachment to the Warthog. With respect to Ukraine, it's not the right tool for the job.

@duckhanhpham4753

Жыл бұрын

Come on Sandboxx. As you talk about Russia air defense will shoot down A-10 is surely 100% if Ukraine use A-10 like the way that US army used in Iraq or Afghanistan war. The way of A-10 is for Ukraine is called tactical scoop after Ukraine HIMARS, artillery soften Russia positions or destroy all of air defense S-300 or S-400 or BUKs then sending A-10 to destroy tanks, BMP or Russia defense trenches before Ukraine send their infantry to solve on last resisting pockets or fighting to sweep enemy in suburban or inside city.

Thanks. I have been a strong advocate for the A-10, but after viewing this report I can see the shortcomings in this battlefield and how F-16s would be a much better platform in Ukraine.

@tyfighters002verkerk9

Жыл бұрын

I highly suggest you watch a video by lazer pig It's a 2 part thing on why the a10 isnt so good. Really opend me eyes

@robertsettle2590

Жыл бұрын

Thank GAWD we have your permission!

@democracy189

Жыл бұрын

@@robertsettle2590 are you okay...?

Excellent job! Ages ago I thot I heard the A-10 was being handcrafted for the Marines ...

I see your points, and I agree with all of them. Nice video.

Very true aircraft like the A-10 and AC-130 are awesome CAS/CFF platforms but must operate under an air superiority umbrella. A much cheaper and easier option is the single prop Tucano or Texan CAS platforms. They are cheap, easy to maintain, and can stage very close to the front - but also must have an air cap. USSOCOM also revived the OV-10 Bronco as a light CAS platform in Iraq which could get to the fight first while the fast movers were on their way, expend its ammo in a first strike, then hang around and act as a JTAC platform. I personally wish we would produce an updated version of the awesome A-1 Skyraider for the Army! For Ukraine, the key right now is sending more artillery and rocket systems with UAS for spotting, as well as armed UAS, MANPADS, and AT systems.

@0rcsapo_

Жыл бұрын

Just sayin’ homie- the Air Force HAS developed an updated aircraft like the A-1 whose sole purpose is to support the Army- it’s called the A-10! Lol But really, what you’re describing with the OV-10 and Skyraider is called the FAC(A) mission, which the A-10 excels at- much more so than the OV-10 or skyraider in contested areas. It also fills the Sandy role left vacant after the A-1 retired, which the A-10 is very good at. Fun facts all!

@demonfox0958

Жыл бұрын

@@0rcsapo_ But what the prop aircraft have in advantage is the ability to stage on forward unimproved airstrips with minimal support and longer play time over the target area.

@0rcsapo_

Жыл бұрын

@@demonfox0958 the A-10 DOES operate off unimproved runways, highways, and dirt strips. It’s also more survivable, and is able to stay on station longer- especially with the ability to air to air refuel. The OV-10 is incredible, and I love that airplane for its ability to FAC, but the A-10 has that same capability with more survivability and punch than an OV-10. Not to mention the A-10s ability to talk on the link/sadl with other aircraft and JTACs on the ground. For very recent evidence, look up the 107th FS conducting highway landings to rearm and refuel in Northern Michigan, putting proof to the ACE concept. Prop aircraft for CAS is more in line with COIN CAS, not the MCO fight we’d be looking at in Ukraine.

@demonfox0958

Жыл бұрын

@@0rcsapo_ What irks me the most is the Air Force keeps trying to get rid of the A10 and lying to Congress that the F35 can do the same mission just so they can save a few million dollars. Fortunately Congress hasnt bought their bullshit. No question the superior survivability of the A10. Its awesome. With the highway landings, that is still an improved strip, though. Also, the A10 requires about 4,000 feet of runway while light attack aircraft like the T6 Texan can do it under 2,000 feet. Like the OV10 concept, this allows them to be forward deployed and get to the fight first while the bigger guns like the A10 are on their way being staged from further airfields that are safer from enemy strikes. Just like with the A10s, work JAATs with attack helos and arty/rocket systems, although Im not sure if the Ukrainian systems are sophisticated enough for that.

@0rcsapo_

Жыл бұрын

@@demonfox0958 brother, you’re preaching to the choir! The F35 is a cool jet with some awesome capabilities, but it’s not a dedicated CAS platform, and it’s just not able to do the same mission as effectively. It’s awesome at what it does, it just doesn’t do CAS very well, but nothing is as effective at CAS, FAC, or the SANDY mission as the A10.

Spot on Alex. Though I am emotionally fired up about Ukraine using them, you are correct that the A-10 needs a "permissive" environment, with fasties on tap for CAP or SEAD. The A-10 basically has two modes of operation in "permissive environments" - High in the sky, as a bomb truck, with ranged and guided weapons, or down low with coordinated comms and verification by a FAC/JTAC in type 1-3 engagements. All of these require a lot of coordination from the ground, within the flight itself, and from other branches and aircraft. As "romantic" as it seems to see them fighting for Ukraine, it is impractical from a rational and logical point of view, with the current make-up of Ukrainian forces and what Russia can bring to bear. The A-10 has very in-depth tactical displays, that can create a very good picture of the environment around the target, but some inexperienced pilots, trying to field all the capabilities in a month or so, would more than likely lead to shot down A-10's that were not employed properly. You could spend months, just learning the TAD (Tactical Area Display) alone. Great points on rear or side aspect attacks with the GAU - which as you mention, require a lot of good intel for an A-10 going into that attack profile. Awesome vid, full of good info.

@haruruben

Жыл бұрын

According to this article, Ukraine and Russia are flying “frog foot” airplanes - which is the Soviet equivalent of Warthog. If the UAF has determined value in frogfoot why not give them some warthogs? What’s the difference? They may have some differing specs but in principle they serve the same purpose. There’s the training issue but that’s true of any non-Soviet equipment we give them

@a-stardesigns1453

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. Aircraft performance can't be assessed by on-paper specs in a vacuum. The cool clips of A-10s going brrrrrrt is the result of a complex, well-practiced kill chain. Replicating all those supporting pieces of the US joint targeting cycle on the battlefield of Ukraine isn't feasible, not in the timeframe Ukraine needs to fight off the Russians. You can't just hand over planes and expect it to magically strafe Russian formations on their own.

@brrrtnerd2450

Жыл бұрын

@@haruruben They have been shot down, and are incurring losses (SU-25's). That is with the Ukrainian's employing a platform they are very familiar with. The point of the video is that trying to familiarize Ukr Pilots, with a platform like the A-10, and all the other support mechanisms that need to come up to speed with it, in the time frame they need it, is impractical. Would lead to A-10's being shot down promptly. As awesome as it sounds, so many technical and logistical hurdles for this to be practical.

@tedmoss

Жыл бұрын

@@a-stardesigns1453 No one thought they would be as good us the U.S., just very effective. Check out what the Poles did in WWII.

@spacecore117

Жыл бұрын

@@brrrtnerd2450 THIS. The matter comes down to "Are we going to give them an aircraft that can do one thing (the A-10), or one that can do several (the F-16)?" It makes no sense to waste all this time on training their pilots on the A-10, when that time could be spent training them on a multirole airframe like the F-16. The Viper can both hit Russian ground units and also hold its own in a dogfight, enabling Ukraine to use them flexibly and effectively.

well summarized ~!

The A-10 was designed for contested airspace of a Russian attack of the Fulda Gap in Europe. I’d argue with an ECW pod and used at very low altitude it would be not likely to be susceptible to RU S200/300/400 systems. The GAU DU rounds can overpower all RU armor except perhaps the T-90s which are few and far between in theater. Sloped armor is designed to “increase penetration resistance” from a round at equal elevation. Not from a quick climb and dive to attack. And obviously training would determine not to attack armor from the front. It’s interesting considering how often the USAF is trying to get rid of this airframe that they aren’t gladly offering them. Thank you for your video, it was an excellent view of the situation at hand and and a good point of discussion.

I really can't see the F-16 being more survivable than the A-10 on CAS tasking.

@mill2712

Жыл бұрын

Close Air Support doesn't actually require the craft to be close to the ground for it to be done. As long as it attacks enemies that are close to your allies position. And having the F-16 or a F-35 launch missiles and bombs at nearby enemy positions is CAS.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

The F-16 can kinetically defeat SAMs. The A-10 is a sitting duck.

@FirstDagger

Жыл бұрын

Then stop focusing on CAS.

First of all, the A-10 can fly below the tree line, effectively using terrain masking. Also, the A-10 uses turbofans which are quiet. As for the T-72, one must realize that a frontal approach will destroy the external sensor system and periscopes, and a side attack will ignite the turret base leading to a "Jack-in-the-Box". Armored fighting vehicles are easy meat. The chances are the Ukrainians may not want the A-10 because the HIMARS can do the same thing.

@gabrielandradeferraz386

Жыл бұрын

you do know that that is extremely hard right?

@F-14_Jockey

Жыл бұрын

@@gabrielandradeferraz386 Is that supposed to mean something?

@qaswed64

11 ай бұрын

Thank you. Very good point.

Alex your analysis of the Hog against Russian tanks wS indeed comprehensive. HOWEVER not one work about how effective it would be against Russian artillery. Now as artillery is Russias prime strategy in the Ukraine war, the omission of this aspect is a very serious flaw/omission in your analysis indeed.

I love the A10, as an Army Vet I owe more to the A10 then any other fix winged aircraft. But I agree with Alex’s assessment of the A10 in the Ukrainian conflict. Without proper air dominance the A10 would be out of its element.

The A-10 has a lot of drawbacks if used in the service of the Ukrainian air force The aircraft has many drawbacks, being slow and being forced to fly at low level due to Russian SAM threat makes the aircraft extremely susceptible to MANPADS and other short range anti-aircraft. However, and this is a big however, the doctrine being used by Ukraine currently is decently suited to the A-10. Su-25s and Mig-29s fly at low level performing unguided rocket and bombing strikes on Russian positions using lobbed throws in which they are achieving mixed results. In this role they have taken catastrophic casualties with OSINT sources showing Ukraine has lost 2/3rds of their Su-25 fleet which was already extremely low in the first place with Mig-29 losses being highest in overall number, but lower in proportion to the initial total. The A-10 with US supplied Maverick missiles JDAMs maye be able to increase the survivability of this mission, due to the more standoff nature of these munitions, meaning Ukrainian pilots would not be required to perform dangerous mavouveres for limited tactical gain. The A-10 has more external hardpoints than the F-16 and so can carry more munitions per sortie. The gun is practically of little value increasing the risk to the pilot, without being good enough to damage currently fielded Russian tanks other than T-62 as you have stated already in the video. Taking the A-10 for its gun would be a horrible move for Ukraine. As well as this the ability to take off and land from dirt strips and other rough strips mean it can be used away from the more vulnerable airfields, which have been massively targeted by Russia causing a few aircraft lost on the ground, which aircraft such as F-16 and F-15 would not be able to do unless with strengthened landing gear. The aircraft in its modern configuration also comes equipped with its own EW suite increasing its survivability over the Su-25 and Mig-29 in air to ground configuration massively. As a result of these the aircraft offers improvements over the Su-25's current role, which while not changing the game, it would swing the pendulum a bit more towards Ukraine. The A-10 in this sense would serve as attritional replacements for the Su-25, performing the same role, whilst freeing up Mig-29 for the A2A role in support of the Su-27. So why this aircraft over other western jets? F-15C is being phased out of frontline service by the USAF and is A2A only making it a supplement to the Su-27 fleet which has fared better in losses and is of least priority due to the lack of prevalence with A2A during the conflict. F-15E is still in service with USAF and thus extremely unlikely to be handed out. F-16C, would be extremely useful for A2G missions with the ability to fly with HARM missiles making it extremely useful for SEAD/DEAD and the degradation of Russian anti-air weaponry, radar etc. However, due to limited availability and most likely low numbers of aircraft that would be given to Ukraine I do not believe that a 1991 style air campaign could be fought to destroy Russia's surface to air capabilities. I would predict a degradation of their systems, but nowhere near their total destruction, meaning low level sorties would still be required for safety in a lot of cases. A mixture of F-16C and A-10C could be perfect mix of jets for Ukraine, however with F-16 the Ukranians would be required to drastically change their air power doctrine. This would make F-16 extremely viable long term. Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale, F-35, F/A-18E/F/G way too expensive and in low numbers, unable to be produced or handed out quickly due to NATO requirements. Obviously Mig-29s should be given if they are available for donation, thank you Slovakia. And any other available soviet aircraft. Legacy Hornets may be available, however they are dangerously old in some cases with spares lacking in the European air fleets. This aircraft has similar weapons fit to F-16C but with stronger landing gear and thus may be useful on dirt strips. This would probably be the better choice if aircraft were available. However, as A-10 was upgraded last in 2010 and is currently receiving new parts this may make it a better and more usable option as there will be a lot more US support for the in service airframe. Fundamentally, however the A-10C in Ukrainian service would still take significant losses, this is no longer the Afghanistan war and air superiority is nowhere on the horizon. But I feel, and as someone who has a significant dislike of this jet (see lazerpig), beyond its meme status, I feel that it could be an extremely useful tool for the Ukrainian Air Force in the fight against Russia.

@kinggooseman5373

Жыл бұрын

It would be incredibly effective for the Ukrainian Air Force. One thing that’s pissed me off is how many people think the A-10 would just get obliterated as soon as it enters Ukraine, if the SU-25 can operate successfully, the A-10 can do it better. It’s purely that simple.

Your assessment of the limitations of the A-10 are correct, it does only one task well, and that is not what is required in the current war in Ukraine. The F-16 is a true multi task asset, able to perform all the tasks required at the current time and those that will arise in the future. The F-16 is a mature and proven weapons system employed by many nations, thus training and material support can be distributed to any willing providers. The IDF could be of particular help in this, and in mission planning given their expertise in this area.

@ReviveHF

Жыл бұрын

Also, IDF could be a good candidate for MIG29 replacement for Malaysia.

I'm tired of people saying we need to retire it! Soldiers and Marines still praise and want it today over any other aircraft

Aircraft cannons are not meant to destroy tanks. They are meant to be used against other aircraft, light armor, and soft targets. Yes, cannons can help disable tanks, but they are not meant to destroy them. This is why the AGM-65 Maverick and AGM-114 Hellfire missiles were designed. Armed A-10s, Apaches, and Cobras were almost always seen with one of these types of missiles on missions when tanks could be a threat or target.

I've talked about this in posts elsewhere and caught a lot of heat from A-10 fans. Ukraine is not a permissive environment right now. Better to put efforts into F-16s with the tools to operate in a hot airspace. And F-16s can even operate in the antitank role. Armed with SDB IIs, they can shred tank formations and still survive fire from s-300s.

@tedmoss

Жыл бұрын

You operate in your reality and let the Ukrainians operate in theirs, that is a different world, what works for one certainly will not work for all and the opposite is true also. Give them what they can use and need.

@YouTubeCensorsEverything

Жыл бұрын

F16s are very poor at CAS and have to fly at high altitudes. Their gun pods proved inaccurate and unstable. My brother worked flight crews for both aircraft. The important thing to point out is the USAF integrates all aircraft together to fill different roles. The F-16s are better for SEAD/DEAD while the A10 serves best for CAS. Against Russia you would want access to the entire arsenal of aircraft to fill every role. But I can assure you he is wrong about the A10 vs Tanks. There's nothing on the ground they can't destroy given the chance. They aren't accounting for the fact that tank armor doesn't protect from above and the A10 isn't limited to the cannon. Theres a large array of missiles/rockets/bombs that can destroy any target you put on the ground used on the A10. With the expertise Ukraine has they're better suited doing as they are. With drones and satellites gathering intelligence. Striking and moving on the ground.

@arkadious9320

Жыл бұрын

@@KZreadCensorsEverything The A-10 has killed more friendlies than any other acft doing CAS. Its so bad at CAS that most commanders use them as a last resort and have even requested they not be used. The only thing an A10 can do well is loiter around for a while in uncontested air space. Yes tank armor is weaker on top. . but unless they are attempting to drive bomb these tanks straight down. . . all of these tests were for the most part shooting at the tops of the tanks already. Besides all of that it just doesnt survive to get close enough for a gun shot. Americans think big gun go buuurrrr and have meme'd it so much they actually believe its still good at its job because it worked fighting isis. . in actuality its been combat ineffective since 1980.

@jamiegray6931

Жыл бұрын

If the air environment isn't permissive for A-10 why would it be permissive for F-16. The UAF has lost more Mig-29's than Su-25s despite being more akin to the F-16 in role.

@arkadious9320

Жыл бұрын

@@jamiegray6931 The A-10s avionics are so bad it has limited options for stand off weapons. The F16 does not have this problem. Its not that the F16 thrives in this environment either, its just that its chances for coming home are better and it can defend itself in the air while doing it.

I also 100% disagree. "What I found in my research" = I watched a video from lazerpig. I think that engaging artillery pieces is just as important or more so than targeting tanks. The GAU-8 had kills on T62s and T-72s during the gulf war so I don't understand how you can spend 10 minutes arguing that it can't kill them now. You also don't talk about how the A10 is one of the only NATO aircraft that was designed to operate from a improvised forward operating location (from a field). The cost of the A10 to operate is cheaper than the F16 and the loiter time is significantly longer than the F16. The F16 can't operate from a field or improvised forward operating location like the MIG 29 or A10 can.

@youtubeurevil

Жыл бұрын

Great comment thanks !

@tedmoss

Жыл бұрын

You don't know what you can do until you try.

@tedmoss

Жыл бұрын

@DefinitelyNotBrandon Even the old fighters could and did do this.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

"engaging artillery pieces" - Already being done with artillery and drone-dropped grenades. "The GAU-8 had kills on T62s and T-72s during the gulf war so I don't understand how you can spend 10 minutes arguing that it can't kill them now" - Pilots had to dump ammo on them and circle around until they saw fire. A missile and they exploded in one shot. Waste of ammo to strafe them. Su-25s are unable to loiter. They release rockets and turn back. The A-10 would suffer the same fate - rocket launching platform.

@fhpchris

Жыл бұрын

@DefinitelyNotBrandon not all improvised landing strips are cleanly paved roads. I don't think its difficult to argue that an F16 taking off from a road will cause a ton of problems with FOD due to the engine air intake location. The A10 was designed to do this and the engine location prevents most of the damage that other planes will have problems with.

I'm not saying it's the answer but the A-10 has other tricks up its sleeve. Like it can fly below radar, it can carry long range anti-aircraft missiles making it a mobile anti-aircraft platform, and tanks aren't the only vehicles Russia needs, the A-10 can interdict Russian supply lines, and take out artillery, trucks, light armor and ground troops, and can use smart bombs to take out heavy armor.

Good perspective, especially the 'uncontested airspace' part. As for the A-10's effect, I would give a better assessment. First, aside from tanks, there are a LOT of armored Russian vehicles that a single round from the A-10 would destroy, and FROM ANY ANGLE. Second, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan said the sheer psychological fright of an A-10 loitering near the enemy often stopped them from engaging. Given how many Russians have been conscripted to be troops running around on foot, hearing a loud "BRRRRRT !!!!" from the sky, with a resulting ground and tree limbs flying might be enough all by itself to send them packing.

Agreed. The Falcons with laser guided ammunitions would be more effective: they can accomplish the missions faster and also leave the exposed airspace faster, with a superior dogfight capability and less dependable of ground based air defenses.

@oglordbrandon

Жыл бұрын

Why not both?

@attemptedunkindness3632

Жыл бұрын

I agree as well, but the main draw of the A-10 is that for that same cost you can carry the same ordinance as a f-16, but after the f-16 sortie that canon is still useful for other targets of opportunity, which a A-10 can do over a F-16 because A-10s eat stingers for breakfast, giving the A-10 the ability of providing loitering air support for a bit while the f-16s are high-tailing back home to re-arm and hoping they are not getting followed.

@aizseeker3622

Жыл бұрын

@@oglordbrandon Logistic say otherwise

@konstantinshev1320

Жыл бұрын

That laser guided munition can ve used by an A-10. Also Mavericks and Hellfires.

They could still be useful in limited combined forces operations. Like supporting an advance in an area where you can focus your air defenses.

@ssglbc1875

Жыл бұрын

Russia has air defenses too by the way. Ukraine needs more air defense fuck the a10

Very nice video.

7:18 LOL you got that off amazon didn't you? I've got the same one... That giant world time zone desk mat not the ammo.😁

A-10s usefulness is as a stand-off missile launcher. It can carry up to 16 SDBs Dude is fixated on the gun.

@benghazi4216

Жыл бұрын

And how will this A-10 be able to fly high enough to drop them? You don't drop small diameter bombs from an altitude of 50 feet.

@Xenomorphine

Жыл бұрын

Ukraine doesn't have that and it's far too slow and vulnerable to use those at any sort of an altitude.

@Chuck_Hooks

Жыл бұрын

@@benghazi4216 SDB range is up to 50 miles. HIMARS likes to destroy S-300s.

@warpigxxxl18

Жыл бұрын

GBU's

@benghazi4216

Жыл бұрын

@@Chuck_Hooks Oh my god, SDB's are glide bombs. Now tell me how a glide bomb will travel 50 miles when dropped from 50 feet. S-400 inside Russia can still target the A-10, and those are not in the range of HIMARS. And even if the US gives Ukraine ballistic missiles for it, I don't think we will see those launches against Russian territory.

I'd say this was a fair assessment. In war, you want the best tool for the situation... and right now, the A-10 just isn't the best tool, for all the reasons you stated. We may love the Warthog, but we have to acknowledge its limitations.

@piperp9535

Жыл бұрын

I disagree. Being ex-military myself, I don't let the conditions today determine what I can and can't do tomorrow, instead, I change the conditions to match what I want to accomplish. If I need the A-10 for CAS Missions, and I need Air Superiority to use it, I gain Air Superiority. Or at a minimum, I create windows of Air Superiority, that allow me to accomplish my mission.

@akid1263

Жыл бұрын

@@piperp9535 air superiority is non-existent with the enemy having the most powerful SAM network in the world leagues ahead of the US patriots system

@piperp9535

Жыл бұрын

@@akid1263 Sure, everything the Russians make performs exactly as advertised. Those SAM systems mostly depend on RADAR, and I was never a 98J, RADAR Intercept Operator, I never intercepted and analyzed Russian RADAR Systems, we never learned how to jam them, that's why we don't have aircraft built to do that. Nothing is ever a single dimension in warfare, the best tanks in the world are scrap if you can't keep enemy attack helicopters off them. The best attack airplanes are useless if you can't keep your runways intact. The bet equipped armies are cannon fodder if they don't actually know how to fight. And the US always planned on facing the Soviets/Russians in a situation where the enemy had equipment we believed was on par with our own, and had greater numbers. It wasn't true, but it was the plan. That's why Desert Storm rocked us so hard, we woke up after 100 days and found out we had them outclassed in every way, and had for a long time.

And finally at the end he admits they could do some serious damage

The a10 was designed for Russian armor, during the Cold War Europe was afraid of 20000 tanks rolling into Poland and this jet was for stopping them.

The beginning and end of the discussion has to be "permissive environment" and lacking that, A-10s would have their days numbered. That said, you're making a couple basic mistakes here. First, you're conflating the inability to penetrate frontal armor with an inability to do significant damage. In fact, hits on sensors blind the tank. Hits on reactive armor strip off that reactive armor. And given the extremely low morale of the Russians, getting such attacks would be quite demoralizing. Second, you're assuming the only valid target would be armor. In fact, shooting up fuel trucks, supply trucks, APCs, the highly devastating artillery, rocket artillery trucks, command centers is all at least as valuable as shooting the tank itself. Tanks with no gas or ammo or food or spare parts are useless. Third, you're overlooking the fact that the A-10s are capable of carrying all the anti-tank munitions your counter-proposed F-16 can. Fourth, the A-10s are at their end of life in the US, while F-16s are still in demand. I know we've just gotten a new supply of wings for the A-10s (their main limiting feature in terms of durability) but the wings cost far, far, less than an F-16. As a taxpayer I'd rather give them the A-10s that THIS VERY CONFLICT is showing to be challenged. Fifth, F-16's flying ground support will not be appreciably harder to hit than the A-10: they can hit far higher speeds--but at higher altitudes, and only after acceleration runs. F-16s won't be flying mach 1.6 while deploying anti-tank munitions! The A-10 can also be projected to survive some types of attacks that kill an A-10: it has dual rudders that shield the jet exhaust from many angles; the exhaust is far cooler due to being high-bypass turbojets; the wing has triple spars any single one of which will keep the wing on; the pilot is in a titanium bathtub; it can land wheels-up and still have some protection from its wheels (which are partially exposed). Sixth, the mention that the F-16 is capable of more roles is spurious. There are clearly enough Russian targets to keep dedicated ground-attack planes busy. Finally, the A-10 should be far easier to repair. For instance, only 5% of the body panels are compound curves, which have to be machined in a factory. Instead the A-10 is mostly made out of simple curves, meaning you can literally cut a piece of sheet aluminum as a replacement and wrap the new panel on like wrapping a present and it will fit. The logistics train you mention wouldn't need as many parts to service A-10s. If you're still with me, what Ukraine REALLY needs more than anything is 10,000 Switchblade munitions. A man throws them into the air; they fly up to 20 miles and 20 minutes of loiter time looking for artillery and so on, and when counter-battery radar detects the location of a Russian artillery piece, they simply plummet out of the sky to kill it.

@1SCme

Жыл бұрын

You could move onto defensive capability. The Achilles heel of Russian aircraft, including helicopters, has been their effective missile warning system (or in most cases, none at all), which the A-10 has, leaving Russian pilots to have to guess when to drop flares, chaff, etc. Rather than lingering support like in Iraq, in Ukraine I would picture the A-10 approaching low and slow over friendly territory, then accelerating to make a single pass high speed assault against targets that have already been scouted, before returning to base, or returning to friendly territory to move into a different theatre.

@glennmurray.

Жыл бұрын

Interesting comment.🙂👍

@swh0rd682

Жыл бұрын

Great points and all we hear in this video is him going on about the 30mm. They have 11 hardpoints. What the hell are these for then and why didn't he mention hellfires, mavs etc...As to your point about Switchblades? These are vaporware and all the videos I've seen and the videos remind me of Telly Salavas in The Battle of the Bulge firing on a Tiger and saying [paraphrasing] "its like we're throwing tennis balls at them!" That's what these switchblades are and its not just me, many people have been shocked at how useless they appear to be against hardened targets.

@Trigger_Treats

Жыл бұрын

"(their main limiting feature in terms of durability)" Uh huh. And how are those analog, 38 yer old TF-34s doing? The re-winging didn't address the engine problems. The A-10 has been underpowered for years (it's not about top end speed, it's about acceleration and regaining energy quickly) and those engines are getting old and have parts obsolescence issues. The S-3 Vikings also had TF-34s and they were hoping to do something with those guys at the same time. And even while the hot section of the Viking's TF34 is the same as the Hog's TF-34, the rest had enough differences to be "different." The biggest/most expensive difference with engines typically isn't the engine itself, but the engine controls and accessories. Those are unique to each platform. Engine cores are, comparably, cheap.And cores can be swapped out, sure, but accessory drives, gearboxes, control systems, airframe interfaces, etc. are totally different. Way back when the Viper's F100-PW-100 motors went "obsolete" according to PW, it wasn't the motor that was unsupportable, it was the engine control module. So the AF is like "hey can you guys design a new engine control module so we can keep our -100 motors?" PW response, "Uh no, it'd be cheaper for you to buy our -200 motor since it comes with a Digital Engine Control (DEC)." So the engine thing is particularly troubling, because nobody makes those parts any more. Remember, the TF-34s were fielded on the cusp of transition to all digital engine stuff. Early Vipers, Eagles, F-14s....they all had analogue engine controls. All that is gone now, except the A-10. And since so much of engine controls is tied to the actual OFP (Operational Flight Program) and control laws of the basic aircraft, there's no way a 3rd party entity is going to come in and design a DEC for a motor they don't make and be able to get it through airworthiness certification. Which means it's not an affordable thing to do because the PW's and GE's of the world can charge what they want to either make it happen or tell you that it's unaffordable. "But I have this shiny new engine over here I can sell you that fixes all your problems!" But the Navy already retired the Vikings, leaving the A-10 the only user of the TF-34. So when you're the only military platform that still flies a TF-34 derivative engine, you have no economies of scale to fund an engine upgrade program. All-new engines would be very expensive at a time when you're in need to recapitalize multiple fleets of aircraft from fighters to bombers to tankers and trainers.

@lqr824

Жыл бұрын

​@@swh0rd682 > That's what these switchblades are and its not just me, many people have been shocked at how useless they appear to be against hardened targets. Ukraine's not being pounded flat by hardened targets, it's being pounded flat by mobile howitzers with only a fraction of the armor... and which are supplied by UNARMORED supply trucks and fueled by UNARMORED fuel trucks and staffed by UNARMORED crews. Ukraine doesn't have anything to worry about if Russia's tanks are in perfect working order, without fuel, without ammo, and without crews. If I'm ever in a war, I hope to god I'm fighting someone stupid enough to dismiss Switchblades as not being able to penetrate an MBT. As to being vaporware, I didn't say they were available, I simply said they were what was needed. Russia's using a lot of move-and-scoot artillery. Counterbattery radar doesn't help if the enemy's artillery can move faster than a shell would take to hit them. In contrast, the Switchblade's ability to hover allows one to go to a 1km wide circle and simply wait for instructions, get to any firing site in 30 seconds or so, and furthermore see the moving vehicle as it attempts to abscond. That's what Ukraine NEEDS, whether it's in inventory or not.

This idea that the A-10 is just going to operate in a vacuum, alone with only its gun, is perplexing. Russia and Ukraine both see the Frogfoot as a useful asset under roughly equivalent threat conditions, as _part of_ their air mix. If Ukraine gets western airframes, they're going to need _a mix_ of airframes because they're rebuilding their decimated airforce from almost nothing. The real issues are whether any of those airframes will make it to the battlefield in a timeframe that matters, given how long it takes to train pilots and ground crews, and whether Ukraine has the logistical capacity to procure and transport enough parts and munitions to keep those airframes effective, and whether Ukraine's intelligence service can support their air force's mission planning to avoid being overwhelmed. It would make a lot more sense to not send A-10s based on the fact that nobody is making more of them, and so the US won't replenish any of what it gives away, which is not the case with F-16s. It's probably better for Ukraine if the US gives jets to NATO allies in exchange for those allies given their soviet-style planes to Ukraine from a training and logistics perspective, the way they did with tanks, and it also sidesteps Russia being able to claim western aircraft in Ukrainian hands being an escalation because Ukraine would just be getting more of what they already have. >A-10 isn't very good vs modern SAMs and fighters Nobody in their right mind is suggesting that it should solo either threat let alone both, CAS, CAP, and SEAD are completely different roles. few airframes are effective against both fighters and SAMs at the same time, and solving that problem of being "anti-everything" literally took decades and trillions of dollars in the form of the F-35. You need a mix of airframes, and combined arms warfare, to operate in a p2p war, which is exactly the way the US military operates A-10s. Nobody is sending A-10s alone, against SU-35's and S-400's operating in combined arms air coverage, you have to have ground forces, CAP, and SEAD operating alongside the CAS in a modern military. >A-10's gun isn't very effective against MBTs Yes, that's why they carry a dozen Mavericks or other guided weapons when they go "tank plinking". The gun is for soft targets like infantry as described in the video, and most targets are not as well armored as a tank. Anti-tank CAS just needs to be the cheapest and most reliable way of getting a dozen Mavericks to the battle field, which frees up more expensive multi-role planes for CAP and SEAD roles. The reason the A-10 is still around is that it has a higher sortie rate, and like a third the operating cost compared to a supersonic multi-role fighter; it's the low end of a high-low mix , filling a cost-to-capability gap between attack helicopters and supersonic fighters, because using F-16s or Strike Eagles or F-35s for everything is too expensive and too much maintenance load on the logistical chain.

@tedmoss

Жыл бұрын

It is all in the eye of the user, using up older equipment first has always been a winning strategy. Think about the reasons why.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

But the Frogfoot has been reduced to a ballistic rocket launcher. The "anti-everything" was solved with the F-16 and F/A-18. Not the 35. Even ignoring that, the A-10 is simply a slow sitting duck. With a F-16 you have a chance to "outrun" a SAM by depleting its energy. Using a Maverick requires climbing up, getting a visual on your targeting pod, and firing. The current use of Su-25 shows pilots are not willing to pop up and deploy guided weapons. Instead of arguing about "sortie rates" and "operational costs" they're slamming artillery and drone-dropped grenades on tanks. They don't need a tank-buster. They need *true* air support.

@nekomakhea9440

Жыл бұрын

​@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Sortie rates, operational costs, and sparing wear on high-performance fighters for more important jobs like CAP and SEAD absolutely matter in wars, because those are all logistics based arguments. Even my argument for sending F-16s *instead* of sending A-10s is logistics based: the US doesn't have a procurement source to replace any A-10s they send away. Tactical minutiae are details too small to matter on the vast scale of a peer-to-peer war. Tactics win battles, but logistics wins wars, and it's entirely possible to win battles while losing a war. I violently agree with you that the F-16 is a better option, just for completely different reasons. You're arguing tactics but I'm arguing logistics.

@ChucksSEADnDEAD

Жыл бұрын

@@nekomakhea9440 Well, then please add the 2 billion spent on A-10 wings to the operational cost, because I think per hour costs should reflect the fact that ageing aircraft need expensive contracts to run. I think it's funny you claim to be talking about logistics while defending the "tank buster" concept (a tactic).

@nekomakhea9440

Жыл бұрын

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD A dedicated CAS plane is a platform, not a tactic, it's the difference between a noun and a verb; a platform is a set of costs and capabilities, a tactic is how those capabilities are used, two very different things. I'm talking about the costs and capabilities themselves, which is the part that impacts logistics, not how they're used. A dedicated platform can do a job cheaper than a jack of all trades, because extra capabilities cost money and maintenance. Even with the aging airframes, the A-10s are still way cheaper and higher sortie rate than supersonic platforms, and that's why they'll probably be around until drones get good enough to replace them, just like the B-52s outlived the B-1s that were supposed to replace them. USAF keeps flirting with the idea of bringing back propeller CAS, like a Super Tucano or similar, for the same reasons. For a lot of problems, a supersonic airframe is swatting a fly with a sledgehammer; real militaries don't have unlimited budgets or maintenance manpower, so a high-low mix that optimizes both those constraints is necessary. Viewing the A-10 solely on its gun's armor penetration and then declaring it useless in a war, like the video does, is like saying "The Kar 98k had a lower rate of fire than the M1 Garand, and that's why Germany lost the war." It's so myopic of a view of how a war works, that it completely misses the point that Germany lost because it was outproduced and outsupplied by the allies economic might, they lost on the logistical scale of war, not the tactical scale. Russia's logistical woes are largely the reason they haven't won yet, they just kept running out of fuel or maintenance supplies and left tanks on the side of the road. You see the same thing with HIMARS in Ukraine, they don't use it for shooting at tactical targets like tank columns, they use it for shooting ammo, fuel, and supply dumps, because they're trying to logistically cripple the Russian military. But their ability to use HIMARS is severely limited by the logistics of procuring and getting guided rockets into Ukraine, because its too advanced for them to produce domestically. So instead they have to fall back to using lower end platforms like attack helicopters and CAS and tube artillery for striking depos in a lot of cases, because they don't have the logistics to spam their highest end weapons. That's why they have a mix of high and low end platforms, rather than all-or-nothing.

I had the same argument with my son-in-law. He was a Navy Jet Pilot and I was Army. My point is time over target to lay out more Zone Of Fire penetration make the A10 the best friend of boots on the ground. His point was that the A10 was to suspectable to enemy fighters or air defense. AWACs, satellites, and Palantir software should provide the A10 with better targeting/defense data. My impression is that the A10 electronics are far superior to the Su25. In addition, bomber missions can fly with fighter support; why not fighter support for A10s. Or, simply have a mix of aircraft and the F16s can do defense or offense as required. Besides, whoever has the best air to air missile and electronics wins regardless of an aircrafts speed.

@Valhalrik

10 ай бұрын

I agree Russia is stilll in the year 1999

I see your point. Not worth the elevated consequences. Keep the A10 home.

You seem to have based all the affectiveness of the ability to kill the tank based on the Gatling gun. The A-10 also has the ability to deploy rockets and bombs of different types. You have hit the nail on the head about the A-10 needing cover to complete the tank killing opps.

Props for painting a giant target on yourself with this video. I will attempt to split their fire with another target. I remember watching this plane come of age in the first gulf war. I have truly liked this plane immensely since I was that kid watching the war unfold on the news. Though the level of fanboyism that this plane has garnered has really made me more look at it with a more critical eye over the years and just as with the F-14 that basically got me interested in military aircraft, this planes time has come. I will always love this plane, but I have learned how to temper my love with pragmatism. Full stop.

@tylersperry9164

Жыл бұрын

As an old fart I have a special place in my heart for the A-10... right next to the P-38. Growing up my father loved the P-51 while my uncle was a Spitfire fanboy. I love all four in the abstract but there's no escaping modern theater requirements.

I agree the A-10 would be risky in Ukraine. But one thing you didn't even mention was the A-10 can carry many😮 anti-tank missiles. It's not only about the gun. It's about the missiles

"Permissive Environment" is such an open ended term. Desert Storm wasn't exactly a permissive environment, and the A-10 thrived during the First Gulf War against Iraqi air defense. Many an A-10 returned to base with battle damage from AA fire.

One thing to consider when discussing tank armor: yes, the t 62 has sloped armor. But it is sloped upwards, so that an A-10 approaching from above probably can hit at close to 90°. Therefore, the protection in the test was probably close to the actual thickness of 100 mm.

@kathrynck

Жыл бұрын

T-72's have over 200mm armor at 90 degrees. it's 400-600 with the slope. Not a huge amount, but it makes the A-10's gun pretty pointless. At any rate, Ukraine doesn't have the pilot inventory to be putting them in subsonic sitting ducks with an RCS the size of texas, trying to fly low to avoid instant shoot down with a hot exhaust drawing every manpad in sight. The only realistic service for the A-10 in this decade is for the coast guard.

@mylex817

Жыл бұрын

@@kathrynck i agree that the A 10's gun doesn't have much chance to penetrate. My poiny was different: Sloping armor only helps against attacks from certain directions. The slope of a T-72, like that of most tanks, does not really help from the angle that an A-10 would attack. From the perspective of an attacking A-10 there would not be much of a slope.

@kathrynck

Жыл бұрын

@@mylex817 Ah, yeah, well that's true. It's still thick enough to block the rounds though. Unfortunately I think a bigger factor will be that with steeply sloped armor, the 'top armor' is a much smaller area (due to the sloping sides angling in aggressively). And that's the only part the A-10 could penetrate. For example, a chieftan, with it's very steep slope angle, presents a rather small 'roof target' for top-down AT munitions.