Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

[TomcatViP]

Well A-10 will fly among a fleet of vehicles that would include UAV and tactical strikes from faster jets, precision artillery and HIMARS. Then it would be survivable.

Next, Exocet.

 

[Forest Green]

Do they have a great surplus of pilots? The A-10 is very easy to fly but the attrition will be massive against the likely air defense. You can move candidates straight from turboprop basic trainers to the A-10. Even inexperienced regional airline pilots are suitable candidates, but there’s a global shortage of airline pilots to begin with. And just how many veteran Su-25 pilots are left at this point? At this point, with the prospect of Western fighter planes, any surviving Mig-29 and Su-27 aviators are too valuable to waste. Pilots are worth more than airframes in most modern conflicts but that’s especially true in this one.

There’s no question of flying at 20,000 feet and using LGBs, JDAM and Mavericks. In this threat environment you’re going to be operating below 200ft AGL. Treetop level. Lots of ground impacts and bird strikes.

Then there’s the issue of the necessary low level munition. You really would need to use “banned” cluster weapons or Snakeyes. Fly high enough to sight the canon for a pass and you’re dead. Fly high enough to sight rockets and you’re dead. Pop up high enough to release a LGB or even a Maverick and you’re dead. Actually, would there be enough surviving UAVs loitering at medium altitudes to to do the laser designation?

I’m of the opinion that the A-10 could have survived the ZSU-23 and SA-7 Grail threat level over Vietnam in 1972. Certain not over the Golan or Sinai in 1973 and survival over Europe by the mid-1980s was very dubious indeed.

Looking back, a BL-755 armed Jaguar was a heck of a lot faster at low levels and more survivable in the sort of low level tactics necessary. All scrapped now. And even if the RAF still had a stockpile of BL-755s, and you could quickly go through clearance trials with the A-10, transferring cluster munitions would be politically impossible. Literally a “war crime” in the minds of the masses.

From what I've seen of the war, it's exactly the kind of situation the A-10 was designed to fight in. Low-level, no air superiority and it has lots of low-level ammunition. If a ground team is correctly equipped it could also be used for loft bombing PGMs.

 

[TinWing]

Do they have a great surplus of pilots? The A-10 is very easy to fly but the attrition will be massive against the likely air defense. You can move candidates straight from turboprop basic trainers to the A-10. Even inexperienced regional airline pilots are suitable candidates, but there’s a global shortage of airline pilots to begin with. And just how many veteran Su-25 pilots are left at this point? At this point, with the prospect of Western fighter planes, any surviving Mig-29 and Su-27 aviators are too valuable to waste. Pilots are worth more than airframes in most modern conflicts but that’s especially true in this one.

There’s no question of flying at 20,000 feet and using LGBs, JDAM and Mavericks. In this threat environment you’re going to be operating below 200ft AGL. Treetop level. Lots of ground impacts and bird strikes.

Then there’s the issue of the necessary low level munition. You really would need to use “banned” cluster weapons or Snakeyes. Fly high enough to sight the canon for a pass and you’re dead. Fly high enough to sight rockets and you’re dead. Pop up high enough to release a LGB or even a Maverick and you’re dead. Actually, would there be enough surviving UAVs loitering at medium altitudes to to do the laser designation?

I’m of the opinion that the A-10 could have survived the ZSU-23 and SA-7 Grail threat level over Vietnam in 1972. Certain not over the Golan or Sinai in 1973 and survival over Europe by the mid-1980s was very dubious indeed.

Looking back, a BL-755 armed Jaguar was a heck of a lot faster at low levels and more survivable in the sort of low level tactics necessary. All scrapped now. And even if the RAF still had a stockpile of BL-755s, and you could quickly go through clearance trials with the A-10, transferring cluster munitions would be politically impossible. Literally a “war crime” in the minds of the masses.

From what I've seen of the war, it's exactly the kind of situation the A-10 was designed to fight in. Low-level, no air superiority and it has lots of low-level ammunition. If a ground team is correctly equipped it could also be used for loft bombing PGMs.

The problem is that you don’t have the sort of ground teams and coordination necessary. We’re talking about raw conscripts after all of the attrition.

Strafing is actually far riskier than you appreciate. To be high enough to sight the canon on an A-10, you’re vulnerable to a lot of AA. In 2003, 14.5mm was enough to disable an A-10 on a staffing run. Yes, it recovered to base but was effectively out of the conflict. Pilot saved, airframe lost. And yes the A-10 was designed to survive 23mm strikes but that doesn’t mean it can remain operational.

My Jaguar/BL-755 analogy was a perfect example of what you need at extreme low levels. There’s a reason why RAF Germany discounted strafing as a tactic.

And if we’re talking about A-10s, it must mean that UAVs are suffering extreme attrition. Those Turkish TB-2s have disappeared from the news and there’s some reason why Putin made yesterday’s Turkish visit? We’re down to low level flying and a low level UCAV is a useless concept. UAVs are all about having a decent line of sight to spot targets, decent altitude for small gliding munitions.

 

[GTX]

From what I've seen of the war, it's exactly the kind of situation the A-10 was designed to fight in. Low-level, no air superiority

Are you kidding me? You really think the USA planned on fielding a jet in the 1970s planning on no air superiority support? Quite the opposite I would argue.

 

[Forest Green]

The problem is that you don’t have the sort of ground teams and coordination necessary. We’re talking about raw conscripts after all of the attrition.

Strafing is actually far riskier than you appreciate. To be high enough to sight the canon on an A-10, you’re vulnerable to a lot of AA. In 2003, 14.5mm was enough to disable an A-10 on a staffing run. Yes, it recovered to base but was effectively out of the conflict. Pilot saved, airframe lost. And yes the A-10 was designed to survive 23mm strikes but that doesn’t mean it can remain operational.

My Jaguar/BL-755 analogy was a perfect example of what you need at extreme low levels. There’s a reason why RAF Germany discounted strafing as a tactic.

And if we’re talking about A-10s, it must mean that UAVs are suffering extreme attrition. Those Turkish TB-2s have disappeared from the news and there’s some reason why Putin made yesterday’s Turkish visit? We’re down to low level flying and a low level UCAV is a useless concept. UAVs are all about having a decent line of sight to spot targets, decent altitude for small gliding munitions.

That's not what I'm seeing having viewed a lot of the videos. I seeing experts in drone use and targeting equipment, a SOFLAM wouldn't be that difficult based on the other stuff I've seen them using. The pilot training would take a more time, but they've trained people to use HIMARS, and even I managed to learn how to use an A-10's systems on DCS.

Airframe lost to 14.5mm, seems very unlikely unless it parked in front on the gun for quarter of an hour.

They haven't disappeared from the news at all, I saw a video of one in use only this week. Putin had quite a long stand IIRC too.

It will be about pop-up attacks, and that's what the A-10 is good at. What does it have that currently involved aircraft don't? Well if has working GPS and a system whereby target co-ordinates can be fed into the mission computer upfront, in much the same way HIMARS targets are, then in a JDAM loft-bombing situation, there is a target rundown line on the HUD and you launch when the pipper enters circle IIRC. Then a 500, 1000 or 2000lb bomb gets lobbed into the air and guides itself down on an unsuspecting target with pinpoint accuracy. Not sure whether the same can be done with WCMDs too. It's the BLU-96/Bs I miss though, put that warhead in a JDAM and it'll really give trench-dwellers something to think about.

 

[Forest Green]

Are you kidding me? You really think the USA planned on fielding a jet in the 1970s planning on no air superiority support? Quite the opposite I would argue.

It was designed for a situation where there might not be time to establish full air superiority (Soviet invasion of Europe). Winning the fight in the air is all well and good until their are Soviet tanks on your airfield. A-10s would have to operate against enemy armour before every last SHORAD could be toasted.

At the moment both Russians and Ukrainians are using Su-25s a lot, and the A-10 is a step up on that.... IMHO of course.

 

[GTX]

At the moment both Russians and Ukrainians are using Su-25s a lot, and the A-10 is a step up on that.... IMHO of course.

How do you define "a step up"?

 

[TinWing]

At the moment both Russians and Ukrainians are using Su-25s a lot, and the A-10 is a step up on that.... IMHO of course.

How do you define "a step up"?

Other than loiter time, not really. All of the “Warthog” enthusiasts don’t appreciate just how slow it is. Also very slow to throttle up, which is why experienced A-10 pilots converting from fast jets despised the A-10. Another reason why loft bombing with the A-10 just isn’t viable.

Loft bombing was a far more viable concept for something like the Tornado.

 

[TinWing]

From what I've seen of the war, it's exactly the kind of situation the A-10 was designed to fight in. Low-level, no air superiority

Are you kidding me? You really think the USA planned on fielding a jet in the 1970s planning on no air superiority support? Quite the opposite I would argue.

In the late Cold War, the entire F-16 fleet was assigned to an air superiority role for the first day of the war. After establishing air superiority by day two, top cover would have been left to the F-15s, the F-16s would have shifted to ground attack and the A-10s would have gone to work. But air superiority was key.

 

[Forest Green]

How do you define "a step up"?

As significantly better.

You'd also be surprised just how slow the Su-25 is. The only real difference is that it doesn't fly well at low speeds, is a pig to land and its avionics are well below par.

In the late Cold War, the entire F-16 fleet was assigned to an air superiority role for the first day of the war. After establishing air superiority by day two, top cover would have been left to the F-15s, the F-16s would have shifted to ground attack and the A-10s would have gone to work. But air superiority was key.

So let me get this straight, someone planned on achieving in 1 day, against the 1980s peak Soviet military, what wasn't even achieved against Iraq in 1991 in 1 day, despite having 6 months to move assets into position prior? That's just plain silly.

 

[TinWing]

Are you kidding me? You really think the USA planned on fielding a jet in the 1970s planning on no air superiority support? Quite the opposite I would argue.

It was designed for a situation where there might not be time to establish full air superiority (Soviet invasion of Europe). Winning the fight in the air is all well and good until their are Soviet tanks on your airfield. A-10s would have to operate against enemy armour before every last SHORAD could be toasted.

At the moment both Russians and Ukrainians are using Su-25s a lot, and the A-10 is a step up on that.... IMHO of course.

Leave the Cold War scenarios to those of us who lived through it, know the doctrines, personally know the Air Force leaders of the era and actual capabilities of the time. Air Superiority was a vital prerequisite to the A-10 mission, as was Defense Suppression.

The A-10 was designed for a ZSU-23 level of threat. Tunguska, not so much.

 

[Forest Green]

Leave the Cold War scenarios to those of us who lived through it, know the doctrines, personally know the Air Force leaders of the era and actual capabilities of the time. Air Superiority was a vital prerequisite to the A-10 mission, as was Defense Suppression.

The A-10 was designed for a ZSU-23 level of threat. Tunguska, not so much.

I think you'll find the Soviet had short-range SAMs before the end of the Cold War. The Tunguska was but one.

I don't mean to be disrespectable, but the chances of completely disinfecting the the battlefield of SAM threats in 24 hours (without deploying Dr. Manhattan) has to be a joke right?

 

[TomcatViP]

Time sensitive. A wolf pack action with UAV, micro drones, JDAM (from A-10), fighter cover, HIMARS and precision artillery will do. The advantage of the Warthog will be with targets of opportunity. Once russian forces will be deprived of their local air & ground support the search and destroy will be epic, until they consolidate back.

 

[Forest Green]

APKWS II could also be used in a loft application if someone on the ground lases the targets, or a micro-UAV does. Both sides are doing a lot of this already with helicopters, the only difference is that they might actually hit something besides the ground with APKWS II.

 

[TinWing]

How do you define "a step up"?

As significantly better.

You'd also be surprised just how slow the Su-25 is. The only real difference is that it doesn't fly well at low speeds, is a pig to land and its avionics are well below par.

There’s a big difference between the survivability of a low level pass at 200 knots or 350-400 knots. The A-10 had a lot more drag than the Su-25 and far less responsive engines. As far as landing speeds and handling, the Su-25 was a useful trainer for carrier deck landings, not a U-2!

Avionics wise, sticking to night flying would be a huge advantage for a plane as vulnerable as the A-10.

 

[isayyo2]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1549970821258649602

View: https://twitter.com/UkraineNewsLive/status/1549970821258649602?s=20&t=rgF5vqr0Aawt1ozcMck_dg

Well that's one way the Brass can cull the A-10 fleet...

 

[Forest Green]

There’s a big difference between the survivability of a low level pass at 200 knots or 350-400 knots. The A-10 had a lot more drag than the Su-25 and far less responsive engines. As far as landing speeds and handling, the Su-25 was a useful trainer for carrier deck landings, not a U-2!

Avionics wise, sticking to night flying would be a huge advantage for a plane as vulnerable as the A-10.

The A-10 will happily do 300knots at low level with a load and is quoted at 381kts at sea level clean. DCS is supposed to be very authentic and the difference you make out doesn't exist. Both are slow but the A-10 is happier at low speed, the Su-25T has a very narrow operating range of speeds that it is happy at. It doesn't like staying in the air and shakes as you approach 800kph even at altitude. And the A-10's avionics are light years ahead. At the moment all Su-25s are doing in Ukraine is pumping unguiding rockets into the air in the hope they'll land on something good. An A-10 could at least loft PGMs.

It's not in itself a war winning ability but it's useful, and short of Ukraine getting 300 F-35s it's not a bad option.

I can imagine the Su-25 was good for practicing carrier landings, because it makes landing on dry land equivalent to a carrier landing.

 

[kaiserd]

There is a certain unreality about suggestions of equipping Ukraine with A-10s in anything like immediately or the immediate-term.

You can’t train pilots and build the necessary infrastructure that quickly (and it would be competing with much more immediately required priorities in any case).

The A-10s can’t survive without a level of air superiority and a level of defence suppression that Ukraine can’t realistically achieve.

And if you were going down such a path (in a less immediate time scale) realistically providing a mixture of F-16s and armed drones would give considerably greater and more flexible capacity that would have significantly more impact on Russian operations than some A-10s would.

 

[Archibald]

I don't mean to be disrespectable, but the chances of completely disinfecting the the battlefield of SAM threats in 24 hours (without deploying Dr. Manhattan)

Made my day !

 

[TomcatViP]

Let's not forget that today situation in Ukraine is that of two stagnated forces opposing each other over vast distances in a slow moving front. Hence, Air superiority is a variable of time and place. Any of the opposing forces can probably achieve temporary air superiority, locally, moving the right amount of resources, given they have appropriate coordination, intelligence and proficiency (something Ukrainian have proved to possess already).

So, the A-10 can probably operate safely for brief periods of times over a segment of the FLOT. What the Warthog brings as an advantages is its magazine capacity and its avionics allowing it to operate in cunjunction of the ground force, quickly and efficiently (PGM). Each unit of time allocated to the a-10 there will probably augment the amount of Russian system destroyed and be vastly superior to what the Su-25 can.

In an attrition war, this is a winning addition.

 

[Forest Green]

There is a certain unreality about suggestions of equipping Ukraine with A-10s in anything like immediately or the immediate-term.

You can’t train pilots and build the necessary infrastructure that quickly (and it would be competing with much more immediately required priorities in any case).

The A-10s can’t survive without a level of air superiority and a level of defence suppression that Ukraine can’t realistically achieve.

And if you were going down such a path (in a less immediate time scale) realistically providing a mixture of F-16s and armed drones would give considerably greater and more flexible capacity that would have significantly more impact on Russian operations than some A-10s would.

I agree with that. Even refresher courses for previous pilots who've flown a given aircraft type before generally take 6 months. Probably 1 year minimum for ab-initio training.

As regards the rest, neither side has achieved air superiority, defined as the ability to freely conduct sorties with little chance of being shot down. Is an A-10 any worse at surviving than any other non-stealth aircraft currently preforming brief pop-ups attacks and loft attacks? No, likely slightly better. It has a decent chance of making it back after a hit from MANPADS, which other aircraft do not. It has a decent RWR setup. It can be pre-programmed with target co-ordinates and use PGMs in loft mode.

Also hugely relevant to this discussion as regards PGMs, and something I wasn't sure about:

AGM-65 Maverick - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Maverick E2/L model incorporates a laser-guided seeker that allows for designation by the launch aircraft, another aircraft, or a ground source and can engage small, fast moving, and maneuvering targets on land and at sea.

 

[TomcatViP]

And it comes for cheap. A sensible parameter when taking into account the economics of the few countries that really weight-in with help in that conflict. (recently the Ex-NATO leader remarked that France did no more than Denmark (a country with 10% only of the French population...)).

 

[Fluff]

Giving Ukraine A10’s only makes sense if there are no more su25 available, which from rumours is far from true.

Lobbing dumb bombs was a survival tool, to keep your very expensive aircraft and crews alive a bit longer. Likewise laser guidance, cutting edge in GW1(over 30 years ago). All now replaced by gps guidance and accuracies of a few metres.

I’d suggest and hopefully in hand, is a guidance system for the 340mm rockets the ukr are using, so these random launches get more impact.

 

[_Del_]

The A-10 will happily do 300knots at low level with a load and is quoted at 381kts at sea level clean. DCS is

Gut Gott im himmel- was ist los?

 

[_Del_]

If they need A-10's, they've gone through all the Sukhois. And if that is true, what is the magic calculus that makes the A-10 last longer than the Su-25's? Where/how do you stage and then operate A-10's with pilots new to the type that is safer and/or more effective than where they were staging and operating the Su-25's with experience?

 

[Forest Green]

If they need A-10's, they've gone through all the Sukhois. And if that is true, what is the magic calculus that makes the A-10 last longer than the Su-25's? Where/how do you stage and then operate A-10's with pilots new to the type that is safer and/or more effective than where they were staging and operating the Su-25's with experience?

Training presumably.

 

[TomcatViP]

Well, Ukraine isn't very fond of the idea:

Following the meeting, U.S. Air Force leaders indicated that conversations had begun on how to provide Ukraine with Western aircraft, such as older A-10s, but Ukraine says the slower aircraft won’t fill the mission set urgently needed.

To target Russian positions in Ukrainian territory, Ukraine needs “fast and versatile” combat aircraft such as the F-16—not slow-moving ground defense platforms such as the retiring fleet of U.S. A-10s, a proposition Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall entertained in comments July 20.

Ukraine Says It Needs ‘Fast and Versatile’ Aircraft, Not the A-10 | Air & Space Forces Magazine

U.S. Air Force leaders weighed in on fighter aircraft to Ukraine, but they may be suggesting the wrong platform, said a Ukrainian official.

www.airforcemag.com

Probably that they will then get ex-aggressors aircraft. It should be more easy that way also, being a sale b/w private entities and a foreign government. Some of their F-16 and Mirage were seriously upgraded (if we dismiss the Mirage reported lower availability and safety than what was expected).

 

[TMA1]

I dont think you guys (me included) have any idea of what Ukraine is actually facing. This does not seem like a wise decision and feels either to be slow steps to justifiably escalate our aid and/or it's an act of desperation. Remember that Ukraine borders Russia. Also remember so much information and assumptions made by osint "experts", journalists and defense watchers are with very little info and understanding of what is going on on a small and large scale. How will we send these aircraft? Will they be based outside Ukraine? That is terrifying. Will they be based in western Ukraine? The logistics involved for such complex military gear make hiding their presence very very difficult.

Has everyone gone mad? I cannot fathom this choice being made except by those who are ideologically deluded and are hoping to escalate the situation to where the west can justifiably intervene directly. I think our leaders think we can somehow intimidate Russia into backing down. I dont see any other rationale for all this. I get a sinking feeling our leading cliques currently in power are thrashing, panicking. Hoping that we might make Russia blink, relent, and then come to some agreement that allows us to reassert ourselves as unipolar power and starts Russia down a path to regime change.

 

[Forest Green]

I dont think you guys (me included) have any idea of what Ukraine is actually facing. This does not seem like a wise decision and feels either to be slow steps to justifiably escalate our aid and/or it's an act of desperation. Remember that Ukraine borders Russia. Also remember so much information and assumptions made by osint "experts", journalists and defense watchers are with very little info and understanding of what is going on on a small and large scale. How will we send these aircraft? Will they be based outside Ukraine? That is terrifying. Will they be based in western Ukraine? The logistics involved for such complex military gear make hiding their presence very very difficult.

Has everyone gone mad? I cannot fathom this choice being made except by those who are ideologically deluded and are hoping to escalate the situation to where the west can justifiably intervene directly. I think our leaders think we can somehow intimidate Russia into backing down. I dont see any other rationale for all this. I get a sinking feeling our leading cliques currently in power are thrashing, panicking. Hoping that we might make Russia blink, relent, and then come to some agreement that allows us to reassert ourselves as unipolar power and starts Russia down a path to regime change.

Ukraine does border Russia, but it is not Russia. I don't think this was planned like some say it was. The fact is that both the leading parties in Ukraine campaigned on the basis of joining the EU in 2010. In 2013 the elected one (Yanukovych) suddenly decided he wasn't going to join the EU after a meeting with Putin, but would join the EEU instead. The opposition party declared it to be a treason and the people protested because it wasn't what they had voted for. They asked for an early election to set the record straight and there are lots of ways Yanukovych could have handled it, e.g. snap election, referendum, or simply changing direction, but he chose to ignore everyone instead. Essentially the same thing that led to the Poll Tax riots in the UK. Except instead of eventually seeing sense, Yanukovych continued to ignore them and then fled to Russia, which was not a good look.

Europe/EU/NATO are supporting Ukraine simply because they do not want Russia invading its way to their border. Finland and Sweden joined NATO for the sake of clarification more than anything. They are both EU members, and an invasion of either would essentially have triggered war with NATO anyway, so they joined NATO just in case Putin somehow didn't realise that.

Now the Transnistrian 'administration' has said it wants to join Russia, so Moldova has asked Russian forces there to leave. Transnistria, like South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Crimea, is a place Russia pseudo-annexed earlier, considerably before NATO expanded too. In fact, these pseudo annexations are probably why people keep asking to join NATO. But that's enough politics.

 

[TMA1]

Extending Russia: Competing for Advantageous Ground

The United States is locked in a great-power competition with Russia. What are Russia's greatest anxieties and vulnerabilities? How can the United States exploit these vulnerabilities? And what are the potential costs and risks of doing so?

www.rand.org

Check out the PDF file. Just reading the index is amusing. I read this pdf a month or so before nagorno karabakh. I can list other white papers by other NGOs that are just as enlightening. This conflict is a filthy blemish of failed politics and underhanded dealings that popped and many sides are to blame for the tens of thousands dead, including Russia, a sinkhole of corruption if there ever was one.

That said, we have our own wicked warmongers and powerful agents who work for them and not for us, the people. This conflict we witness at this very moment came to be because all the great powers of the world are playing slithery games in the internal affairs of nations not their own. A propaganda war is waged to keep this obvious fact from being discussed. All sides are guilty of this. Russia isnt just invading because they are evil monocle wearing, mustache twirling villains (some actually are that comically bad tho). There are complex geopolitical events that spurred all this. I'm sorry mods but when discussing military gear, politics will get involved as war is an extension of politics when malevolent rulers and idiots are involved. I only comment when I see flagrant bias. I have my own of course too, no denying that.

 

[publiusr]

Forget tank-hunting for a bit. If Ukrainians had these farther back….might their guns be used against incoming cruise missiles with some mods?

 

[kaiserd]

Trying to relate this back to the actual topic…

Theoretical Ukrainian A-10C’s would (eventually) be far more capable their Su-25s. Decades more advanced avionics, targeting ability, weapons etc.

However F-16s (that could also serve as air defenders, defend themselves from Russian fighters) complemented by armed drones would be much better and more flexible and overall capable for the Ukrainian airforce and from the press reports of Ukrainian comments that is actually what they want (not A-10s).

And the real-politic is that Ukraine is now being giving all support short of direct involvement in the war started by Putin’s deranged criminal regime.
This is not escalation by the West - it is replacement of like with more-capable-like.

Ukraine’s inventory will inevitably over time fill with Western pieces of kit, including F-16s. The only question is how long Russia will continue ragging this war and how much of this Western equipment will be used during this conflict or to re-arm and help defend Ukraine after the conflict has ended. If the Russians have any sense left they’ll look for a diplomatic way out before use of this new Western equipment seriously erodes the Russian position on the ground.

 

[kaiserd]

Forget tank-hunting for a bit. If Ukrainians had these farther back….might their guns be used against incoming cruise missiles with some mods?

A-10s as cruise missile interceptors?
(1) Any evidence that Ukraine subject to large number/ sustained cruise missile attack (e.g. by Russian equivalents of the Tomahawk - subsonic low altitude hug the terrain missiles) and not the miss-use of supersonic anti-ship missiles like the the As-4 Kitchen?
(2) Either way the A-10 and it’s gun would be completely useless in that role. Doesn’t have the speed, avionics, weapons etc. for that role.

 

[TomS]

Forget tank-hunting for a bit. If Ukrainians had these farther back….might their guns be used against incoming cruise missiles with some mods?

A-10s as cruise missile interceptors?
(1) Any evidence that Ukraine subject to large number/ sustained cruise missile attack (e.g. by Russian equivalents of the Tomahawk - subsonic low altitude hug the terrain missiles) and not the miss-use of supersonic anti-ship missiles like the the As-4 Kitchen?
(2) Either way the A-10 and it’s gun would be completely useless in that role. Doesn’t have the speed, avionics, weapons etc. for that role.

1) Lots of Kalibr 3M54 missiles being fired from the Black Sea. This is a regular fixture of Russian operations.

2) Agreed. It's about the polar opposite of a useful cruise missile defense platform.

 

[TomcatViP]

@kaiserd : related to the diffence b/w F-16 and A-10, obviously, F-16 are more flexible and can do a lot more than the A-10. However, since Air Dominance is a variable of restricted time in this conflict, more magazines gives more opportunity to blow-up more stuff in a single mission.
Inevitably, an F-16 would have to carry less a2g ordinances to still be relevant for defensive a2a.

The problem is not to oppose platforms in a comparison devoid of any factors representing the actual state of play: as of today, Ukraine still has S-27 and Mig-29. Training time for an A-10 restricted to a set of tailored munitions would probably be inferior by a large margin to any F-16 block. The availability of easily donated F-16 is also low (Ah, if France's Macron had had them when their president took power, it will be done in a snap of fingers!). Any F-16 would then be a precious commodity best used where their performances will be maximized regarding opponents forces: BVR OCA.

 

[apparition13]

@kaiserd : related to the diffence b/w F-16 and A-10, obviously, F-16 are more flexible and can do a lot more than the A-10. However, since Air Dominance is a variable of restricted time in this conflict, more magazines gives more opportunity to blow-up more stuff in a single mission.
Inevitably, an F-16 would have to carry less a2g ordinances to still be relevant for defensive a2a.

The problem is not to oppose platforms in a comparison devoid of any factors representing the actual state of play: as of today, Ukraine still has S-27 and Mig-29. Training time for an A-10 restricted to a set of tailored munitions would probably be inferior by a large margin to any F-16 block. The availability of easily donated F-16 is also low (Ah, if France's Macron had had them when their president took power, it will be done in a snap of fingers!). Any F-16 would then be a precious commodity best used where their performances will be maximized regarding opponents forces: BVR OCA.

I really like the A-10 but F-16s, especially F-16CJ SEAD/DEAD optimized ones, would be much more useful to Ukraine. So would legacy Hornets armed with anti-shipping missiles in addition to other stand off attack weapons, and I'm no fan of the Hornet.

 

[Forest Green]

Forget tank-hunting for a bit. If Ukrainians had these farther back….might their guns be used against incoming cruise missiles with some mods?

You want to shoot down a 450kg warhead at a closing speed of ~800kts on guns? Would be better just to buy Goalkeeper CIWS.

 

[publiusr]

That's not airborne. My idea is that several would orbit high value targets...and perhaps infrasound could get warning so A-10s could scissor fire in its path..maybe get lucky. A defensive argument to cover their transfer...sigh...now you went and made me spill the beans.

 

[Forest Green]

That's not airborne. My idea is that several would orbit high value targets...and perhaps infrasound could get warning so A-10s could scissor fire in its path..maybe get lucky. A defensive argument to cover their transfer...sigh...now you went and made me spill the beans.

And what of the rounds that miss? The A-10 also has no radar, so seeing the target and getting into a scissor position would be very difficult.

 

[TomS]

As a point of reference, the Saudis are using their F-15s for cruise missile defense with some regularity (or at least they were last year). They were burning through their AMRAAM inventory to do it. I'm pretty sure they would use guns (or even Sidewinder) instead if they thought it would work, but it doesn't. And that's from a supersonic interceptor that can generate favorable intercept geometry. Plus, intercepts happening mostly over empty desert.