Spur1 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 hour ago, Sharpshooter said: Thank you. A-10’s are not ideal in this campaign. Warthogs require air superiority cover, for one due to their vulnerability. Also, it’s not an aircraft that one can just ‘plug and play’. They’re a volatile to control aircraft and requires a lot of training. While the brrrr, is awesome and would help a lot, it’s not something that can just be thrown into an unknown combat environment. It would certainly be an awesome platform to deal with armour and enemy personnel. However, it also needs a specialized crew to keep it flying. This is why the US isn’t relying on it anymore. Seem like much cheaper drones are replacing it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kootenay Gold Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 3 hours ago, MattJVD said: Re: all the A-10 talk. The A-10 can not operate in enemy air defenses. It is a slow, low-altitude attack air-craft. They are extremely vulnerable and are only used after an agrresive SEAD/DEAD air campaign (Desert storm) or when the enemy has 0 air defense (GWOT). They would be beyond useless to the Ukrainians. It would just mean dead pilots and money used up out of the arms transfer budget that could have been used on something actually valuable. I tend to disagree on that. If they are used in the proper situations they can be very effective. The usage and when and where is vital to their effectiveness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 2 hours ago, Sharpshooter said: Thank you. A-10’s are not ideal in this campaign. Warthogs require air superiority cover, for one due to their vulnerability. Also, it’s not an aircraft that one can just ‘plug and play’. They’re a volatile to control aircraft and requires a lot of training. While the brrrr, is awesome and would help a lot, it’s not something that can just be thrown into an unknown combat environment. It would certainly be an awesome platform to deal with armour and enemy personnel. However, it also needs a specialized crew to keep it flying. This is why the US isn’t relying on it anymore. 3 hours ago, MattJVD said: Re: all the A-10 talk. The A-10 can not operate in enemy air defenses. It is a slow, low-altitude attack air-craft. They are extremely vulnerable and are only used after an agrresive SEAD/DEAD air campaign (Desert storm) or when the enemy has 0 air defense (GWOT). They would be beyond useless to the Ukrainians. It would just mean dead pilots and money used up out of the arms transfer budget that could have been used on something actually valuable. the “ air superiority “ is not that active on the front lines for RuZ. They may seem to have “superiority “, but what does UKR have of an Air Force ?.. isn’t that why they ask for more? RuZ is not in a “superior” position really. Putin has pulled his Air Force deeper back into RuZ after all of the exceptional drone work where The RuZ Air Force was getting targeted as sitting ducks. His Air Force is / seems to be relegated to bombing runs, or missile launches from or over the Black Sea , and or inside RuZ borders. They are not active over front lines because patriot and other “defence “ systems that the UKR are protecting that zone from working. Having realized that and that RuZ counter measures are not there, I think that A10’s could be covered very adequately . Just my thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattJVD Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 21 minutes ago, SilentSam said: the “ air superiority “ is not that active on the front lines for RuZ. They may seem to have “superiority “, but what does UKR have of an Air Force ?.. isn’t that why they ask for more? RuZ is not in a “superior” position really. Putin has pulled his Air Force deeper back into RuZ after all of the exceptional drone work where The RuZ Air Force was getting targeted as sitting ducks. His Air Force is / seems to be relegated to bombing runs, or missile launches from or over the Black Sea , and or inside RuZ borders. They are not active over front lines because patriot and other “defence “ systems that the UKR are protecting that zone from working. Having realized that and that RuZ counter measures are not there, I think that A10’s could be covered very adequately . Just my thoughts. Neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians have air superiority, the skies are still contested. Which is remarkable and a testament to the skill and determination of the Ukrainian defenders; they have a large technical and numerical deficit (though the technical deficit has been reduced in thr GBAD department). The A-10 is very difficult to use when you do not have air superiority yourself, it's a close range attacker. I am 100% supportive of giving Ukraine air assets, but when we live in a world where the US has a limit in the $ value of the things they send imposed by congress, they need to be selective. 8 more F16s with stand-off weapons (HARMs, AIM 120s, etc) would be much better than twice that number of A-10s. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 41 minutes ago, SilentSam said: the “ air superiority “ is not that active on the front lines for RuZ. They may seem to have “superiority “, but what does UKR have of an Air Force ?.. isn’t that why they ask for more? RuZ is not in a “superior” position really. Putin has pulled his Air Force deeper back into RuZ after all of the exceptional drone work where The RuZ Air Force was getting targeted as sitting ducks. His Air Force is / seems to be relegated to bombing runs, or missile launches from or over the Black Sea , and or inside RuZ borders. They are not active over front lines because patriot and other “defence “ systems that the UKR are protecting that zone from working. Having realized that and that RuZ counter measures are not there, I think that A10’s could be covered very adequately . Just my thoughts. If there’s a chance that the A-10s can be shot down without long range air cover, and with superior Russian aircraft able to do just that, it’s not worth it donating warthogs. The A-10s are primarily a tank and infantry buster. Without proper AWACS and superior F-16 support, they’re sitting ducks from ground to air missiles, which Russia has…from long range air to air missiles, which Russia has. This is not the kind of donation that makes sense on a contested battleground with a limited ‘air’ budget. Just pointing out a couple realities. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sharpshooter Posted January 15 Author Popular Post Share Posted January 15 @SilentSam Thank you for updating this thread even when others like myself aren’t always able to. Thank you for your thread service. 1 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JIAHN Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Just a little point I would like to make.............. Over the past year or 2, I have mentioned many times, that Russia should be ablaze in the summer, when temps are high. Lone wolfs could do enough damage..... My observation is, that every time a business is set ablaze, people on here get all giddy, yet, I feel somewhat ignored on my approach......... Now, I absolutely understand that implications, but in war, when protecting your own homeland, all tactics, short of nukes should be used.... So, with that being said............. It is my opinion that lone wolfs could be used to take out Russian infrastructure........power plants, control stations, train stations, airports......using fire, it works wonderfully! Minimum resources required! IMO, Russia is not protected from within, and with the cold snaps, this is the time... Yes, I am extreme......but look at the West's slow passive response has let this war continue..................take it home...........freeze the whole country, invite Putin to attack other countries.......IMO, no nukes will fly! And on that note...the longer we let Putin fight this war, the more maintenance Putin can do on those Nukes..............think about that...........if Putin ever had doubt, it is now, but the further we go into this, the more confidence in the Nukes will be had...... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muscatel Marauder Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 hour ago, JIAHN said: Just a little point I would like to make.............. Over the past year or 2, I have mentioned many times, that Russia should be ablaze in the summer, when temps are high. Lone wolfs could do enough damage..... My observation is, that every time a business is set ablaze, people on here get all giddy, yet, I feel somewhat ignored on my approach......... Now, I absolutely understand that implications, but in war, when protecting your own homeland, all tactics, short of nukes should be used.... So, with that being said............. It is my opinion that lone wolfs could be used to take out Russian infrastructure........power plants, control stations, train stations, airports......using fire, it works wonderfully! Minimum resources required! IMO, Russia is not protected from within, and with the cold snaps, this is the time... Yes, I am extreme......but look at the West's slow passive response has let this war continue..................take it home...........freeze the whole country, invite Putin to attack other countries.......IMO, no nukes will fly! And on that note...the longer we let Putin fight this war, the more maintenance Putin can do on those Nukes..............think about that...........if Putin ever had doubt, it is now, but the further we go into this, the more confidence in the Nukes will be had...... You're not extreme. Carpet bombing Moscow is better than those orcs deserve. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post SilentSam Posted January 15 Popular Post Share Posted January 15 2 hours ago, Sharpshooter said: @SilentSam Thank you for updating this thread even when others like myself aren’t always able to. Thank you for your thread service. thank you kindly Sharps, trust I do appreciate your monitoring of this thread.. The factual , commonsensical discussions here are far better in our new format. I think that all of us who have been rolling through these pages and offering different viewpoints points for discussion appreciate the straight words we are allowed to share, versus those from a few who drop in using conspiracy and propaganda. I for one appreciate the boundaries that have been set, .. and your swift reactions to preserve that. The very best of Wishes to you, and to all here, checking in on a regular basis. May the Free world realize that true Freedom, and Democracy, is worth fighting for .….and that sometimes politics and diplomacy has to take a step back to save that basic human right. 3 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) This is a huge hit !!! Com plane !! lots of reports dropping. this had the ability to “course correct” missiles . The shot down A-50 aircraft would become a significant loss for Russia. Previously, an aircraft of this type was damaged by a drone at Belarus Machulishchi air base. The long-range radar detection aircraft acts as a corrector during massive attacks on Ukraine. Russia also uses them to detect Ukrainian air defense systems. According to the monitoring group "Belaruski Gayun", at the start of the full-scale invasion, there were 9 such aircraft in Russia. Each of them costs about $330 million. Perhaps got 2 !!! ?? one on an airfield by partisans, the other over the sea !!? Edited January 15 by SilentSam 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 To add to the A 50 com plane taken down: the A-50 and what is it? the A-50 is a airborne flying radar and command aircraft... there are only 15 of them, and many dont fly due to it being a hard aircraft to keep working... and remember that the A-50 has to cover the NSE and W of russia.... and syria. so if they have just 2 in the far east, 2 in the north, 2 in the baltic, and 2 near ukraine... thats probably the entire fleet, and if 30% are down due to normal issues thats far less working. it is based on the IL-76 candid (soviet era transport) and like the US E-3 sentry has a large radar on top that spins... russian aircraft have always been directed by other aircraft more than the west. it allows them to not have to use the fighters radar till needed. in other words the pilots are not great at finding targets by themselves. IF the aircraft was shot down this could be a big thing. this means that the aircraft was probably operating too close to the front, and had it radar turned to max. this would allow the UKRAF to target it. i have a feeling that it was covering for the loss of ground based radars that have been getting hit or are down due to weather. without radars the UKRAF can work the front without too much fear and ground units will not know when they are about to be hit.... in other words this is a sign that russia may be running out of long range ground radars, and was using the A-50 to fill gaps... again we need to wait and see if this happened.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Giddy-up !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 How say .. Ka - Put ?! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Some how starting to think random reports of Leopards and Abrams will “rendezvous into a larger gathering / s Surley Bradleys accompanying these will have a steam roller effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Get the feeling this is becoming a well oiled machine , Helicopters support and supplying fresh troops in, and out at the front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 RuZs missions will look nothing like this picture… More like this.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 13 hours ago, SilentSam said: If the get behind enemy lines, RuZ could potentially drop missiles on them selves.. sensing a special op / drop coming up.. perhaps a combination of Drone and AI / unmanned. If we can drop an explosive on a meteor, anything is possible 13 hours ago, SilentSam said: To add to an earlier post about “pinging” RuZ missiles. Not really a surprise the power grid & similar infrastructure is not under as much pressure this year. Thats a win? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kootenay Gold Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kootenay Gold Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 12 hours ago, MattJVD said: we live in a world where the US has a limit in the $ value of the things they send imposed by congress, they need to be selective. 8 more F16s with stand-off weapons (HARMs, AIM 120s, etc) would be much better than twice that number of A-10s. This is very true Matt. I would prefer more F16's be sent as well but adding a few A 10's to compliment them would not involve much extra cost as many of them were likely going to be retired to the boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB just out of Tucson AZ. The main cost would be the training of pilots, supplies and ground crews to maintain them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattJVD Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 hour ago, Kootenay Gold said: This is very true Matt. I would prefer more F16's be sent as well but adding a few A 10's to compliment them would not involve much extra cost as many of them were likely going to be retired to the boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB just out of Tucson AZ. The main cost would be the training of pilots, supplies and ground crews to maintain them. The Air Force's ask to congress on fighter retirements (it was denied, but this is still their plann): 125 F16, 57 F15, 42 A-10. Source: https://www.airandspaceforces.com/lawmakers-air-force-plans-retire-aging-fighters/ Could get F16s at the retirement price too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kootenay Gold Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 21 minutes ago, MattJVD said: The Air Force's ask to congress on fighter retirements (it was denied, but this is still their plann): 125 F16, 57 F15, 42 A-10. Source: https://www.airandspaceforces.com/lawmakers-air-force-plans-retire-aging-fighters/ Could get F16s at the retirement price too. The original versions of the F 15 are being retired but they are still planning on using the F 15EX Strike Eagle well into the future. The air force is also experimenting on upgrades to the A10 so it can also deliver guided bombs from a distance of 50 to 60 miles away as well as provide close air support when required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 26 minutes ago, MattJVD said: The Air Force's ask to congress on fighter retirements (it was denied, but this is still their plann): 125 F16, 57 F15, 42 A-10. Source: https://www.airandspaceforces.com/lawmakers-air-force-plans-retire-aging-fighters/ Could get F16s at the retirement price too. As an aside, in terms of the largest air forces in the world (military), the individual US branches by themselves take up 4 of the top ten ranks: United States Air Force - 5,217 United States Army Aviation - 4,409 Russian Air Force - 3,863 United States Navy - 2,464 People's Liberation Army Air Force (China) - 1,991 Indian Air Force - 1,715 United States Marine Corps - 1,157 Egyptian Air Force - 1,062 Korean People's Army Air Force (North Korea) - 946 South Korean Air Force - 898 Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/largest-air-forces-in-the-world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.