Ukraine – Russia … not more of the last thread

[GO-NAD!]

again, time catches up to all but regardless given what we've seen so far in Ukraine I'm willing to bet it would have wrecked havoc !

I don't doubt that. But, as the article states, even when they were designed back in the '70's, it was forecast that they would lose a lot of them in a war with Russia.

 

[MaxInValrico]

I don't doubt that. But, as the article states, even when they were designed back in the '70's, it was forecast that they would lose a lot of them in a war with Russia.

There were never a lot of A-10s in inventory to begin with. A-10s primary mission back in the 80's was based upon total Air Superiority over the battlefield and that the A-10s would be used in a defensive fashion against oncoming Soviet formations who's AA capabilities would either be eliminated or jammed to the point of ineffectiveness. As well, from personal experience, A-10s can take a lot of damage and still fly.

 

[haraldo]

Mariupol. Love will win

 

[haraldo]

It takes years to build our lives the way we dream of. It only takes a second to take it away.

Thus, on April 23, a young couple died in a rocket attack on a high-rise building in Odessa. Mila and Bogdan. Since the beginning of the war, they have been actively volunteering to bring the day of our peace closer. A few days before her death, Mila found out about the pregnancy.

There are no right words, and there will never be an excuse for crimes committed by the enemy. We will stand, and there will be our victory. There will be peace. And the invaders will get what they deserved for every death and for all the suffering.

Eternal memory!

 

[GO-NAD!]

There were never a lot of A-10s in inventory to begin with. A-10s primary mission back in the 80's was based upon total Air Superiority over the battlefield and that the A-10s would be used in a defensive fashion against oncoming Soviet formations who's AA capabilities would either be eliminated or jammed to the point of ineffectiveness. As well, from personal experience, A-10s can take a lot of damage and still fly.

I don't have any personal experience, but from the referenced article:

When it was first deployed in 1977, the A-10 was basically intended to be used as a flying sledgehammer against Soviet tank divisions. It wasn’t expected to survive very long performing this mission: even flying low to avoid long-range radar-guided SAMs, Air Force planners anticipated that, in the event of a Soviet invasion, they would lose their entire fleet of A-10s in just a few weeks of intense combat.

I don't know how many are in service right now, but with 716 produced, I wouldn't consider that a small number. While I don't doubt that they would lay a pasting on Russian mechanized formations, today's SAMs are much more sophisticated than they were in the '70's.

 

[MaxInValrico]

I don't have any personal experience, but from the referenced article:


I don't know how many are in service right now, but with 716 produced, I wouldn't consider that a small number. While I don't doubt that they would lay a pasting on Russian mechanized formations, today's SAMs are much more sophisticated than they were in the '70's.

Ever see a flight of A-10s attack a simulated formation? They don't fly at more than 500 feet when in combat as that negates most SAMs. SAMs are less of a threat to A-10s than radar guided AA weapons. As well, an A-10 can outmaneuver a SAM. Our Wing had three squadrons of A-10s. 20 Aircraft in each squadron, 2 dedicated for training. In 1985, there were only 6 or 7 active duty wings worldwide with A-10s. 2 in Europe, 1 in Korea and three in the US. The rest of the airframes were Guard or Reserve. The USAF never wanted A-10s since they were and are slow, close to the ground and were very cheap ($400k per aircraft).

 

[GO-NAD!]

Ever see a flight of A-10s attack a simulated formation? They don't fly at more than 500 feet when in combat as that negates most SAMs. SAMs are less of a threat to A-10s than radar guided AA weapons. As well, an A-10 can outmaneuver a SAM. Our Wing had three squadrons of A-10s. 20 Aircraft in each squadron, 2 dedicated for training. In 1985, there were only 6 or 7 active duty wings worldwide with A-10s. 2 in Europe, 1 in Korea and three in the US. The rest of the airframes were Guard or Reserve. The USAF never wanted A-10s since they were and are slow, close to the ground and were very cheap ($400k per aircraft).

Okie-dokie. Regardless of how many or few A-10's are in service, my point was we shouldn't expect them to scythe through the Russians scott-free, as if it was an Iraq turkey shoot. That's it.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Garry Kasparov has an interesting take on the situation:

>>>Putin will continue to escalate and bluff, because it’s the only way someone with the weaker hand can win. For once, the West must fight instead of fold.<<<

The big question is how do we know Put-hole is actually bluffing? There's a lot riding on making the right call.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1519306043016241153

 

[MaxInValrico]

Okie-dokie. Regardless of how many or few A-10's are in service, my point was we shouldn't expect them to scythe through the Russians scott-free, as if it was an Iraq turkey shoot. That's it.

All battle plans incorporate loss expectations and the A-10s purpose was to be a Russian tank killer in order to offset the Soviet advantage in numbers as compared to NATO.

 

[MaxInValrico]

All battle plans incorporate loss expectations and the A-10s purpose was to be a Russian tank killer in order to offset the Soviet advantage in numbers as compared to NATO so as to buy time until reinforcements could arrive.

 

[Mikado463]

All battle plans incorporate loss expectations and the A-10s purpose was to be a Russian tank killer in order to offset the Soviet advantage in numbers as compared to NATO.

Point well made and wouldn't you have loved to have seen the look on the faces of those 'Russkies' in their miles long convoy in Ukraine as a half dozen or so Thunderbolts came sweeping in !

 

[MaxInValrico]

Point well made and wouldn't you have loved to have seen the look on the faces of those 'Russkies' in their miles long convoy in Ukraine as a half dozen or so Thunderbolts came sweeping in !

They would have run out of ammo before they ran out of targets

 

[Mikado463]

They would have run out of ammo before they ran out of targets

no problem, send in the reinforcements or circle back for more !

 

[Replicant 7]

Just read a article, Putin and his cronies talking about the world order, the 40 countries that's against them. Went on with, We have no problem using our nuclear weapons to take out U.K and the United States first. That all Russians are ready to die. Wow.

 

[haraldo]

Spotify music streaming service, which previously announced its withdrawal from Russia, has stopped providing services to 2.1 million users from Russia

 

[highfigh]

All true and while the USAF has hinted at retiring the mighty 'Warthog' because of Chinese updated anti-aircraft capability, its ground support capability is still superb in many ways.

Congress wanted to retire it but some influential people got them to reconsider and it has recently been updated. Not the fastest, but very durable and powerful.

 

[highfigh]

Can the A-10 Warthog Defeat Its Toughest Enemy? | The National Interest

I don't think anyone would send a slow-moving aircraft into enemy fire without having taken out most of the radar- that doesn't make sense.

 

[Mikado463]

Congress wanted to retire it but some influential people got them to reconsider and it has recently been updated. Not the fastest, but very durable and powerful.

I could be wrong but I thought (at least initially) that the USAF wanted to retire it and Congress said no ?? Given its low cost to performance ratio I'm not surprised.

 

[SithZedi]

I don't think anyone would send a slow-moving aircraft into enemy fire without having taken out most of the radar- that doesn't make sense.

Max made a very critical point on the use of the A10s in a Central Europeaon battle scenarios they drew up in the Cold War. NATO would have most likely been overwhelmed with a large scale Soviet advance through Poland. That was one of the many reasons NATO deployed the controversal Pershing II in Western Europe. It could have been used as a tactical nuke to take out large numbers of Soviet tanks as well as counter the previously deployed SS missles.

 

[Mr._Clark]

This report is long (the .pdf is 26 pages), but it has quite a bit of detailed information that I have not seen in most news reports. It appears to be well-documented. One of the main things is that the Russian government has largely succeeded in cutting off it's citizens access to outside information, and switched it's internal propaganda from selling the people on a short "special operation" to a protracted war.

According to this report, the Russian government's message to it's citizens now is that NATO is using Nazis in an attempt to wipe out Russia. Basically, the idea is to sell the Russian people on the idea that the invasion in Ukraine is the same as WW2 on the basis that they are both great ideological wars against Nazi aggressors (this is my take on the report, yours may be different). This is so absurd on so many levels its hard to know where to start. First would be the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine, not the other way around as in WW2. Second, the notion that Ukraine is overrun with Nazis is ridiculous.

>>>This Special Report seeks to examine how the interconnected challenges confronting Moscow are reshaping Russian policy, and the risks Moscow’s potential courses of action pose as the war enters a new phase. The foremost conclusion is that Russia is now preparing, diplomatically, militarily and economically, for a protracted conflict.<<<

Operation Z: The Death Throes of an Imperial Delusion

Russia's military setbacks in Ukraine pose a new set of security challenges in Europe and beyond.

rusi.org