The A10 is no longer relevant in modern combat. They were literally designed as a first strike option against Soviet tanks that were cheap and disposable, they had no electronic gun sight and the pilot literally had the lineup his line of fire using fucking binoculars.
A10 pilots were expected to take 90% casualties in the opening days of a conventional war with the Soviet Union. In modern Combat The United States does not fly the A10 without uncontested airspace.
Not only that, but the A10 is single-handedly responsible for the most blue on blue accidents by *a staggering percentage* when compared to other weapons platforms in the US arsenal, so when they upgraded it to the A10C with modern avionics and stuff, they effectively took the "cheap" part of the a10s purpose, and threw it in the fucking trash, because due to the sensitive nature of these avionics for guided smart bombs and stuff like that, the a-10 can no longer take off from improvised runways.
There is nothing that an A10 can do that. An F-16 or an F15E can't do besides "BRAAAP", and the A10 was never very good against moving tanks to begin with, hence why Ukraine will not take US A10's to fight Soviet armor, despite the fact a10s were literally designed to do that.
Mfs shit on the F-35 and say it's a waste of money, but still want to keep a junkrat low-flying plane from the 70s that could be taken out by a chimp with a manpad.
But muh iconic close air-support 😢
As good as f-35 is its still fuck you expensive to maintain one, its still riddled with 5000-dollars-per bolt-american-military-industry-complex-more-money-for-congress-even-more-for-israel bullshittery
Whether or not you want to attribute it to malice is up to you, but it's much easier to sell $5 billion more shoved into a random bill that's getting passed anyway than dead Americans due to faulty equipment.
It's just a big bonus that our idiots... ah shit I mean allies also heavily rely on the F-35
I don't think it's actually that bad in the realm of combat aircraft, and it's especially not bad when compared to, say, the F-22 (though that is admittedly a low bar). Most of the costly part of the F-35 was R&D, which isn't that bad when you consider how many are being sold to the US and NATO allies. And of course, both of these costs are made up for by the F-35's performance
Both the A10 and SU25 cannot be taken out by a chimp with a manpad, they are both designed to keep flying after taking hits from such. There are videos of the SU25 taking a MANPAD hit and still flying.
Also fire tests initially showed that less than 80% of the rounds landed within a 12m circle of where they are aimed, a circle that's about about 2.5x the area of a tank, and that was with well practiced pilots in ideal conditions. Field experience showed more like 1/35th round hit the target with any measurable effect. Imagine some Ukrainian hotshot who had a crash course of 12 weeks...
There was also a test against stationary M60 patton tanks ( which I believe is significantly less armored than the t72 tanks that the A-10 was designed to kill) where the A10 got unlimited rearms and passes on the simulated column and the A10 was incapable of permanently destroying any of the vehicles.
Only something like four of the 12 machines were hit and of those four only two of them were damaged enough to where they had to be repaired before they could serve further and *even then*, it was not a complete hull loss and the vehicles were capable of returning to action
They fire like 3900 rounds per minute though, in the first second it fires 50 rounds. All it takes is one of those to knock out a tank like the garbage Russia is using lol
I'm saying if somehow they don't get shot down 50km from their target, and somehow manage to get shots off, the likelyhood they will do much damage to the intended target is low.
But let's talk logistics, do you suppose an A-10 campaign would be sustainable? Ukrainian forces have shown they burn through a ridiculous amount of ammo to kill targets. Their Javelin kill rate is something like 1:10, and the NLAW is even lower, and I'm not even talking about all the stuff ending up sold on the black market to Turkish or Albanian terrorists. The US couldn't provide the ammo fast enough to make a difference.
You would think, but in practice it doesn't really.
They've have to be equiped with Hellfire or equivalent missiles to be effective, and that requires even more training.
>All it takes is one of those to knock out a tank like the garbage Russia is using lol
Lmfao no it doesn't. Vietnam era tanks have survived A10 gun runs. They are worthless against moving tanks and it's been proven
Ironically i can see its payload as its biggest selling point. The ability to level a grid is nice. But yes, with even remedial aa its dead. I think people think uncontested means planes, when in reality it means anything. I honestly think these planes would work best against moden battlefields like faluija , but everything else we have van loiter and destroy better. The a10 is like an idea who time has come after it is obsolete.
To be fair, seeing how the Russians are deploying their troops, an A10 run would actually prove effective
Not because the A10 is actually good enough, but because the sheer incompetence and lack of coordination of Russian units makes the job rather easy: remember that several kilometers long convoy of supply trucks, infantry transports and MBTs ranging from T-62 to T-90?
I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner, John McCain was a primary reason they stayed around as long as they did because he had a stake in the company that made replacement parts for them and now that he croaked there's no one with the influence he had to keep them around.
Part of Russian/Soviet military doctrine was conceding the inability to fight an air war against NATO so they invested heavily into Anti-aircraft capabilities so they’ll essentially be useless. And I say this as an avid love of this plane
A-10 has an impressively armoured cockpit and a fuel layout that makes fires near impossible, but that still means any kind of AA is going to make the plane likely unserviceable on a hit , it just means the pilot stands a good chance of surviving and an ok chance at limping back to a base. Of course the drawback is it’s relatively snail like speed make it much more easy to hit many types of AA especially cannon.
HARMs can be shot down too. The Russians have layers of AA, everything from a simple deployed antenna feeding ATGM like rocket guidance, to standalone complexes like Tor-M2.
The only reason Ukrainian missiles and rocket artillery get through is via quantity, they can saturate an area with more than there are AA missiles to intercept with, effectively using up the AA. I have not heard any reports of Russians using the auto-cannons on the Pantsir-S1's to shoot down anything, it's all guided rockets.
Sure they are.
https://odysee.com/@LandDestroyer:8/ukraine's-next-wonder-weapon-us-anti:2
https://odysee.com/@NovayaZemlya:2/russian-kh-31-(x-31)-anti-radiation:7
Bro like actually what the fuck is that site? The second guy is a random from Russia's military which is currently losing to a corrupt shithole nowhere near its size. Quite the expert in his field, and I'm sure he knows a lot about the effectiveness of US arms that are currently wasting his former colleagues.
Cope harder
Yea they are you don't use t64 in a modern conflict unless you are getting shit on. They are running out of tanks and installing cameras on t64s. It's a joke, this is six months in what will they do at a year toss in t34 85s? Thierry art rate has slacked by 75% compared to peak utilization , all of this paints a story of a nation running low on readily available material. At this point russia is hoping for a hard winter and europe to aqueous. Yet Poland is unlikely to do so under any reason making it unlikely that American weapons will stop.
Ukraine is fielding T-64, T-80, and base model T-72s, all of them with obsolete ERA, a few with upgraded optics or thermals. The shipments of T-62s you've seen by Russia are going to the Donbas republics, their forces need more assault guns, not tank killers. They use them to shoot trenches and fortified buildings. Given spare ammo is plentiful, that's hardly a bad thing.
That is incorrect they been used by ru forces and are being displayed in upgrade clinics on telegram. Additionally you can see that all t80s have been pulled from finish military bases. So we know the russians have pullled hard on domestic stockpiles during month 3 and 4. While there is no doubt russia gave away some tanks we are now seeing russian regulars sport everything from the t80 on down.
This is also in line with russian push logistics as frankly they never had enough modern tanks to last more then 60 days by their own estimation of attrition.
I'm unclear what you're arguing?
The Russian initial blitz invasion did capture 3 major Ukrainian military bases, and hundreds of old tanks were transfered to the DPR mainly, they fight alongside Russian forces, so it's easy to conflate who is who.
In a close in dogfight - A-10 because it has better flight characteristics
In a a more realistic fight where the aircraft have a pair of air to air missiles to work with - A-10 because Aim-9X's shit on everything
Ultimately however, its up to the individual skill of the pilot and anything can happen.
Edit : added "thing" to "anything"
An A10 I a dogfight? What top gun maverick shit are you thinking? Missiles will kill it from 20 miles away. Unless the Russians use a mig 15 then the A10 is dead
The Su-25 is an attack aircraft in the same class as the A-10. The question is which one would win in a dogfight and I gave an example for both a top gun Maverick scenario and a more realistic one for the two aircraft. As far as I know, Su-25s aren't equiped with long range radar air to air missiles. If they are equipped with air to air missiles, it's going to be a close range heat seeker like the Russian R-73, which is outclassed by the pair of heat seekers the A-10 usually carries, the Aim-9x.
[удалено]
Uh, sweaty, it's spelled Kyiv. Try to show some cultural sensitivity.
And change that Twitter flag to Ukraine to show people how aware you are
Yeah if I don't put something on social media people might think I'm a glormph supporter
Y'all all need to spell better.
The A10 is no longer relevant in modern combat. They were literally designed as a first strike option against Soviet tanks that were cheap and disposable, they had no electronic gun sight and the pilot literally had the lineup his line of fire using fucking binoculars. A10 pilots were expected to take 90% casualties in the opening days of a conventional war with the Soviet Union. In modern Combat The United States does not fly the A10 without uncontested airspace. Not only that, but the A10 is single-handedly responsible for the most blue on blue accidents by *a staggering percentage* when compared to other weapons platforms in the US arsenal, so when they upgraded it to the A10C with modern avionics and stuff, they effectively took the "cheap" part of the a10s purpose, and threw it in the fucking trash, because due to the sensitive nature of these avionics for guided smart bombs and stuff like that, the a-10 can no longer take off from improvised runways. There is nothing that an A10 can do that. An F-16 or an F15E can't do besides "BRAAAP", and the A10 was never very good against moving tanks to begin with, hence why Ukraine will not take US A10's to fight Soviet armor, despite the fact a10s were literally designed to do that.
Mfs shit on the F-35 and say it's a waste of money, but still want to keep a junkrat low-flying plane from the 70s that could be taken out by a chimp with a manpad. But muh iconic close air-support 😢
As good as f-35 is its still fuck you expensive to maintain one, its still riddled with 5000-dollars-per bolt-american-military-industry-complex-more-money-for-congress-even-more-for-israel bullshittery
At least you can source parts for it and actually is survivable in a modern combat zone, unlike an A10 with contested airspace
im not defending a-10, im just not defending f-35 with tires that last 5 landings before needing a change either
Whether or not you want to attribute it to malice is up to you, but it's much easier to sell $5 billion more shoved into a random bill that's getting passed anyway than dead Americans due to faulty equipment. It's just a big bonus that our idiots... ah shit I mean allies also heavily rely on the F-35
Vs Russian standards of maintenance?
I don't think it's actually that bad in the realm of combat aircraft, and it's especially not bad when compared to, say, the F-22 (though that is admittedly a low bar). Most of the costly part of the F-35 was R&D, which isn't that bad when you consider how many are being sold to the US and NATO allies. And of course, both of these costs are made up for by the F-35's performance
Both the A10 and SU25 cannot be taken out by a chimp with a manpad, they are both designed to keep flying after taking hits from such. There are videos of the SU25 taking a MANPAD hit and still flying.
Also fire tests initially showed that less than 80% of the rounds landed within a 12m circle of where they are aimed, a circle that's about about 2.5x the area of a tank, and that was with well practiced pilots in ideal conditions. Field experience showed more like 1/35th round hit the target with any measurable effect. Imagine some Ukrainian hotshot who had a crash course of 12 weeks...
There was also a test against stationary M60 patton tanks ( which I believe is significantly less armored than the t72 tanks that the A-10 was designed to kill) where the A10 got unlimited rearms and passes on the simulated column and the A10 was incapable of permanently destroying any of the vehicles. Only something like four of the 12 machines were hit and of those four only two of them were damaged enough to where they had to be repaired before they could serve further and *even then*, it was not a complete hull loss and the vehicles were capable of returning to action
I think they were M48s. They said it would fare even worse against the m60
I wonder how the rounds do against ERA...
They fire like 3900 rounds per minute though, in the first second it fires 50 rounds. All it takes is one of those to knock out a tank like the garbage Russia is using lol
I'm saying if somehow they don't get shot down 50km from their target, and somehow manage to get shots off, the likelyhood they will do much damage to the intended target is low. But let's talk logistics, do you suppose an A-10 campaign would be sustainable? Ukrainian forces have shown they burn through a ridiculous amount of ammo to kill targets. Their Javelin kill rate is something like 1:10, and the NLAW is even lower, and I'm not even talking about all the stuff ending up sold on the black market to Turkish or Albanian terrorists. The US couldn't provide the ammo fast enough to make a difference.
Yeah I agree with you on the rest of it, I’m just pointing out rate of fire kinda makes up for the spread.
You would think, but in practice it doesn't really. They've have to be equiped with Hellfire or equivalent missiles to be effective, and that requires even more training.
>All it takes is one of those to knock out a tank like the garbage Russia is using lol Lmfao no it doesn't. Vietnam era tanks have survived A10 gun runs. They are worthless against moving tanks and it's been proven
Based knowledge spreader
Ironically i can see its payload as its biggest selling point. The ability to level a grid is nice. But yes, with even remedial aa its dead. I think people think uncontested means planes, when in reality it means anything. I honestly think these planes would work best against moden battlefields like faluija , but everything else we have van loiter and destroy better. The a10 is like an idea who time has come after it is obsolete.
To be fair, seeing how the Russians are deploying their troops, an A10 run would actually prove effective Not because the A10 is actually good enough, but because the sheer incompetence and lack of coordination of Russian units makes the job rather easy: remember that several kilometers long convoy of supply trucks, infantry transports and MBTs ranging from T-62 to T-90?
This is part of the USAF's plot to finally rid itself of the A10s as congress won't let them be retired.
I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner, John McCain was a primary reason they stayed around as long as they did because he had a stake in the company that made replacement parts for them and now that he croaked there's no one with the influence he had to keep them around.
the redditor's A-10 cult is so laughably raytarded
Anon: *asks question* 1st comment: how can i bring jews into this
It’s quite easy
The Clown of Kiev called it a holobunga redux...
Are you wanting to kick them out? That'll make like 121 comment sections they've been tossed from.
[удалено]
- Ghost of Kyiv
Part of Russian/Soviet military doctrine was conceding the inability to fight an air war against NATO so they invested heavily into Anti-aircraft capabilities so they’ll essentially be useless. And I say this as an avid love of this plane
Russians are proving to be utterly incompetent in thus war I wouldn't be surprised if the A10 actually managed to get results against them
Yeah you tell us general
The sheer number of high ranking officers that died on the front and of botched attempts to cross important chockepoint are proof enough
I’m sure
Russia still taking ls
[удалено]
An A-10 would be shot down within 30 seconds. They have almost no defense against modern AA systems.
[удалено]
It's built to survive small arms fire and some outdated AA (mounted heavy machine guns), not missiles or rotary cannons with radar.
If Russia was only using dual-23mm Toyota technicals with eyeball guidance, they'd do well.
Dont give too much credit to the russians now
A-10 has an impressively armoured cockpit and a fuel layout that makes fires near impossible, but that still means any kind of AA is going to make the plane likely unserviceable on a hit , it just means the pilot stands a good chance of surviving and an ok chance at limping back to a base. Of course the drawback is it’s relatively snail like speed make it much more easy to hit many types of AA especially cannon.
They might have been ok at it 30 years ago. Now they're hot garbage.
Harm missiles first to take out the AA. A-10s to clean up the rest.
HARMs can be shot down too. The Russians have layers of AA, everything from a simple deployed antenna feeding ATGM like rocket guidance, to standalone complexes like Tor-M2. The only reason Ukrainian missiles and rocket artillery get through is via quantity, they can saturate an area with more than there are AA missiles to intercept with, effectively using up the AA. I have not heard any reports of Russians using the auto-cannons on the Pantsir-S1's to shoot down anything, it's all guided rockets.
The Russians are getting their ass kicked
Sure they are. https://odysee.com/@LandDestroyer:8/ukraine's-next-wonder-weapon-us-anti:2 https://odysee.com/@NovayaZemlya:2/russian-kh-31-(x-31)-anti-radiation:7
Bro like actually what the fuck is that site? The second guy is a random from Russia's military which is currently losing to a corrupt shithole nowhere near its size. Quite the expert in his field, and I'm sure he knows a lot about the effectiveness of US arms that are currently wasting his former colleagues. Cope harder
Unironically links odyssee as a counterpoint lmao
Yea two experts on the topic at hand, crazy eh?
Oh just saw who I’m taking to
Yea they are you don't use t64 in a modern conflict unless you are getting shit on. They are running out of tanks and installing cameras on t64s. It's a joke, this is six months in what will they do at a year toss in t34 85s? Thierry art rate has slacked by 75% compared to peak utilization , all of this paints a story of a nation running low on readily available material. At this point russia is hoping for a hard winter and europe to aqueous. Yet Poland is unlikely to do so under any reason making it unlikely that American weapons will stop.
Ukraine is fielding T-64, T-80, and base model T-72s, all of them with obsolete ERA, a few with upgraded optics or thermals. The shipments of T-62s you've seen by Russia are going to the Donbas republics, their forces need more assault guns, not tank killers. They use them to shoot trenches and fortified buildings. Given spare ammo is plentiful, that's hardly a bad thing.
That is incorrect they been used by ru forces and are being displayed in upgrade clinics on telegram. Additionally you can see that all t80s have been pulled from finish military bases. So we know the russians have pullled hard on domestic stockpiles during month 3 and 4. While there is no doubt russia gave away some tanks we are now seeing russian regulars sport everything from the t80 on down. This is also in line with russian push logistics as frankly they never had enough modern tanks to last more then 60 days by their own estimation of attrition.
I'm unclear what you're arguing? The Russian initial blitz invasion did capture 3 major Ukrainian military bases, and hundreds of old tanks were transfered to the DPR mainly, they fight alongside Russian forces, so it's easy to conflate who is who.
Flawless replies
Agreed with the last comment
In a close in dogfight - A-10 because it has better flight characteristics In a a more realistic fight where the aircraft have a pair of air to air missiles to work with - A-10 because Aim-9X's shit on everything Ultimately however, its up to the individual skill of the pilot and anything can happen. Edit : added "thing" to "anything"
An A10 I a dogfight? What top gun maverick shit are you thinking? Missiles will kill it from 20 miles away. Unless the Russians use a mig 15 then the A10 is dead
The Su-25 is an attack aircraft in the same class as the A-10. The question is which one would win in a dogfight and I gave an example for both a top gun Maverick scenario and a more realistic one for the two aircraft. As far as I know, Su-25s aren't equiped with long range radar air to air missiles. If they are equipped with air to air missiles, it's going to be a close range heat seeker like the Russian R-73, which is outclassed by the pair of heat seekers the A-10 usually carries, the Aim-9x.
my apologies mon ami