I would have thought A-10's would have been the most effective airplane the west could give them
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
They possibly could be but I believe the US doesn't sell (or give away) A-10s to foreign entities. Its also a 6 month training period for pilots to qualify on them.
Same applies to Abrams tanks as I understand it, so that shouldn't be the sole reason
There are different, proprietary technologies in each platform to where they may consider the risk acceptable to sell it outside the US with some, but not with others. The F22 being a prime example.
They would be limited to low altitude operations just like any other aircraft but without the air to air capabilities that comes with multirole fighters.
That's true of virtually everything military wise, A10's are pretty old these days, the last ones were built 40 years or so ago, OK I know they've been upgraded but I would have thought it would be doable, F22's obviously no way
Brilliant comedy
Not sure the air-to-air capabilities are what they really need most, I would have though air-to-ground was more important at this stage - but I'm not an expert in these matters so I could be talking shite!
Keeping the Russian air force outside of Ukraine has to be high up on the list of priorities. Russian air superiority would be the end for Ukraine.
I think the main benefit of air power would be to take out Russian ground positions from well within Ukrainian territory. Unlike ground based platforms like HIMARS, the jets would be mobile and be able to take out Russian positions deep into Russian held territory in places like Mariupol, Sevastopol, Kerch, etc. The only obvious caveat would be that the planes would need to operate from within Ukrainian held territory or else at a very low altitude if near the front lines. They could obviously also pose a significant threat to the Kerch bridge, Russian ships in the Black Sea, and both land and sea resupply routes.
I'm sure it is but SAM'S and that kind of weaponry is more likely to stop that than fighters I would have thought
SAMs are stationary and can only protect the area around them, to cover the whole area of Ukraine they would probaly need 100s of SAM batteris. Aircrafts are of course not limited by that and would be able to defend a much larger area.
I'm pretty sure there are mobile SAM'S as well, of course aircraft can defend a larger area but they are also more easily destroyed
Even if we don't consider the time needed to set up the radars and firing units I doubt a truck will be fast enough to intercept a jet or cruise missile.
Not many planes are going to intercept cruise missiles, that's what the Patriots are for
I'm not suggesting fighters are not needed, I'm arguing that ground-to-air, IMO, is a greater need at present
Fear it will be a problem in all of Europe in a few years knowing how many weapons are flowing into Ukraine, definitely not all ends up where it’s supposed to.
Germany needs liberation. 
Desperate times, desperate measures
It's coming home
Germany needs liberation.
I don't think have enough therapists in the world to heal them all
Germany needs liberation.
I like this. We have left the stage of "kill them all" and reached the stage of "the government is the problem".
Or in other words they are backtracking and taking away the nuclear option. This is a good sign I think, it showd that Russia slowly realizes it can't threaten the West to stop supporting Ukraine.
Surprise!!!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64446937
German chancellor says he won't send fighter jets to Ukraine
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64446937
German chancellor says he won't send fighter jets to Ukraine
The Tory party and half the UK might have switched sides if they had carried out the threat!
Actually we do know the number, it's going to be 42 units, that position is in the government's support list for quite some time already. But know we know what kind of "mine clearing tank" it will be.
The Wisent generally is an armoured recovery vehicle based on and designed to support the Leopard 1 MBT. So it's the same basic structure as the Gepard uses which should make maintenance and logistics a bit easier.
The mine clearing equipment is what makes this the MC variant, it has afaik never been used by the Bundeswehr but is a new construction.
Last edited:
@Revan, Milanović is currently spouting some more pro Russian shit all the while saying he isnt Putin's player.
He says he wouldnt send any weapons to Ukraine cause it would prolong the war. Just love that kind of stance.
He says he wouldnt send any weapons to Ukraine cause it would prolong the war. Just love that kind of stance.
Last edited:
If it looks like a Putin player, walks like a Putin player and quacks like a Putin player, it probably is a Putin player.@Revan, Milanović is currently spoutins some more pro Russian shit all the while saying he isnt Putin's player.
He says he wouldnt send any weapons to Ukraine cause it would prolong the war. Just love that kind of stance.
Its so great Lavrov's words definitely got to him, he's now mentioning it every time he speaks and he sure speaks a lot. It doesnt help he's probably on cocaine most of the time, its such a cascade of unconnected words and sentences, jumping from one theme to another. Crazy stuff.
Nobody wanted them. Brilliant at what it does, but its far too niche for anybody that's not as big as the USAF. Everybody else needs some degree of multi role ability. Foreign sales are off the table now anyway because they're out of production and the USAF wants to keep them all.
F16s would be the best fit for Ukraine but nobody trusts that they wont start firing missiles into Russia from them.
That is what they said about sending tanks until they were embarrassed into acting.
I see Ukraine has asked for Tornado amongst the coalition of jets.
Could be the last time it could be called into action. To do exactly what it was designed to do...hit shit out of Russian forces.
Tornados won't happen. They will be phased out of active duty in 2028 if everything works as planned (replacements arriving as ordered and scheduled) and even if that works out they are already very thin on operating hours that you can squeeze out of those old things. But they are needed because at the moment Germany has no other plane that can fulfill their role. Giving them to Ukraine would create an unacceptable capability gap for the German Air Force itself.
It's different to the tank situation. That was mostly political and can be solved by using new production and units put in stock by the industry.
There are no surplus planes in Germany, but there are surplus tanks (although not in a full, operational state, but that can be fixed in an acceptable time frame).
Or in other words, Tornado deliveries would only be possible if F-35s for Germany were fast-tracked.
This is an excellent article to be honest.
Doubtless no one comes remotely close to having the breath and depth of tools the US has for achieving air-supremacy. Equally the F-16 is no panacea, it needs to be part of a combined wings (my term) aerial warfare to achieve optimum results. That said, I don't believe you need U.S. level of tools to achieve that against Russian SAMs and air-force in Ukraine.
Would Ukraine benefit from B-2 stealth bombers, 5th gen stealth fighters, dozens of AWACS and Air Refuelling jets etc. etc. Yes, of course. But does it need all of that to achieve its aims. I don't believe so. The U.S. doctrine is to have an air force so numerically and technologically superior, with such a breadth of tools at its disposal, that not only can it achieve complete aerial superiority against any enemy but it can do so with such an overwhelming force that it's not even contest. Which crucially means that it happens quickly and that the U.S. doesn't suffer any significant losses in the process. But that obviously isn't and can't be the aim of Ukraine.
Back to the F-16, he is totally right. Alone, it would be limited to low-altitude sorties and be vulnerable to MANPADS. But what the F-16 alone would achieve, is to move the UAF away from its dwindling stock of old MiG and Sukhoi fighters and onto a newer and more widely available platform where they can keep receiving deliveries into the future.Ensuring there is no Russian air superiority in the medium or long term, while would increasing the UAF's capabilities for providing ground support to its troops during offensives. That alone is very important.
Now if you want to give Ukraine more tools so they can start aiming for air superiority, they'll need to receive a mix of platforms and weapons:
- F/A 18 Growlers with HARM missiles for the EW & SEAD role
- Eurofighters with Meteors and IRIS-T for escorting & air-superiority role at high altitudes
- F-16 Block 52s for ground support & bombing
Again, messaging is important. Need to get it through Putin's skull that there won't be no easing. That the longer he stays in Ukraine, it's only going to get harder and bloodier for Russia. Currently Russian leadership still thinks they can bleed Ukraine dry before more meaningful support arrives for Ukraine. As Rob Lee says, they are still playing to win.
The messaging to Russia needs to change from "we're going to make this very costly for you" to "you will lose, we'll absolutely make sure you do, and the only question remaining is how badly do you want to get beaten before you come to realise this".
Sound off
Exactly.
Evidently, the Russians are preparing for some major offensives, which some people here said they could not do a few weeks ago. They even started some in some areas. Ill-equipped and poorly trained troops can still gain some ground and waste the UA's combat capability. This is a fact. We can't just only look at how many losses the Russians are suffering.
Now comes the question of what UA is doing. They are good at keeping their plan secret, and hopefully this is the case regarding having some.
In that WSJ article above,
“Our calculations were based on the fact that Russia still is an enormous country and with much bigger resources when it comes to soldiers and ability to produce weaponry which does not require Western components,” said Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, one of the earliest proponents of stepping up Western deliveries. “The longer we give them, the more people…they can throw at the Ukrainians.”