Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
ubersonic said:
The A-10 is a better hyped Su-25 than what the Ukrainians currently operate, as to whether not not it's a better plane is highly debatable.

In either case, as Roar says operating it without air supremacy is suicidal, the A-10 works best blowing up things in the desert against an enemy with no air defence or air force. It's a cool looking plane but it never lived up to it's hype, it's hype being essentially the only thing that's kept it in US service.

As for the F-117 I have no idea why that's even being discussed, it was/is a light bomber that had cutting edge stealth in the 1980s, but that was it's singular party piece. It's like if you take a Harrier and remove VTOL you just have a subsonic fighter with crap manoeuvrability. One trick ponies.

If the Serbians were able to shoot down an F-117 using an S-125 from the 1960s (combined with excellent tactics, to be fair) then against a Russia with modern SAMs and modern fighter radars they would get obliterated.
Click to expand...

The Ukrainians are operating SU25 now in uncontrolled air space. The A10 would offer a fresh fleet capable of carrying a much wider range of weapons.

The F117 would be like having light strike stealth bomber capabilities, because F117 is a light stealth bomber.
 
Lets be serious... Why are F117's even coming into the conversation? I dont see any situation where USA ever give Ukraine F117's. In the long term, A10's very well might be given if Ukraine want them in the next few years. USAF have been trying to retire them for a long time, I assume this is due to cost to keep them flying increasing Vs requirement? This may be an easy way to rid themselves of some of them.
However that will bring with a a whole new training burden and the need for Ukraine to produce more pilots, both as we have seen are longer term projects, not something that will have immediate impact on the conflict.
 
Grim5 said:
Yeah I have doubts about how effective the F117 would be today against S-400's radar. Also the US wouldn't want any getting given to the Russians or Chinese anyway, even if they are old they may contain material science techniques not yet figured out by the Russians or Chinese

As for the A-10, Ukraine doesn't want it. There is no point sending it when their Air Force has said no thanks we don't want it, it won't help us
Click to expand...

The F117 would be more effective than just about anything else for operating undetected. Pretty much any SAM system could shoot it down if they can lock on onto it. Just as those could shoot down any plane. The advantage the F117 has is the window of time the plane is vulnerable to being detected is very small.
 
Last edited:
steve45 said:
Lets be serious... Why are F117's even coming into the conversation? I dont see any situation where USA ever give Ukraine F117's. In the long term, A10's very well might be given if Ukraine want them in the next few years. USAF have been trying to retire them for a long time, I assume this is due to cost to keep them flying increasing Vs requirement? This may be an easy way to rid themselves of some of them.
However that will bring with a a whole new training burden and the need for Ukraine to produce more pilots, both as we have seen are longer term projects, not something that will have immediate impact on the conflict.
Click to expand...

Night Hawks will not go anywhere outside of the USAF for any reason - but yes, the A10`s could end up doing the job it was built for.
 
ubersonic said:
The A-10 is a better hyped Su-25 than what the Ukrainians currently operate, as to whether not not it's a better plane is highly debatable.

In either case, as Roar says operating it without air supremacy is suicidal, the A-10 works best blowing up things in the desert against an enemy with no air defence or air force. It's a cool looking plane but it never lived up to it's hype, it's hype being essentially the only thing that's kept it in US service.

As for the F-117 I have no idea why that's even being discussed, it was/is a light bomber that had cutting edge stealth in the 1980s, but that was it's singular party piece. It's like if you take a Harrier and remove VTOL you just have a subsonic fighter with crap manoeuvrability. One trick ponies.

If the Serbians were able to shoot down an F-117 using an S-125 from the 1960s (combined with excellent tactics, to be fair) then against a Russia with modern SAMs and modern fighter radars they would get obliterated.
Click to expand...

The f-117 was shot down as they kept using the same flight path every single time, kind of nullifies the stealth if you know exactly where to point everything, everything is trackable , stealth just makes it harder.
 
alchal said:
The f-117 was shot down as they kept using the same flight path every single time, kind of nullifies the stealth if you know exactly where to point everything, everything is trackable , stealth just makes it harder.
Click to expand...

And much higher risk for the ground equipment searching.
 
The fact the west hasn't been able to copy and mass produce clones of the Lancet and Iranian shadid drone.

The Lancet for cheap over the horizon armour kills.

The shadid for swarming russian air defence and soak up valuable anti air weapons.

Something Russia can afford to replace
 
Grim5 said:
Good luck with that. If they won't send atacms they sure as heck won't send JASM
Click to expand...
I see the hesitance of the ATACMS being given more down to the limited number held and lack of production. When you look at the relatively low number that were produced, and the number used in recent conflicts. I can understand the hesitance to hand them over especially with the PRSM not being delivered or in production yet, rather than it being an issue of range provided or escalation.
Where as JASSM in its various versions is likely still being produced/improved on. There is also precedence with other similar capabilities like StormShadow/SCALP and the possibility of the German/Swedish equivalent coming soon.

Absolutely just opinion though, I could very well be wrong, and maybe the ATACMS, JASSM are a step too far for US.
 
Last edited:
steve45 said:
I see the hesitance of the ATACMS being given more down to the limited number held and lack of production. When you look at the relatively low number that were produced, and the number used in recent conflicts. I can understand the hesitance to hand them over especially with the PRSM not being delivered or in production yet, rather than it being an issue of range provided or escalation.
Where as JASSM in its various versions is likely still being produced/improved on. There is also precedence with other similar capabilities like StormShadow/SCALP and the possibility of the German/Swedish equivalent coming soon.

Absolutely just opinion though, I could very well be wrong, and maybe the ATACMS, JASSM are a step too far for US.
Click to expand...

Agree, I think we have two things to watch, in regards ammo type stuff, its the Wests really rather limited stocks. They cannot give everything to Ukraine but I really hope its been a massive eye opener into how much of everything even a relatively minor conflict can burn through.

Secondly I think by now all sides see Ukraine has grown into this war. They are not operating NATO doctrine, but something kind of in between NATO and Soviet from what reports give away.
As such the best weapons and what can be supplied will probably change a bit, but there is plenty more available that suits what they are doing now. Bonkers amounts of Abrams etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom