If the US is still using the A10 in Syria, is there any reason Ukraine can’t (eventually) use it in Ukraine?

25 comments

1. Yes, there is. The reason is called „VKS“ or the Russian Air Force. Specifically R-73 missiles.

   A-10 is only useful in an uncontested airspace.

2. As far as I understand, you have to first use F16s to achieve air superiority. Than the A10 can come into play.

3. Yea, ADA.

   The A-10 is amazing when it has nothing shooting at it, but is a sitting duck against even basic air defenses.

   It would get absolutely rocked in Ukraine.

4. Maybe the us air force wants to keep and recycle all a10 cockpit titanium bathtub. So no external sell to other countries.

5. Yes. They don’t have air Superiority. It’s as simple as that

6. Yes. Air defense is thick. The same reason Bayaktar drones serve no purpose now. Once Sams and manpads are in place, slow-moving aircraft are worthless.

7. This conflict has evolved way past what the A-10 (which I’m a fan of) was designed for or even in any wild drug induced fever dream.

8. It still depends on circumstances. In the chaos happening in Syria, and Syria having much less resources, it is easier to get in a sneak attack.

   With Russia sending non-stop meat waves, and having so much anti-air, such as manpads, an A10 won’t hit strategic targets, and will be much more vulnerable than artillery and Bradleys.

   With the extent of trenches, minefields, and drones in Ukraine, it wouldn’t be able to punch through and enable a blitz.

9. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-f-16-why-doesnt-america-send-10-warthogs-ukraine-208531

   >Despite the A-10s strengths – the A-10 is poorly equipped to help the Ukrainians against the Russians.

   >Why? Ukraine does not have control of the airspace above the conflict – meaning the A-10 would be a sitting duck in contested airspace, vulnerable to air-to-air Russian fighters like the Su-35 and MiG-31.

   >The A-10 has been successful in past conflicts, like Desert Storm 1.0, Desert Storm 2.0, and Afghanistan – but only after the US had secured the airspace above the conflict zone. The A-10 is a second-phase sort of weapon to be used once air superiority is established.

10. [Here](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-f-16-why-doesnt-america-send-10-warthogs-ukraine-208531) is an article that explains the issue of A-10s in Ukraine and why they won’t be provided.

    [Here](https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2024/04/ukraine-doesnt-want-10s-another-country-might-air-force-secretary-says/395821/) is another explaining why Ukraine has not asked for them.

    In short, the modern battlefield has become so much deadlier for low slow moving aircraft that regardless of how robust the A-10 is it would be little more than target practive for modern air defense systems. We know it, the Russians know it, and most importantly the Ukrainians know it and they do not want to lose trained pilots in a sub-optimal platform for the combat environment.

11. The A10 has done well in counter-insurgency.

    In conventional warfare its track record is much more sparse.

    Even in Gulf War I many more Iraqi tanks were destroyed by high flying F-111s, and there were far fewer of them in theater.

    I’ll grant that the A10 should easily be survivable against MANPADs and 12.7mm. Flying low might afford some avoidance of heavier counter-measures, but the terrain in Ukraine is very flat. Not much topology to hide in. And modern AAMs fired from high altitude, even Russian ones, aren’t as thrown off by ground-return as when the A10 was conceived. Even considering its conception: slowing a Soviet advance thru the Fulda Gap, planners at the time still expected very high losses of A10s, even then.

    I’ve run out of knowledge at this point. Our (lay people’s) biggest issue with judging the A10 is not its specs, but rather its historical record of use in conventional warfare … there just isn’t much of it; and none of it happened in a contested airspace.

12. If you loaded that Gau-8 with proximity fuse ammo i wonder what an A-10 would be like shooting down drones/cruise missiles ?

13. A10 is effective when fighting people who cant fight back. It’s essentially for farmers and poor people blasting

14. They are flying SU 25s, so yes, they can use the A10 to do that same work better and safer for the pilots.

15. What you don’t see is the huge amount of support by awacs, sead missions, combat air patrols and battlefield intelligence just to allow the A-10 to show up.

    The short answer is no plus there is no requirement for it. They need long range ss missile carrying fighters to provide to cover.

16. The only reason the US has done impressive things with the A-10 is because the *rest* of the US Air Force is impressive enough to successfully remove the threats to the A-10 first. The A-10 is great at attacking ground vehicles, but is terrible at defending itself from other aircraft and missiles. Ukraine doesn’t have the super dominant air force to accompany the A-10 and clear the way for it. They’d be sitting ducks.

17. Yes. Air Defense in Syria is much less dense than it is in Ukraine were there is widespread usage of everything from shoulder fired manpads to S-400 SAMS. The Combat zone is simply too saturated with anti-air assets for non-stealth, non-hypersonic attack aircraft to be successful with out a much larger air campaign than Ukraine can afford. Getting enough air superiority to use A-10s would require an air campaign that was at least on par and likely even bigger than Operation Desert Storm which required the full effort the US military and it’s allies to pull off and Ukraine simply doesn’t have that capacity.

18. I said it before and I will say again: F-4 will serve far better service then A-10 or F-16. US, South Korea, Turkey and other host countries have loads of retired jets. F-4 is a phenomenal fighter-bomber, and can carry a truckload of payload. The issue is with training pilots and maintenance of these jets.But if succeeded, can make a great difference in war.

19. The simple facts are that Ukraine is using the SU25. The A10 is superior in every way to the SU25. Both were built for this war. Transitioning SU25 pilots to A10s is probably easier than from a SU27 or Mig 29 to an F16. A10s are simpler both to fly and maintain than F16s are. Just like the SU25 s and helicopters that Ukraine operates now, they would operate away from AAA as much as possible, but would still be more effective than what is currently in use.

    Russian AAA has not advanced nearly as much as Western systems have. The US and it’s allies have a lot of knowledge and experience with Russian AAA, so the A10 has evolved to handle these better than the current Russian aircraft Ukraine flies.

    The biggest problem is personnel, or the lack of, the Ukrainian are facing. There are other forces that need the people more.

20. They can use it, they want to use it. It was made to be used in Eastern Europe!

21. The one thing I will say in favour of the A-10s going to Ukraine is…. *Ukraine wants them*. Gen. Oleksandr Syrsky who has a lot of experience with air, wants them.
    Most of us realise they would be no good in Ukraine, however if Ukraine specifically wants them, then they may be good reason for it that we don’t understand.

    This raises the question that should everything Ukraine ask for, be given?

22. Hasn’t Zelensky been on the record saying he doesn’t want A-10s he wants F-16s ?

23. they are only good for when you have air supremacy, because the planes are slow and not very maneuverable. They are easy pickings for air defense. They are also old planes by now, and Ukraine isn’t up to the challenge of maintenance. They need their good mechanics focusing on the F-16. Also, the A-10 has a rep of being very expensive because it is so old.

    I feel that they should fly something else personally. The big selling point of the A-10 is its ability to destroy tanks with its awesome gun. But there aren’t as many russian vehicles these days. It’s not as effective as it would be a year ago, even when air defense isn’t part of the question.

24. You give them F-35s first or they’re sitting ducks. They’re meant to mop up with more range than the helos. And Apache is a better attack platform.

25. It’s a sitting duck against any halfway competent air defense.

Comments are closed.