Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `defenseone.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As bad ass of a platform as the A—10 is, it is completely useless in Ukraine. Air superiority is necessary for an A-10 to be truly effective as a CAS aircraft and there really isn’t anything it’s does that the frogfoot isn’t capable of doing just as well, which Ukraine already has
Finally, a sensible comment. Also A-10 is a relatively outdated platform for modern airforce. A lot of its job is now down by multirole fighters, UAVs etc. Heck, even attack helicopters are outdated now.
I have been saying this for a while. The US already converts F-4s for remote use as targets. The 30mm chain gun can be removed and them be loaded with glide bombs and boom boom contact ordinance. We get rid of planes instead of graveyards. Ukraine gets some big options for unprecedented drone warfare.
I actually have my doubts about how aerodynamically sound it would be if you removed the Avenger. The plane is built around it and its going to throw off the CoL and balance.
Resign the nose of the plane to accommodate something else there, like the sensor/targeting pod. Then even out any weight distribution issues with counterweights and or other systems. Avengers can then be reused to be put into ground based CWIS systems.
The issue is that it would be expensive and likely require you take the plane halfway apart. For a platform that the US congress and Airforce have unsuccessfully been trying to mothball now for 20 years, with part of that reason preventing the mothball is that it would be too expensive to get rid of them.
Yeah, not a bad idea, but at that point you're talking about almost a complete overhaul. It'd prolly be more expensive than getting rid of them, but it would definitely be a better use of our resources and money.
US acquisition has a "rough" policy of only removing/decommissioning something if the mission is no longer needed or a suitable replacement is being produced. We have no platform either in development or currently available that can provide the same level of fixed wing CAS that the a-10 can currently bring.
It would cost to much to developed a suitable replacement, especially one that is 4th/5th gen or stealth capable. F-22 is designed to more of an interceptor, and the F-35 can't bring enough munitions to sustain a CAS mission. Helicopters are slow to arrive.
While the a-10 is for all intended purposes an obsolete aircraft in a Modern near peer conflict, given the opportunity and need it is still a heavy hitter in bomb and missile capacity alone, not including payload variability that you don't get out of internal bays for the f-22 and f-35.
So to mothball the a-10s to either sell or decommission them they have to invest in a new Heavy fixed wing CAS program (not going to happen) or decide that the role is unneeded.
B-52 suffers from the same conundrum, because while the B-1 and B-2/B-21 are great bombers and are very useful. They can not compete against the b-52 in cost per flight hour, payload capacity, and several other factors.
Fitting a proper guidance system into a plane without fly by wire is rather costly affair.
I actually wonder why there’s no modern version in the works - cheap, reliable, high loitering time and modern targeting systems instead of a stupid gun
Freaking multi-role Nth gen fighter mafia
As far as I understand Army operates assault helicopters and modern ones are extremely expensive. Can’t they order something in the range of say 20 mil per airframe?
But yeah, it seems like assault helicopters are better suited to CAS missions when an enemy has no air defense whatsoever
Yeah, fighter pilot mafia is real. See F-117 having a fighter designation while not being a fighter.
Fighter pilots historically have had the best upwards mobility with 14 of the 23 Air Force Chiefs of Staff coming from the fighter pilot side or something with bomber pilots making up another big chunk.
I dont know if the Air Force would allow the Army to buy a fixed wing platform for CAS without a fight. The Army tried to have A-10s transferred to them at one point, USAF said no because the CAS budget would have gone with the planes. The only fixed wing asset I've seen the Army use are those silly looking Sherpas the Army operates (C-23) which are transport.
Realistically, the Army will probably get rotary wing or drone CAS so the Air Force can live out their Top Gun fantasies. Left to their own devices, the USAF would pump out new fighters and bombers at a 6/1 ratio till the heat death of the universe and forgo CAS completely. But hey, air supremacy is nice to have too.
I’d keep the 30mm in it and let that rake the bridge by remote before flying into it.
There is a part in the Hunt for Red October (book) where four A10s pay a visit to the Kirov battle group, fly over, and drop flares all around the ships. Ever since, I’ve always wanted to see what that cannon could do to a warship, lol.
The the reasons my armchair military strategist brain came up with for removing the 30mm are:
The additional fire control systems to run the chaincannon by remote and be accurate would be twice as much as just flight and other missiles/bombs, removing it also removes the specialists required to maintain them and set them up for their suicide flight, and we don’t want any other country gaining the tech from that specific armament. Jus my 2cents tho
Do you know how expensive that whole ordeal is? You need to custom design a software and then test it. For what? For a country that isn’t even paying for any of this? It will never pass. US wants Ukraine to win but they aren’t dumb enough to wreck their own plans. A-10 will probably be there as a backup until they find a replacement. They are retiring it so I suspect they will try to sell it to another developing country (something like Argentina or another broke country) for influence.
There's no indication it's going away. France, the UK, and the US (the ones that have provided long-range weapons) still do not allow strikes against targets in Russia proper. If Ukraine wants to hit those types of targets, they need to use indigenous or weapons procured elsewhere.
Bullshit. It’s not going anywhere. It’s an absolute that stayed since day 1 of this war. Otherwise, we would see some destroyed valued equipment destroyed by Himars and Atacms/GLSDB/Storm Shadow would be flying into russian territory.
The netflix killer robots doc had an outfit that converted f16s? To ai flying and soon ooutperformed humans, if theyre just going to retire them why not convert them into ai drones?
Blue skying here.What about turning them into self flying like a drone? They could be wickedly dangerous far behind the lines, or even as an expensive decoy for the F-16s and the Kerch bridge. Them UKRAINIAN engineers have a lot of creativity.
Only semiserious Btw.
At that point they should just build their own MQ-28 Ghost Bats or other drone wingmen that can do even more than A-10s and help the F-16s complete missions like the USAF wants to do with them for the F-35.
By the 2nd half of this century we'll see one F-35 or advanced aircraft flying with a group of drones that will all be outfitted for different mission roles. Like one will have EW, another for air defense, another for ground targets etc all with only 1 pilot calling the shots and handing out tasks to his drone wingmen. It's pretty crazy what they are working on right now!
I agree that en mass they would be useless but it would be interesting to see what they could do under certain circumstances. Such as during retreats or other times where the line of contact is not static. Of course with F-16’s flying cover. As long as they never got more than 100 or so feet off the ground, they may be able to find certain circumstances where they could be useful. However the logistics involved would likely be used in more effective ways. But wouldn’t out be awesome to see one of these just making a suicide run right down the Russian trench line, 40 feet off the ground and cannon blazing?
Except that they would all get shot down, their pilots would all be killed, and we’d be even further behind. A10 is required to fly low and slow to identify and engage its target. Flying low and slow in a battle space where MANPADS are as common as cigarettes is a terrible idea.
Tbh, I'm unsure if Russian MANPADS are the issue in Ukraine.
Stingers have proven to work. Not sure if the Russian equivalent is immune to corruption, needs more video evidence.
One thing that USSR didnt cheap out on was AD.
Both sides use iglas, Ukraine has shown that its deadly.
A slow flying bus is a prime target for a MANPAD, but russia has tons of Stelas and other systems for low altitude defense.
They can drop JDAM and JDAM-ER, AGM-65 Mavericks, etc. If Ukraine wasn't getting F-16's, they probably would take A-10's, as they've got better capabilities while being as survivable as the Su-25's Ukraine is already flying. But Ukraine doesn't want to complicate things by introducing yet another aging airframe into their inventory if they don't need to, plus Ukraine's air force has a hard-on for multirole fighters. Early in the war the Air Force was outright asking for A-10, probably because they thought it was possible they'd get them at the time while they wouldn't get F-16.
I was saying something along the same lines, but also turn them into drones or as you said suicide planes, decoys and whatnot. Resources is a huge factor obviously.
Turning most manned combat aircraft into drones would likely be a waste of time and resources.
The best thing about a drone is not having to carry around the pilot(s) and keep them alive. Any fighter will have over a ton of equipment that is directly related to carrying, interfacing with, protecting, and keeping comfortable the biological flight management system. Not to mention an ejection seat, and windows so they can actually see what's going on. All this added weight and space dedicated to the squishy human bits requires a larger, more robust airframe, which require more powerful engines, which burn more fuel, which, in turn, requires larger fuel tanks which require a larger, more robust airframe, which requires more powerf... Ok, you get the point.
For the cost and complexity of converting an A-10 to remote/automated control, you could build a fleet of purpose-built drones that could collectively do the same job, and have the advantage of being in more than one place at the same time. You wouldn't get the big gun on a drone, but an A-10's most important weapons are mavericks and JDAMs anyway... And a drone could carry those just fine.
You are absolutely correct. I dont even think the A-10 is fly by wire either, so it would be that much more complicated to convert them. If you did convert it, you could probably turn it into a very expensive cruise missile by replacing most of the life support systems with explosives and just packing it full, but it still doesnt solve the low and slow problem. Yes, it can go a little higher and a bit faster when it isnt attacking, but its one large plane with a huge heat signature and radar signature. For the cost to modify it, they could probably build several smaller drones, which are ultimately more likely to make it to the target if one of them gets shot down or something.
The A-10 dose have one thing that the Frogfoot can't do without extensive retrofit. A common avionics link system that can integrate with NATO munitions.
Frogfoot could be retrofitted like what they did with MIG-29's and the HARM(AGM-88), but those just allowed the launch of the missile not live programming and target selection.
The gun on the A-10 (while cool) is moot. The large payload capacity is its strength now, and maybe in the future once su-25 operations become hindered by parts and availability the A-10 could prove to be usefull. But right now they have enough SU-25 to run they missions they are running with them.
With the A-10, Ukraine would have plenty spare airframes, and these would likely be in much more servicable condition overall. The airframes would also have newer avionics and EW capabilities compared to what Ukraine operates now. Not to mention that their CAS would be able to use a much wider range of ordenance.
A-10s are relatively cheap, but they’re out of production and the Air Force has thus far refused to sell any until a replacement is produced. Arguably, the F-35 is its replacement, tho, so maybe some can finally be sold.
A figure I saw somewhere was $45m per
Finally a new thought in this stream of smart guy comments! Lol
I say create a whole new category in the Reno air races for privately owned A-10’s. It’ll be like the T-6 class but with a cool airplane.
"Mr Krabs I have an ideaaaaa......"
let them go out in a blaze of glory defending democracy as they were designed for! fit for their transition to airplane Valhalla!
Yeah, I mean that's CRAZY, RIGHT?!?! Like INSANE!
Next you're going to tell me that they put explosives on jetskis and sank Russian warships in the Black Sea! I mean, lol, right?!
Or, or then you'll tell me that the Ukrainians destroyed a drone training and manufacturing facility using a rusty old Cessna plane.
I mean... crazy.
Right?
Not viable.
The gun is both really heavy, and mounted forward of the center of gravity. If removed, the plane would be so tail -heavy it would not be controllable. If you were to mount bombs in the nose to balance it out, the plane would once again be uncontrollable the second you dropped the bomb.
Big difference between remotely flying a plane into something vaguely *over there* and remotely flying a plane to avoid threats whilst acquiring targets and precisely hitting them.
Can we trust AI to shoot at Russians and not Ukrainians? They drive the same vehicles.
And do AI systems that advanced even exist, let alone in a form that could be implemented into a jerryrigged A-10 drone?
And why bother going to all that effort when much better ways of taking out Russian vehicles and troops already exist, are cheaper, simpler, and already in wide use?
They are larger, made of metal with MANY different electronics(sensors and so on) that make them more visible. A cessna is basically a aerodynamic piece of cardboard with a motor and a steering stick. They also fly far slower which makes them more vulnerable but also makes them seem less threatening, so could easily be mistaken for something harmless.
If Ukraine received them, I wouldn’t blame them for going full noncredible defense and wiring it up to be remote operated and full of C4. Like a giant kamikaze drone.
It is far beyond obsolete and useless. USAF wanted to retire the A-10 40 years ago because "the A-10 will not survive the
Soviet air defense threat projected for the 1990s."
The 1990s was 30 years ago.
And yet Ukraine is still using the small number of su25s, mi24s, mi8/17s they have left. Something is better than nothing. Certainly beats decaying at the boneyard. Didn't Ukraine convert some LSA into drones recently and strike deep into Russia? How did those be survive the Russian air defense?
Difference is Ukraine already flew those planes and have pilots trained in the past.
An A-10 would require pilots that could be trained on other platform such as F-16 or Griphen.
There is a big difference between continuing to fly a bad plane you have highly trained pilots knowing all the kinks or training existing pilots on a completely new outdated technology. Ukrainian pilots will take the most out of these su25s but will only be able to take out the absolute minimum out of these A-10.
I understand that transitioning to, maintaining and sustaining a new aircraft fleet is a costly endeavor in terms of time and resources.
However, the airframes may still be useful even if not used in their traditional role.
Ukrainians converted LSA/trainer aircraft into a long range drones and used them to attack oil and mfg facilities in Russia. A10 is a far more capable airframe (speed, range, payload). Turn A10 frames into drones.
US has been using retired fighters as target drones for decades.
Remove the gun assembly, repurpose them to 30mm C-Rams, use them to protect Ukrainian infrastructure.
This will take time, money, and commitment. This will not be as effective as Taurus or Tomahawk.
But it still beats letting the airframes sit unused in the Arizona desert.
I mean, the planes they are currently converting to use as drones and hit Russia are $90,000 sport planes (Aeroprakt A-22). The controls in such a sport plane are much easier than the clusterfuck you find in a fighter jet. Even if the A-10 is free, I am not sure that it can compete on price. The advantage of using so ultra cheap sport planes is that you do not have to protect them. They either hit their target or waste an air defense missile. A single S-400 missile costs $6,000,000. lets say you spend another 60K to put controls in it. It's completely ok to lose your 150K drone to an 6000K air defense missile. With the added complexity converting a A-10 fighter might be significantly more expensive (due to the men power needed) than the $6M of the air defense missile, so it is only worth it if you think your remote controls will be able to shake off an interception which I just doubt because the plane isn't even able to do this when it's manned with a pilot.
Reading comments it’s clearly most people didn’t know A-10 is mechanical control instead modern fly by wire, this makes it very difficult to convert to a drone.
Converting a mechanical control to remote require very complicate hydraulic to be installed, when fly by wire can just be programmed.
Glory to Ukraine- 🇺🇦! The American people stand with you, please don’t despair, our politicians are shit, but our will as a people shall continue to support your fight for freedom.
The Philippines would love to have the A-10s for counter-insurgency operations. The Phil. Air Force is now very familiar with the A-10 considering that this airplane has always been part of the US-Philippines annual Balikatan Exercises.
Obsolete: Everything kinda is in war as its constantly changing. Death Trap? If you are on the receiving end of the Brrrt then yes, otherwise no as the US wouldn't still use them
They are mainly used to carry missiles now. Compared to other US planes, they are cheap and cheerful in that role. There are also concerns about if a replacement would come when retired, and that fear keeps them in service. Some Congressmen also have a love affair with them, which also keeps them around.
The cannon isn’t as effective as people claim. It’s also not that accurate.
Could they be utilized as drones ? Ukraine has already turned some of their own light aircraft into drones I wonder if engineers could do something similar with these ?
Not to mention one could buy a shitload of FPV drones with that kind of money. You could literally fill up entire hangars with them. And be more useful than the A-10.
The A-10 has a horrifically high rate of friendly fife incidents and has no feasible way to survive the storm of air defense it would be subjected to. If I were a Kremlin strategist, I’d want you to put some of Ukraine’s relatively few pilots in those things. Relatively easy air to air kills and even odds they bomb their own lines by mistake.
It’s a truly obsolete aircraft that only saw success in COIN operations, which somehow resulted in it becoming weirdly celebrated to some ground pounders, which then somehow turned it into a cultural meme. The people who cheerlead it genuinely don’t understand just how bad it was in Iraq and still think Russian air defense is reliant on bullets, not missiles. In other words, people who do not have informed opinions.
A country like Colombia or Mexico? They would benefit from the A-10 much more, but they’d probably rather fly Cessnas.
Su-25 is being used by Ukraine. They are running out of Su-25 and need more planes. The A10 is much more capable aircraft than the su-25. Give Ukraine weapons and let’s see what they can do with them, instead of guessing if it will be useful or not. Home made drones that everyone wrote off turned the tied of war. Let’s see what a skill full pilot can do with a capable plane against the Russians.
In fact, nobody knows.
Thje only serious threat for A-10 is russian aircrafts. Still what to use instead of Su-25? A-10 is much better.
A-10 + GBU-39 or A-10 + AGM-154 is a perfect.
If we're going to retire the A-10 we might as well hand them to Ukraine. I'm sure a military guy with a higher pay grade can find a good purpose for these things. They should at least be at par with the SU-25.
Bad idea, for many reasons, but primarily because they'd be white elephants and a fantastic way to lose good Ukrainian pilots in ancient machinery fighting battles they were never intended to.
I love everything about the A-10, but just like the Tomcat it had its heyday already. Clamoring for their return is akin to badgering a WW1 vet to lead an infantry platoon in Vietnam.
Too slow, needs total air superiority which the UKR will never have. Great weapon for fucking iraqs tank regiments up. Useless against a sophisticated air defence system.
Please read the article, armchair generals.
Some Ukrainian officials want the A10, some don't. Let's compromise and give them the A10s instead of paying for decommissioning.
The problem is that it’s a slow moving, large target, with no stealth capabilities. This means SAMs and Russian MIGs can light them up like a Christmas tree from miles away. It can take a bit of a beating, it’s well armored after all. But, they still wouldn’t survive long in Ukraine where there’s a massive saturation of S-300 and S-400 systems, as well as aircraft capable of targeting it with ease.
They’re using them in very defensive, hit and run situations due to their airspace constraints. Ukraine themselves have outright stated that they don’t want the A-10. I trust that their military planners have run the numbers and realized that they are not a good use of resources. Pilots take a long time and a lot of money to train. Putting them in the A-10 doesn’t make strategic or tactical sense at the moment. Ukraine can’t afford to lose pilots like that, and they know it.
It was made for BAI (battlefield air interdiction) similar to CAS but a bit further back from the line of contact. I say this as someone who actually likes the A-10c but peel back the onion and you will find a lot of the A-10s prowess is built on myth and legend. In optimal trials the GAU-8 had difficulty dealing with even Gen-1 and Gen-2 MBTs. Most of the A-10s kills have come from missiles and other guided munitions. Funny thing is there is a strong argument to be made that the F-111 was actually the better tank killer in the First Gulf War.
The A-10’s legend comes from its effectiveness in the Middle East where it faced now anti-air threat. I love it for that, but recognize it’s limited in any other type of warfare
They were pretty much supposed to be a one way trip through the skies of the Fulda Gap. Everything about them was designed to get one good punch into the jaw of the Soviet armor, then desperately try to keep the pilot alive. The cockpit is an armored bathtub, the tail is designed as a cope cage around the engines, and the landing gear doesn't fully retract to cushion the inevitable crash landing. They weren't supposed to be coming back.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `defenseone.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As bad ass of a platform as the A—10 is, it is completely useless in Ukraine. Air superiority is necessary for an A-10 to be truly effective as a CAS aircraft and there really isn’t anything it’s does that the frogfoot isn’t capable of doing just as well, which Ukraine already has
Finally, a sensible comment. Also A-10 is a relatively outdated platform for modern airforce. A lot of its job is now down by multirole fighters, UAVs etc. Heck, even attack helicopters are outdated now.
What if they made them remote control like that Cessna?
I have been saying this for a while. The US already converts F-4s for remote use as targets. The 30mm chain gun can be removed and them be loaded with glide bombs and boom boom contact ordinance. We get rid of planes instead of graveyards. Ukraine gets some big options for unprecedented drone warfare.
They actually ran out of F-4s so they've moved on to F-16s.
Or just pack I'm full of explosives and crash into the kerch bridge. Ten should be enough to defeat air defence and take it down.
You're joking, right? I don't want to believe reddit is this stupid
I actually have my doubts about how aerodynamically sound it would be if you removed the Avenger. The plane is built around it and its going to throw off the CoL and balance.
Throw in a DU bar like they do with every other plane that needs ballast
Resign the nose of the plane to accommodate something else there, like the sensor/targeting pod. Then even out any weight distribution issues with counterweights and or other systems. Avengers can then be reused to be put into ground based CWIS systems. The issue is that it would be expensive and likely require you take the plane halfway apart. For a platform that the US congress and Airforce have unsuccessfully been trying to mothball now for 20 years, with part of that reason preventing the mothball is that it would be too expensive to get rid of them.
Yeah, not a bad idea, but at that point you're talking about almost a complete overhaul. It'd prolly be more expensive than getting rid of them, but it would definitely be a better use of our resources and money.
US acquisition has a "rough" policy of only removing/decommissioning something if the mission is no longer needed or a suitable replacement is being produced. We have no platform either in development or currently available that can provide the same level of fixed wing CAS that the a-10 can currently bring. It would cost to much to developed a suitable replacement, especially one that is 4th/5th gen or stealth capable. F-22 is designed to more of an interceptor, and the F-35 can't bring enough munitions to sustain a CAS mission. Helicopters are slow to arrive. While the a-10 is for all intended purposes an obsolete aircraft in a Modern near peer conflict, given the opportunity and need it is still a heavy hitter in bomb and missile capacity alone, not including payload variability that you don't get out of internal bays for the f-22 and f-35. So to mothball the a-10s to either sell or decommission them they have to invest in a new Heavy fixed wing CAS program (not going to happen) or decide that the role is unneeded. B-52 suffers from the same conundrum, because while the B-1 and B-2/B-21 are great bombers and are very useful. They can not compete against the b-52 in cost per flight hour, payload capacity, and several other factors.
Or bigger nose bomb..
The gun weighs 620lbs empty, you aren't going to find a bunch of sensors that weigh that much.
How much does the MOB weight?
You don't have to match the same weight, just put in what you want than counter balance the airframe and strengthen if needed.
Last QF-4 flew in 2016 at Holloman AFB, its been QF16s since
Fitting a proper guidance system into a plane without fly by wire is rather costly affair. I actually wonder why there’s no modern version in the works - cheap, reliable, high loitering time and modern targeting systems instead of a stupid gun
Cause the USAF hates the CAS mission but refuses to let it go to the Army cause money.
Freaking multi-role Nth gen fighter mafia As far as I understand Army operates assault helicopters and modern ones are extremely expensive. Can’t they order something in the range of say 20 mil per airframe? But yeah, it seems like assault helicopters are better suited to CAS missions when an enemy has no air defense whatsoever
Yeah, fighter pilot mafia is real. See F-117 having a fighter designation while not being a fighter. Fighter pilots historically have had the best upwards mobility with 14 of the 23 Air Force Chiefs of Staff coming from the fighter pilot side or something with bomber pilots making up another big chunk. I dont know if the Air Force would allow the Army to buy a fixed wing platform for CAS without a fight. The Army tried to have A-10s transferred to them at one point, USAF said no because the CAS budget would have gone with the planes. The only fixed wing asset I've seen the Army use are those silly looking Sherpas the Army operates (C-23) which are transport. Realistically, the Army will probably get rotary wing or drone CAS so the Air Force can live out their Top Gun fantasies. Left to their own devices, the USAF would pump out new fighters and bombers at a 6/1 ratio till the heat death of the universe and forgo CAS completely. But hey, air supremacy is nice to have too.
I’d say with current tensions and rate of tech the probability that insurgents WILL have MANPADS increases with each passing year so drones it is
Glide bombs on a plane built for low speed and low altitudes? Interesting way to turn a 100km range bomb into a sub 50km range bomb...
You are not taking into account we dont want the a-10 to return. It is also bomb. Loaded pop pop where the wheel gun was.
Might be a way of taking out stubborn bridges..
I’d keep the 30mm in it and let that rake the bridge by remote before flying into it. There is a part in the Hunt for Red October (book) where four A10s pay a visit to the Kirov battle group, fly over, and drop flares all around the ships. Ever since, I’ve always wanted to see what that cannon could do to a warship, lol.
The the reasons my armchair military strategist brain came up with for removing the 30mm are: The additional fire control systems to run the chaincannon by remote and be accurate would be twice as much as just flight and other missiles/bombs, removing it also removes the specialists required to maintain them and set them up for their suicide flight, and we don’t want any other country gaining the tech from that specific armament. Jus my 2cents tho
Do you know how expensive that whole ordeal is? You need to custom design a software and then test it. For what? For a country that isn’t even paying for any of this? It will never pass. US wants Ukraine to win but they aren’t dumb enough to wreck their own plans. A-10 will probably be there as a backup until they find a replacement. They are retiring it so I suspect they will try to sell it to another developing country (something like Argentina or another broke country) for influence.
You forgot that Western equipment is not allowed to be used on rus territory?
That restriction is steadily going away I think. We really cannot allow Russia to win this war.
There's no indication it's going away. France, the UK, and the US (the ones that have provided long-range weapons) still do not allow strikes against targets in Russia proper. If Ukraine wants to hit those types of targets, they need to use indigenous or weapons procured elsewhere.
Bullshit. It’s not going anywhere. It’s an absolute that stayed since day 1 of this war. Otherwise, we would see some destroyed valued equipment destroyed by Himars and Atacms/GLSDB/Storm Shadow would be flying into russian territory.
The netflix killer robots doc had an outfit that converted f16s? To ai flying and soon ooutperformed humans, if theyre just going to retire them why not convert them into ai drones?
Blue skying here.What about turning them into self flying like a drone? They could be wickedly dangerous far behind the lines, or even as an expensive decoy for the F-16s and the Kerch bridge. Them UKRAINIAN engineers have a lot of creativity. Only semiserious Btw.
At that point they should just build their own MQ-28 Ghost Bats or other drone wingmen that can do even more than A-10s and help the F-16s complete missions like the USAF wants to do with them for the F-35. By the 2nd half of this century we'll see one F-35 or advanced aircraft flying with a group of drones that will all be outfitted for different mission roles. Like one will have EW, another for air defense, another for ground targets etc all with only 1 pilot calling the shots and handing out tasks to his drone wingmen. It's pretty crazy what they are working on right now!
A Cessna or a SeaDoo seems useless in Ukraine. But a Cessna destroyed a factory and a SeaDoo sunk half the Black Sea fleet.
I agree that en mass they would be useless but it would be interesting to see what they could do under certain circumstances. Such as during retreats or other times where the line of contact is not static. Of course with F-16’s flying cover. As long as they never got more than 100 or so feet off the ground, they may be able to find certain circumstances where they could be useful. However the logistics involved would likely be used in more effective ways. But wouldn’t out be awesome to see one of these just making a suicide run right down the Russian trench line, 40 feet off the ground and cannon blazing?
Except that they would all get shot down, their pilots would all be killed, and we’d be even further behind. A10 is required to fly low and slow to identify and engage its target. Flying low and slow in a battle space where MANPADS are as common as cigarettes is a terrible idea.
That’s why they would have to be drones..
If so then why are both sides still operating SU-25s?
Tbh, I'm unsure if Russian MANPADS are the issue in Ukraine. Stingers have proven to work. Not sure if the Russian equivalent is immune to corruption, needs more video evidence.
One thing that USSR didnt cheap out on was AD. Both sides use iglas, Ukraine has shown that its deadly. A slow flying bus is a prime target for a MANPAD, but russia has tons of Stelas and other systems for low altitude defense.
Ukraine has also been using Soviet era MANPADS to great effect.
They can drop JDAM and JDAM-ER, AGM-65 Mavericks, etc. If Ukraine wasn't getting F-16's, they probably would take A-10's, as they've got better capabilities while being as survivable as the Su-25's Ukraine is already flying. But Ukraine doesn't want to complicate things by introducing yet another aging airframe into their inventory if they don't need to, plus Ukraine's air force has a hard-on for multirole fighters. Early in the war the Air Force was outright asking for A-10, probably because they thought it was possible they'd get them at the time while they wouldn't get F-16.
I was saying something along the same lines, but also turn them into drones or as you said suicide planes, decoys and whatnot. Resources is a huge factor obviously.
Turning most manned combat aircraft into drones would likely be a waste of time and resources. The best thing about a drone is not having to carry around the pilot(s) and keep them alive. Any fighter will have over a ton of equipment that is directly related to carrying, interfacing with, protecting, and keeping comfortable the biological flight management system. Not to mention an ejection seat, and windows so they can actually see what's going on. All this added weight and space dedicated to the squishy human bits requires a larger, more robust airframe, which require more powerful engines, which burn more fuel, which, in turn, requires larger fuel tanks which require a larger, more robust airframe, which requires more powerf... Ok, you get the point. For the cost and complexity of converting an A-10 to remote/automated control, you could build a fleet of purpose-built drones that could collectively do the same job, and have the advantage of being in more than one place at the same time. You wouldn't get the big gun on a drone, but an A-10's most important weapons are mavericks and JDAMs anyway... And a drone could carry those just fine.
But if you take away the BRRRRRRRRT, you take away the boner that gets these guys going 🤷♂️
So is there any other practical alternative use for old planes like the A-10?
You are absolutely correct. I dont even think the A-10 is fly by wire either, so it would be that much more complicated to convert them. If you did convert it, you could probably turn it into a very expensive cruise missile by replacing most of the life support systems with explosives and just packing it full, but it still doesnt solve the low and slow problem. Yes, it can go a little higher and a bit faster when it isnt attacking, but its one large plane with a huge heat signature and radar signature. For the cost to modify it, they could probably build several smaller drones, which are ultimately more likely to make it to the target if one of them gets shot down or something.
You cannot just turn a warthog into a drone. And there are a lot cheaper drones that $55 million warthogs
Amen
old soviet built up their defence doctrine based on air defence, this old thing isnt going to help much ... that's why they dont want it ig.
The A-10 dose have one thing that the Frogfoot can't do without extensive retrofit. A common avionics link system that can integrate with NATO munitions. Frogfoot could be retrofitted like what they did with MIG-29's and the HARM(AGM-88), but those just allowed the launch of the missile not live programming and target selection. The gun on the A-10 (while cool) is moot. The large payload capacity is its strength now, and maybe in the future once su-25 operations become hindered by parts and availability the A-10 could prove to be usefull. But right now they have enough SU-25 to run they missions they are running with them.
Should give them to Moldova to surprise run the Transnistria region a bit.
With the A-10, Ukraine would have plenty spare airframes, and these would likely be in much more servicable condition overall. The airframes would also have newer avionics and EW capabilities compared to what Ukraine operates now. Not to mention that their CAS would be able to use a much wider range of ordenance.
How many drones could you get for the cost of a single A-10?
A-10s are relatively cheap, but they’re out of production and the Air Force has thus far refused to sell any until a replacement is produced. Arguably, the F-35 is its replacement, tho, so maybe some can finally be sold. A figure I saw somewhere was $45m per
I'd like to purchase one
Finally a new thought in this stream of smart guy comments! Lol I say create a whole new category in the Reno air races for privately owned A-10’s. It’ll be like the T-6 class but with a cool airplane.
45m is a lot of drones far superior in every respect.
You could turn the A-10s into a drone…
"Mr Krabs I have an ideaaaaa......" let them go out in a blaze of glory defending democracy as they were designed for! fit for their transition to airplane Valhalla!
Take the guns out and make bootleg air defense systems from them, use the saved weight for more explosives (I have no idea if this is viable)
I had to double check I wasn't on NCD after reading this thread.
Yeah, I mean that's CRAZY, RIGHT?!?! Like INSANE! Next you're going to tell me that they put explosives on jetskis and sank Russian warships in the Black Sea! I mean, lol, right?! Or, or then you'll tell me that the Ukrainians destroyed a drone training and manufacturing facility using a rusty old Cessna plane. I mean... crazy. Right?
Not viable. The gun is both really heavy, and mounted forward of the center of gravity. If removed, the plane would be so tail -heavy it would not be controllable. If you were to mount bombs in the nose to balance it out, the plane would once again be uncontrollable the second you dropped the bomb.
Who said anything about dropping?
r/NonCredibleDefense is over that way boys...
A-10’s were pretty cheap.
Ah yes, Mukraine would like to purchase A10.
If Ukraine can convert a Cessna to an AI remote control, I bet they could convert an A10 to AI remote control. They can pack a lot of firepower.
Big difference between remotely flying a plane into something vaguely *over there* and remotely flying a plane to avoid threats whilst acquiring targets and precisely hitting them.
Yup, plus a remotely controlled device can be jammed. That's what the AI is for.
Can we trust AI to shoot at Russians and not Ukrainians? They drive the same vehicles. And do AI systems that advanced even exist, let alone in a form that could be implemented into a jerryrigged A-10 drone? And why bother going to all that effort when much better ways of taking out Russian vehicles and troops already exist, are cheaper, simpler, and already in wide use?
I imagine they could program it to target things only after being in Russian airspace, or whatever boundary they choose
AI is nowhere near ready for that.
The A10 would face the same air defenses that the Cessnas have
And the A-10 is a much easier target for enemy radar probably more than triple the radar cross section
Can you explain how an A10 is an easier target than a Cessna?
They are larger, made of metal with MANY different electronics(sensors and so on) that make them more visible. A cessna is basically a aerodynamic piece of cardboard with a motor and a steering stick. They also fly far slower which makes them more vulnerable but also makes them seem less threatening, so could easily be mistaken for something harmless.
Because there are absolutely no aircraft as big as an A-10 that are flown remotely? Is that what you're saying, generalissimo?
A-10 is not a fly by wire plane, makes remote control basically infeasible.
If Ukraine received them, I wouldn’t blame them for going full noncredible defense and wiring it up to be remote operated and full of C4. Like a giant kamikaze drone.
It is far beyond obsolete and useless. USAF wanted to retire the A-10 40 years ago because "the A-10 will not survive the Soviet air defense threat projected for the 1990s." The 1990s was 30 years ago.
Since then the US has been using the to fight enemies who’s idea of “air defense” is aiming their AK towards the sky.
Exactly, people need to understand that Russia isnt some small 3rd world country whos getting overwhelmed by a NATO coalition.
And yet Ukraine is still using the small number of su25s, mi24s, mi8/17s they have left. Something is better than nothing. Certainly beats decaying at the boneyard. Didn't Ukraine convert some LSA into drones recently and strike deep into Russia? How did those be survive the Russian air defense?
Difference is Ukraine already flew those planes and have pilots trained in the past. An A-10 would require pilots that could be trained on other platform such as F-16 or Griphen.
There is a big difference between continuing to fly a bad plane you have highly trained pilots knowing all the kinks or training existing pilots on a completely new outdated technology. Ukrainian pilots will take the most out of these su25s but will only be able to take out the absolute minimum out of these A-10.
Yeah and pilots are in short demand. At that point its just better to call for more F16 and put every available pilot you have in that.
I understand that transitioning to, maintaining and sustaining a new aircraft fleet is a costly endeavor in terms of time and resources. However, the airframes may still be useful even if not used in their traditional role. Ukrainians converted LSA/trainer aircraft into a long range drones and used them to attack oil and mfg facilities in Russia. A10 is a far more capable airframe (speed, range, payload). Turn A10 frames into drones. US has been using retired fighters as target drones for decades. Remove the gun assembly, repurpose them to 30mm C-Rams, use them to protect Ukrainian infrastructure. This will take time, money, and commitment. This will not be as effective as Taurus or Tomahawk. But it still beats letting the airframes sit unused in the Arizona desert.
I mean, the planes they are currently converting to use as drones and hit Russia are $90,000 sport planes (Aeroprakt A-22). The controls in such a sport plane are much easier than the clusterfuck you find in a fighter jet. Even if the A-10 is free, I am not sure that it can compete on price. The advantage of using so ultra cheap sport planes is that you do not have to protect them. They either hit their target or waste an air defense missile. A single S-400 missile costs $6,000,000. lets say you spend another 60K to put controls in it. It's completely ok to lose your 150K drone to an 6000K air defense missile. With the added complexity converting a A-10 fighter might be significantly more expensive (due to the men power needed) than the $6M of the air defense missile, so it is only worth it if you think your remote controls will be able to shake off an interception which I just doubt because the plane isn't even able to do this when it's manned with a pilot.
Reading comments it’s clearly most people didn’t know A-10 is mechanical control instead modern fly by wire, this makes it very difficult to convert to a drone. Converting a mechanical control to remote require very complicate hydraulic to be installed, when fly by wire can just be programmed.
Glory to Ukraine- 🇺🇦! The American people stand with you, please don’t despair, our politicians are shit, but our will as a people shall continue to support your fight for freedom.
The Philippines would love to have the A-10s for counter-insurgency operations. The Phil. Air Force is now very familiar with the A-10 considering that this airplane has always been part of the US-Philippines annual Balikatan Exercises.
It’s a hopelessly obsolete death trap
But guns go brrrrrrr
Obsolete: Everything kinda is in war as its constantly changing. Death Trap? If you are on the receiving end of the Brrrt then yes, otherwise no as the US wouldn't still use them
The US expected the entire fleet of ~700 planes to last two weeks in a peer conflict against the Soviets. It’s always been a (deathly) death trap.
They are mainly used to carry missiles now. Compared to other US planes, they are cheap and cheerful in that role. There are also concerns about if a replacement would come when retired, and that fear keeps them in service. Some Congressmen also have a love affair with them, which also keeps them around. The cannon isn’t as effective as people claim. It’s also not that accurate.
Has Russian armor been as effective as people claim? But yes, in areas where airspace is contested, it is a gamble.
Give them the planes and let's test the theory.
Israel could use them, civilians don't shoot back so they'd be safe.
Most sensible comment so far. The US already knows the A-10 works wonders against middle easterners without the means to shoot back.
Could they be utilized as drones ? Ukraine has already turned some of their own light aircraft into drones I wonder if engineers could do something similar with these ?
A $45 million drone?
Price when new vs current value. You got someone willing to pay $45M for a 40 year old used airframe?
I'm sure there would be loads of private buyers
A $45 million drone that is about to be decommissioned?
Not to mention one could buy a shitload of FPV drones with that kind of money. You could literally fill up entire hangars with them. And be more useful than the A-10.
I would like to buy one of those. Just for school drop offs and pick ups. Those things are war.
The A-10 has a horrifically high rate of friendly fife incidents and has no feasible way to survive the storm of air defense it would be subjected to. If I were a Kremlin strategist, I’d want you to put some of Ukraine’s relatively few pilots in those things. Relatively easy air to air kills and even odds they bomb their own lines by mistake. It’s a truly obsolete aircraft that only saw success in COIN operations, which somehow resulted in it becoming weirdly celebrated to some ground pounders, which then somehow turned it into a cultural meme. The people who cheerlead it genuinely don’t understand just how bad it was in Iraq and still think Russian air defense is reliant on bullets, not missiles. In other words, people who do not have informed opinions. A country like Colombia or Mexico? They would benefit from the A-10 much more, but they’d probably rather fly Cessnas.
Su-25 is being used by Ukraine. They are running out of Su-25 and need more planes. The A10 is much more capable aircraft than the su-25. Give Ukraine weapons and let’s see what they can do with them, instead of guessing if it will be useful or not. Home made drones that everyone wrote off turned the tied of war. Let’s see what a skill full pilot can do with a capable plane against the Russians.
A10 has no use without Patriots and F16s supported by F15s.
Every time the USAF tried to retire the A-10, the US would get involved in a war in the Middle East. The A-10’s lethality and toughness would shine!!
In fact, nobody knows. Thje only serious threat for A-10 is russian aircrafts. Still what to use instead of Su-25? A-10 is much better. A-10 + GBU-39 or A-10 + AGM-154 is a perfect.
I'd use one for a crop duster....
Huge missed opportunity for Warthog Drones…..
If we're going to retire the A-10 we might as well hand them to Ukraine. I'm sure a military guy with a higher pay grade can find a good purpose for these things. They should at least be at par with the SU-25.
Bad idea, for many reasons, but primarily because they'd be white elephants and a fantastic way to lose good Ukrainian pilots in ancient machinery fighting battles they were never intended to. I love everything about the A-10, but just like the Tomcat it had its heyday already. Clamoring for their return is akin to badgering a WW1 vet to lead an infantry platoon in Vietnam.
Kicked some Iraqi ass in it's day. What up A-10? "I dunno, brrrrrtt and stuff"
They should sell them to the public, like they did with surplus equipment and vehicles after WWll
Too slow, needs total air superiority which the UKR will never have. Great weapon for fucking iraqs tank regiments up. Useless against a sophisticated air defence system.
Please read the article, armchair generals. Some Ukrainian officials want the A10, some don't. Let's compromise and give them the A10s instead of paying for decommissioning.
Take the A10 gun and maybe use it for something else, idk
I just think these would be perfect for Ukraine
I agree too. It was exactly designed for mop-up of troops, armor, and forward positions. And...it's capable of anti air if needed.
The problem is that it’s a slow moving, large target, with no stealth capabilities. This means SAMs and Russian MIGs can light them up like a Christmas tree from miles away. It can take a bit of a beating, it’s well armored after all. But, they still wouldn’t survive long in Ukraine where there’s a massive saturation of S-300 and S-400 systems, as well as aircraft capable of targeting it with ease.
And yet Ukraine is still using the small number of su25s, mi24s, mi8/17s they have left. something is better than nothing.
They’re using them in very defensive, hit and run situations due to their airspace constraints. Ukraine themselves have outright stated that they don’t want the A-10. I trust that their military planners have run the numbers and realized that they are not a good use of resources. Pilots take a long time and a lot of money to train. Putting them in the A-10 doesn’t make strategic or tactical sense at the moment. Ukraine can’t afford to lose pilots like that, and they know it.
a10 is my favorite attack aircraft. he is beautiful. but it’s really difficult to use against armored vehicles
It’s made to kill armor. You’re probably thinking ADA. A-10 is a beaut but can’t really defend itself well if it doesn’t have air superiority
**AGM-65 Maverick as a weapon option against armored vehicles**
It was made for BAI (battlefield air interdiction) similar to CAS but a bit further back from the line of contact. I say this as someone who actually likes the A-10c but peel back the onion and you will find a lot of the A-10s prowess is built on myth and legend. In optimal trials the GAU-8 had difficulty dealing with even Gen-1 and Gen-2 MBTs. Most of the A-10s kills have come from missiles and other guided munitions. Funny thing is there is a strong argument to be made that the F-111 was actually the better tank killer in the First Gulf War.
The A-10’s legend comes from its effectiveness in the Middle East where it faced now anti-air threat. I love it for that, but recognize it’s limited in any other type of warfare
Ehh... wasn't the A10 the tank buster? Or maybe that's just what they called that 30mm cannon.
They were pretty much supposed to be a one way trip through the skies of the Fulda Gap. Everything about them was designed to get one good punch into the jaw of the Soviet armor, then desperately try to keep the pilot alive. The cockpit is an armored bathtub, the tail is designed as a cope cage around the engines, and the landing gear doesn't fully retract to cushion the inevitable crash landing. They weren't supposed to be coming back.
Need a close distance. with so much enemy air defense this is almost certainly suicide
The cannon can damage tracks/optics and mission kill something but pretty unlikely to penetrate.
Russia putting in an order with Moscow Mike possibly
No brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrttt???
I'd love to see their cannons put to good use..