The most common perception of the Warthog by Americans is the 'highway of death' from GW1. I have been wondering why there was no 'highway of death' when there was a 30mi long stalled Russian convoy north of Kiev. Surely it wasn't due to lack of resources at the time. Sending them some A-10's will not solve anything.
A-10's big advantage is the GAU-8. The A-10C can also carry a wide variety of PGMs, many more than the Su-25. Russian stocks of air to ground PGMs have always been lacking. Both have a hard time surviving in a high threat environment without SEAD support and even with it.
The Russians took a beating in the north, that's why they pulled out. The open terrain in the east requires different tactics, and weapons.
Does the Su-25 have a gun, or is it just missiles? And I'm assuming the Ukrainians aren't using PGMs most of the time?
It's also got a 30mm gun, slightly lower rate of fire than the A-10 has though. Only holds 1/4 the rounds of an A-10 too.
If my memory serves me, the GAU-8 system weighs 6700 pounds and the airplane was designed around it. They discovered early on that the muzzle gases choked and shut down the engines when the gun was fired at full rate so they had to design a shield to divert the flow.
Much lower muzzle velocity (~2500 vs ~3500 fps), too, so not nearly as effective as the GAU-8 against armor using approximately the same weight projectiles (~400 grams for both). Higher velocity gives nearly twice the muzzle energy and also extends effective range.
So basically what I thought. The Su-25 is inferior to the A-10, except for the fact that the Ukrainians already have parts, maintainers, and pilots for the Su-25 and none of that infrastructure for the A-10. And if I were in a tank, I would still be just as nervous facing a couple of Su-25s as a couple of A-10s... especially if I were in a Russian tank with one of those turret loader systems.
Earlier A-10s carried PGMs just fine and when accompanied by an F-16 would give us a lot to work with in employing those PGMs. It is much better now that the A-10s can employ on their own.
Will- Affirmative, but buddy lasing and ground lasing require a lot of coordination and everybody has to get there and have the correct laser code (1688 if nothing was briefed). Have done a bit myself but using two aircraft that could both lase targets and trying to limit exposure for either one. About half the time, something went south.
Ukraine claims to have taken out 50 Russian ammo dumps with HIMARS https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-it-has-destroyed-50-ammunition-depots-using-himars-war-with-russia-2022-07-25/
We practiced all the time and our live hit rate approached self designation rates. The practice is what made it successful. Still, it complicated attacks by an order of magnitude.
More M270 MLRS to Ukraine: https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3548843-additional-m270-mlrs-arrive-in-ukraine-from-uk.html
The fact that he is flying around in the middle of the day at a fairly high altitude, with his GoPro running, tells me that the Russian Air Force isn't much of a threat, at least wherever he is.
I recall reading that they are only protecting the skies over Kiev and to the west, ie their supply lines. Little to no attempt at establishing any air superiority over the front lines. Lacking SEAD capability they are rather limited where they can operate.
I believe the key point is that the Russians have not been able to establish air superiority. As an invading force, you would think they would do this first.
Not the way they work. Airpower is an extension of the ground attack to them. Same way they fought in WW-II. If they ever heard of John Warden, they never believed what he said.
Why? Not as though the Ukes are attacking them from the air (other than drones). Both sides are too afraid of manpads.
