Post

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
Click again on or Share Via icon
Click on Copy Link to Tweet
Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
More info at Twitter Help

Thomas C. Theiner

@noclador

Jul 13, 2022 • 10 tweets • 4 min read • Read on X

Scrolly

The A-10 Thunderbolt II is a one-trick pony that is of no use to Ukraine:

• can the A-10 fly Combat Air Patrols (CAP)? No.
• can the A-10 Suppress Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD)? No.
• can the A-10 do Close Air Support (CAS)? Yes.

The F-16 can do all three and do them better.
1/n

The F-16 can mount six AIM-120C-7 or six AIM-120D AMRAAM beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles (BVRAAM). The A-10 can mount none, because it doesn't even have a radar.

Photo: a F-16C Block 40, which uses the AN/APG-68(V)5 radar, departs with six AIM-120C-7 for a CAP.
2/n

The F-16 can mount two AGM-88E AARGM air-to-surface anti-radiation missiles with a AN/ASQ-213 HTS pod to find and strike enemy air defenses. The A-10 can't.

Photo: two F-16CJ Block 52 with a full SEAD load on patrol.
3/n

When the A-10 was designed and introduced a plane doing CAS had to fly low to accurately straff enemy positions.
Low meant within range of enemy man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS) and anti-aircraft cannons. Therefore the A-10 has an armored cockpit.
4/n

With the arrival of laser-guided, GPS-guided, infrared homing, etc. bombs and missiles a plane doesn't have to fly low to accurately hit an enemy position.

Nowadays a F-16 (or A-10, F-15E, F/A-18E/F) can fly above the range of MANPADS and anti-aircraft fire, because
5/n

thanks to targeting pods they can drop a dozen bombs with pinpoint accuracy on enemy positions.

The US Air Force even mounted Sniper Advanced Targeting pods on B-1B Lancer bombers and used the bombers for CAS.

There is no need for a fighter to fly low anymore.
6/n

Even the A-10 fly now with a Sniper or Litening targeting pod.

On the modern battlefield there is no need for a plane like the A-10 anymore - a plane that can only be used after fighters have won air supremacy and have destroyed enemy air defenses.
7/n

Of all the US Air Force fighters the F-16 is the most versatile.
It is still in production and the newest variant, the F-16V Block 70/72, is capable to defeat all non-NATO fighters. And: the Block 70/72 upgrade can be retrofitted to older F-16 variants.

8/n

On the other hand the A-10 is only useful against an enemy without air force and with no air-defenses.

If A-10 planes are sent to Ukraine now, then their life expectancy is less than that of a russian ammo dump.

What Ukraine needs are F-16. And lots of them.
9/.

PS re. other US fighters:
• F-22, F-35 off limits to UA
• F-15C/D can only do combat air patrols
• F-15E/EX USAF needs them all
• F/A-18C/D excellent fighter, not as good for SEAD as the F-16, production line has closed, 2nd best option for UA
• F/A-18E/F USN needs them all

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @noclador

Thomas C. Theiner

@noclador

Mar 17

To give you an idea, why European militaries prefer US-made weapons to European-made weapons:

Europe militaries urgently need a ground launched cruise missile capability... the US already had such a (nuclear) capability in 1983, then dismantled all of its BGM-109G Gryphon
1/10

ground launched cruise missiles after signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
russia of course broke this treaty after putin came to power and after 15 years of ignoring russia lying about it Trump finally ordered to withdraw from the treaty in August 2019.
2/n

Just 16 days after withdrawing from the treaty the US Army began to test launch Tomahawk cruise missiles form land (pic) and in June 2023 (less than 4 years later) the US Army formed the first battery equipped with the Typhon missile system.
And as Raytheon has a production
3/n

Read 10 tweets

Thomas C. Theiner

@noclador

Mar 8

These are the 🇬🇧 UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carriers.

First, as you can see in this picture, only one actually carries aircraft. The UK barely had enough money to buy the F-35B for one. For the other the Blairites expected the US Marine Corps
1/9

to provide the required aircraft, because the two carriers were bought so the Royal Navy could fight alongside the US Navy against China in the Pacific.

But the US does NOT want the British carriers anywhere near its carrier strike groups, because the UK carriers would slow
2/9

down a US carrier strike groups, as the UK did not have the money for nuclear propulsion.
And as the UK doesn't have the money for the ships that make up a carrier strike group (destroyers, frigates, submarines) the UK expected the US Navy to detach some of its destroyers and
3/9

Read 9 tweets

Thomas C. Theiner

@noclador

Mar 8

🇬🇧 decline: Only one SSN is operational, three are no longer fit for service and got no crews. One carrier has no air wing and has been sent to rust away. The other carrier only has an air wing when the RAF cedes a third of its fighters. Only 1 destroyer is operational. The
1/5

frigates are falling apart. New Type 31 frigates won't get Mark 41 VLS or bow Sonar. The RAF took 48 of its Eurofighters apart, because it got no money for spares. The army has just 14 155mm howitzers. The Ajax vehicle is injuring the troops it carries. The Warrior IFVs are
2/5

outdated and falling apart. They amphibious ships are not deployable / crewed for lack of funds. The UK has not anti-ballistic missile system (e.g.Patriot). There is only money for 12 F-35A, the smallest F-35A order on the planet. The tank force is at its smallest since 1938.
3/5

Read 5 tweets

Thomas C. Theiner

@noclador

Mar 4

International Law is worthless paper if you cannot and will not back it up with military power.

Dictators do not care for international law. But they fear the US Air Force. The moment the US signaled it would no longer back "international law" putin annexed Crimea and Assad
1/10

gassed his people. International Law is what defence laggards hide behind to not have to spend for their own security (hoping the US will save them from their irresponsibility) .

European politicians like to grandstand about "international law" but NO European nation has the
2/n

the means (nor the will) to the enforce it. European politicians grandstanding about international law always do so in the belief that the US will enforce their balderdash.
So European politicians lecturing the US about "international law" now are utter morons, because they
3/n

Read 10 tweets

Thomas C. Theiner

@noclador

Feb 21

All this "NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war in Ukraine" is ridiculous, because:

• of course NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war IN (!) Ukraine,
• because that is not how a NATO-russia war will be fought. NATO, even just European NATO,
1/4

fields: 244 F-35, 403 Eurofighter, 183 Rafale, 177 modern F-16, 3 Gripen E, and 896 older fighter types.
A total of 1,906+ fighters (without the US Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force; and with more new fighters entering European service every week).

russia, when counting
2/4

generously can't even put half that fighter strength into the field, and the 1,010 modern European NATO fighters would devastate russia's fighter force.

With NATO air supremacy comes absolute dominance of the battlefield. Every russian moving near the front would get bombed
3/4

Read 4 tweets

Thomas C. Theiner

@noclador

Feb 15

Gripen fans keep hyping the Gripen with fake claims & as long as they do, I will counter them:

Scandinavian Air Force officer about the Gripen E: It can either be fully fueled or fully armed or flown from short runways. Never can 2 of these things be done at the same time.
1/25

The Gripen fans keep claiming that the Gripen has a better range than the F-35 and can fly from short runways... then admit that its max. range can only be achieved with external fuel tanks, which weigh so much that the Gripen E can no longer fly from short runways.
2/n

External fuel tanks also mean: the Gripen becomes slower, the radar cross section increases (making detection more likely), the fuel consumption increases,... and even with all 3 external fuel tanks the Gripen E carries 1,340 kg less fuel than the F-35A carries internally.
3/n

Read 25 tweets

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Thomas C. Theiner

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @noclador

Thomas C. Theiner

Thomas C. Theiner

Thomas C. Theiner

Thomas C. Theiner

Thomas C. Theiner

Thomas C. Theiner

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!