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
Gripen fans continue to spam my mention with claims how fantastic Sweden's Bas 90 and Gripen combination is... and that it would work for Canada's North too...
Ok, let's quickly compare Canada's three northern territories (Yukon, Northwest, Nunavut) and Sweden... ... 1/6
Land area:
🇸🇪 450,295 km2 (173,860 sq mi)
🇨🇦 terr.: 3,593,589 km2 (173,860 sq mi)
The land area of just the three territories (without Canada's 10 provinces) is already 8 times bigger than all of Sweden...
(In total Canada's land area is 9,984,670 km2
2/6
(3,855,100 sq mi) or 22 times Sweden).
Population:
🇸🇪 10.61 million
🇨🇦 terr.: 0.13 million
Sweden's population is 81.6 times bigger than that of the three territories... and if you look at population density:
🇸🇪 23,6/km2
🇨🇦 terr.: 0,013/km2
3/6
Saab loooves to tout the claim that the Gripen can "operate from dispersed air bases".
They do that, because they know no one of you knows what it means. And every time I see someone regurgite "dispersed air bases" (or "road runways" or "short runways") I know I am dealing
1/36
with someone, who knows absolutely nothing about the topic.
So allow me to take you on a deep dive into what "operating from dispersed air bases" actually means.
Let's start with Såtenäs Air Base in Southern Sweden - the most important Swedish air base. 2/n
When the Viggen entered service, Såtenäs received it first.
When the Gripen entered service, Såtenäs received it first.
When the Gripen E entered service, Såtenäs received it first.
In the 1950s Sweden developed the Bas 60 system, which would have dispersed the Swedish 3/n
The 11th Airborne Division is the least likely to be used to invade #Greenland.
The division's deputy commander is Canadian. He is responsible for Operations. The 11th would have to arrest part of their own officers, before being able to plan a Greenland invasion.
Also
1/6
there are just 8 C-17 Globemaster aircraft at Elmendorf Air Force Base. The USAF would need to fly a dozen more up to Alaska, which of course Canada would notice. Then to reach Greenland the C-17 would have to cross Canada's North, which NORAD's Canadian officers would report
2/6
to the Canadian and Danish governments.
It is much more likely the US will inform allies that a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg will fly to the Middle East, which means the air route will take them right over Greenland. And at Fort Bragg you also have the
3/6
This is a typical clown tweet by someone, who knows nothing about WWII.
3 years before D-Day, the Soviets & nazis were in a love-feast, while the US had not entered the war; & when it did it had to cross an ocean full of nazi submarines to stage troops & materiel for D-Day.
1/14
And unlike the warmongering Soviets, which in June 1941 fielded 304 divisions, the US Army fielded just 37 divisions when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (+ two Marine Corps divisions).
Before any D-Day the US Army had to start forming new divisions (38 in 1942 and 17 in 1943) &
2/n
then ship those divisions across the Atlantic, which was teeming with German subs, while the Soviets just used trains to bring troops and materiel to the front (& if the Soviet had had to ship troops across an ocean, they would have just accepted that a third of their troops
3/n
The @RoyalAirForce - once the strongest air force in Western Europe... but now...
7 Eurofighter Typhoon squadrons are expected to fulfill the tasks, for which 35 years ago the RAF fielded 40 squadrons (31 active & 4 reserve + 5 shadow squadrons, which would have been formed
1/27
from the personnel & fighters of the RAF's operational conversion units).
At the end of the Cold War these 40 squadrons were assigned to 4 commands, each with a specific mission & enough aircraft to fulfill their mission.
No. 1 Group was tasked with striking Soviet forces
2/27
in Northern Germany, including with WE.177 tactical nukes.
The Group fielded 8 active, 4 reserve and 2 shadow squadrons, which flew Tornado GR1, Jaguar GR1A, and Harrier GR5 fighters (the reserve squadrons flew Hawk T1A). The group also included the RAF's 3 aerial
3/27
Since there are still people claiming the Gripen is the "ideal fighter for Canada"... here are the refueling stops the Gripen C/D needed to get from Ronneby in Sweden to Eielson Air Base in Alaska.
So of course this is an "ideal fighter" for Canada... as it will have to stop 1/5
at every Canadian airfield to refuel...
For the curious ones:
On 13 July 2006 five Gripen C and two Gripen D left
their base in Ronneby Sweden. They refueled at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland, then flew to NAS Keflavik in Iceland, where they refueled and stayed overnight.
2/5
On 14 July the Gripens flew to Sondre Stromfjord in Greenland for another refueling, then proceeded to RCAF Iqualuit in Canada for refueling and the night.
On 15 July the Gripens flew to Churchill, refuelled and then flew to RCAF Cold Lake, where they spent 16 July to rest.
3/5