Russia - threadbanned users in OP

F16 v A10

I say why not both.

Must say I'm enjoying Solovyov's on air nervous breakdown these last few days 😀

I have read 'Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War by Robert Coram' so I am rather biased and deeply disdainful of the idea of 'multirole', so I don't see it as a positive characteristic. I can't recommend the book highly enough, it completely turned my thoughts about the USAF and it's planes on their head.

I suspect Col John Boyd may have had one of the highest IQs of anyone who ever served in the USAF. Unfortunately he was too good for it. Most people have never heard of him.

Back to my theme of let Ukraine decide: If it were up to me, the US would provide a list of realistic options - sort of the Lend Lease Catalogue with a couple of additions; give Ukraine a nominal budget, and let them pick and choose.

'Hmmm, 5 A-10s or one F-16, Valery, what do you think...?'

It did Ok against an F-16 one time..

'Yesterday took place a fundamental turn in world history - I realised we are actually, totaly fuc​ked'

Nope, they cost more than an F-35. The strike Eagle is only about $2.2m more expensive than the Grippen. https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/27553-Top-10-most-expensive-fighter-jets-in-2021

I'm done, it's getting too OT, back to reality of no western jets for Ukraine yet, and Czechia's lovely Mig-29 gift.

You don't have to agree but the A10 can be equipped for multiple roles,yes it a primarily a CAS Aircraft but thanks to a series of upgrade it can do several roles ,we were told it can't carry stand off weapons but yes it can carry stand off weapons due to being equipped with a sniper pod ,and yes it carries some air 2 air weapons,

People have a bad habit of jumping in on a Post saying no,no ,no

In this case it can ,

Su30 family at low attitude I reckon an A10 could hold its own low and slow ,

We've seen the Russian aircraft easily get shot down in low speed air 2 air in Ukraine,

It's all down to training and pilots and the abilities of the aircraft, the Americans are years ahead of anyone when it comes to aerial combat and aerial combat training

F-16s are the only option.

They are simple and plentiful and relatively cheap and easy to train on and have lots of spares and are capable multi-role planes.

They will deal with tank formations just as well as patrolling for and destroying heavier Russian aircraft, such as airborne radar, tankers, medium bombers etc.

They aren't great for dogfighting, but its not like Russia has fleets of serviceable air-superiority fighters and pilots to fly them, so it won't be a big issue.

The US has hundreds, maybe thousands of F-16s in sterile storage in the desert and attached to Air National Guard Units all over America. Time to start shipping them to Germany and Poland for training and forward deployment in Ukraine.

Maybe paint a few Swastikas on the tails just to give Solovyov an actual stroke.

There's a difference between reflexively rejecting an idea because you just don't like it and shooting it down because it is completely unrealistic. There is not enough thrust in the entire western world to make the A-10 into a dogfighter, leaving aside its complete lack of radar and BVR capability that I mentioned in my previous post. As for the idea of an Su-30 or similar aircraft engaging an A-10 at low level, that's just wishful thinking. Any Flanker pilot will attack from a position of advantage, which would be from higher altitude and farther away, using their own radar and long range missiles to take out an A-10 before it can ever become a threat. And ANY Flanker family aircraft can easily out-climb, outmanoeuvre and out-range an A-10. Air to air is what the Flankers were designed for, even in a fur ball, they are far more likely to take out a ground-attack aircraft like the A-10 than vice versa. Can an A-10 shoot down a Flanker? possibly, but it is highly unlikely and depends on the Flanker pilot making every mistake in the book, in which case they deserve to be shot down for their sheer stupidity alone. Banking on an opponent's prolonged ineptitude has never been a good strategic choice, as the nature of combat tends to weed out idiots rather quickly.

If you want to provide Ukraine with a low-level deep strike capability, a Tornado would be a much better choice, if you can scratch together enough Luftwaffe aircraft that haven't worn out their airframes and aren't needed for the nuclear sharing role. It's got a longer range, is much faster at low level, has a terrain following radar to take some of the strain of the pilot, and has enhanced targeting capabilities compared to the A-10. The Warthog is good at its intended role, battlefield close air support, and it can deliver a world of pain in that role still. But it is very much a one-trick pony and doesn't deliver the capabilities that Ukraine needs at the moment. Long range air to air and deep strike capabilities are needed to really hurt the Russian forces.

Well that's definitely optimism in action. I wonder if they know something we don't? Here's hoping they do.

The Orcs seem to have a different definition of 'Nazi', which has lead to misunderstanding. To them it appears to have been corrupted and generalised to mean anyone 'opposed to our expansionist aims and the violence we engage in to achieve them'. I'm not even sure it's not just a synonym for 'enemy', now. They have comprehensively perverted and denatured the word.

@Larbre34 They aren't great for dogfighting, but its not like Russia has fleets of serviceable air-superiority fighters and pilots to fly them, so it won't be a big issue.

They aren't great for dogfighting,it's was primarily designed to be a dogfighter,it fast, highly menuverable,and highly unstable,

Since when are they not great dog fighters

Given their superior garmin & gaffer tape navigation they probably can't find Ukraine