U.S. Air Force leaders have raised the possibility of training Ukrainian pilots in the United States and giving Ukraine the American fleet of A-10 Warthog ground-attack planes — an idea that could solve a problem for both countries.
The notion is a classic trial balloon. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall this week entertained the idea of giving the A-10 planes to Ukraine, while adding that it was still in the discussion phase.
Such a plan could make sense. Ukraine needs more air power and more ways to destroy Russian artillery and tanks, and the Warthog was designed during the Cold War for that very purpose.
And the Air Force has for years wanted to get rid of the A-10s.
"For years"? The Zoomies have been trying to ditch the A-10 for decades, pretty much ever since they were forced to buy them. The Air Froce hates, hates the notion of close-air support. The best idea, and one that the Air Force even hates more, is to give the A-10s to the Army.
I'm sort of betting that the Ukrainians are not going to be terribly interested.
What they are doing is inviting the world to use the Russo-Ukraine War as a live-fire testbed. And the Russians are not amused. One of Putler's spokesmonkeys claimed in the linked story that it is the Russians who are trying to save Ukraine. Which is about as laughable as it would have been if Goebbels claimed that the Germans invaded Poland to preserve Polish culture.
6 comments:
The Warthog is one of the best tools available for close ground support. When the operators are properly trained and the Warthogs themselves are properly maintained, they are capable of inflicting grievous damage upon Poo-tins army. It's an excellent idea to gift them to the Ukrainians, even though we apparently are doing it to get rid of them. That's something I don't quite understand, but the Air Farce is known for not wanting to provide close air support...
Ah, but the Russians are never amused. Trained by Genghis Khan, Napoleon and the Wehrmacht, they expect the worst...and then employ the Lead Rule: Do unto others before they do unto you. This shows the rest of the world how classy they are and the wonders of their fraternal brotherhood. Would that they had a big reset button for the past 200-500 years.
I certainly applaud sending anything and everything to Ukraine. And lots of it. I do question the A10 being a good plane to give them. Sure there are some times it will be a perfect fit, especially in support of their troops, but don't they really need the zoomers too? What I have seen is a lot of flat and wide open country with military incursions. Isn't a couple of standoff rockets and a fast-mover the solution there? Seems like some F15s or F16s would do them a lot of good about now.
Somebody with experience can probably shoot me down here but I want to learn.
w3ski
Giving the A-10s to Ukraine is a foolish idea. Our own AF doesn't use them in a high threat of anti-aircraft weaponry environment. So they'll just end up being shot down or disabled. Tactical fighters and attack aircraft are now more of a prestige item than much else there in the Ukraine.
Your article said the Air Force doesn't like close air support. In book about military helicopter usage it wrote a bit on the rivalry between the Air Force and Army on the use of the helicopters for ground support in Vietnam. The Air Force then claimed it to be their job and the Army didn't need attack capable helicopters. But it was probably more of claiming more responsibility to grab up more of the defense budget.
Instead of giving Ukraine the A-10, we should give it the USAF. Let Ukraine do the work that the US seems reluctant to tackle of getting the USAF, now the UAF, to do what the nation needs it to do, rather than what it would prefer to do. Ukraine is at war. That tends to sharpen a nation's attention to getting every tool at its disposal serving the cause of winning the war, rather than whatever internal institutional goals a given tool might have.
It is true that would leave the US without an AF for a bit. Well, actually it would leave our ground forces without an AF, since the Navy has always kept its own air assets it needs to help it in its mission of controlling the seas. We could have the Army reconstitute an Air Corps quickly enough to help it control the land, and then we would have air assets that actually served the nation's needs, rather than the "needs" of an unnecessary AF bureaucracy.
Post a Comment