dyqik wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:17 am
There's been a couple of news stories about Ukrainian pilots being trained in the US on the A-10. While that's vulnerable to SAMs, lots of HARMs around may make it a useful tank killer.
The A-10 gets a lot of criticism, and not all of it is warranted. It also has a lot of tedious fanboys who are aware of the GAU-8 and little more.
So some thoughts on the A-10 for Ukraine.
So first, vulnerability. It is a real issue, but it may or may not prove relevant.
A-10Cs come with a missile warning system, that allows the deployment of countermeasures - chaff or flares - as appropriate. If this system works as intended, it should somewhat reduce their vulnerability to MANPADS. I've not seen a video of a helicopter or jet downed while deploying flares, though there are some of them being downed after they've stopped, thinking they were safe. The principal MANPADS of the Russian army is still the Igla, which is a fairly simple heat-seeking missile. These are very vulnerable to flares, as they like to chase the biggest heat signature. Though the newer Verba has a multispectral seeker and is likely to be less vulnerable to flares, but they don't seem to be showing up that much. An additional factor with the A-10 is the engine placement - they aren't where they are just for the hell of it. Running the exhaust over the tailplane reduces the heat signature when seen from below, which, coupled with the high bypass ratio of the engines makes it harder for heat-seeking missiles to lock on.
The other factor is armour and survivability. The A-10 is designed to survive a hit, much like its Warsaw Pact counterpart, the Su-25 "Frogfoot". It can fly on one engine, and can cope with the loss of half a wing and half the tail. It has double-redundant hydraulic controls, and on top of that a mechanical backup that, while not ideal, can enable the pilot to return to base. MANPADS don't have big warheads, and often down aircraft by severing their hydraulics. So far this war we've seen Ka-52 helicopters and Su-25 jets survive MANPADS hits, and over Iraq, the A-10 has proven capable of surviving substantial damage.
There's also SHORADS to consider, but much of the same applies as with MANPADS. Systems like the Tunguska also have 23mm cannon, but the A-10 was designed to survive hits from 23mm cannon.
So that's MANPADS. What about larger and more powerful SAMS, and what about air-to-air missiles? The way the A-10 will be aiming to survive those is by not being seen. By flying very, very low. It's quite good at that. We've seen every jet in Ukrainian service operated that way, so we can safely assume that A-10s will, too. As for air-to-air combat, the A-10 kills helicopters, is probably quite evenly matched against an Su-25, and is heavily outmatched by fast jets. However, for air-to-air combat to be relevant, it would mean either the A-10s operating well over Russian lines, or Russian aviators venturing into the coverage of Ukraine's own SAM umbrella.
In terms of usage, flying low protects from radar guided SAMS and makes it harder for the Russians to detect they are there at all, which thus means it is harder for them to counter the A-10s with jets. Flying low makes them more vulnerable to MANPADS and SHOR, but as well as the issues I've discussed, there's the issue of where those are located - at or behind the Russian frontline. The closest comparable aircraft in service in this war is the Su-25, which is heavily used by both sides. The Oryx list reveals 19 Russian Su-25s destroyed and 8 Ukrainian ones, with a further example on each side damaged. This is quite low, given the amount of sorties they are flying, even allowing for that being most likely an underestimate.
If we look at the tactics used by Su-25s on both sides, one can see why. They fly at treetop height, below the horizon of enemy radar. They keep behind their own lines, and thus largely away from MANPADS. They attack by lofting rockets at the enemy, and while inaccurate, it is apparently effective at least at suppressing infantry. As they turn away, they are a bit higher than they want, and at their nearest point to the enemy, so they deploy a steady stream of flares. Only a few MANPADS can overcome this strategy, the most notable being Starstreak, but its unlikely many of those have been supplied, and of course the Russians don't have those. These tactics would also work for the A-10.
But if those tactics work for the Su-25, why send A-10s? There are three main reasons. The first is availability. More Su-25s would be great, but where are they coming from? The second reason is payload. Su-25s can carry 4400kg of warload. A-10s can carry 7260kg. The third reason is munition options. There are a few anti-radiation and other guided missiles that can be carried by the Su-25, but they are limited in scope, and likely horribly limited in availability. A-10s can carry AGM65 Maverick air-to-ground missiles, Paveway laser guided bombs and JDAM guided bombs. The A-10 does also have access to rocket pods, just as the Su-25 does, but unlike the Su-25s S-8 rockets, the A-10s Hydra 70 rocket pods can be loaded with laser-guided rockets, meaning infantry could be issued designators so the A-10 could deliver a precise hit without ever going that near the enemy. Finally, there's the guns - while I don't think the guns will be that relevant, we may as well consider them. The Su-25 has a twin-barrel 30mm autocannon, with two hundred and fifty rounds carried. The A-10 has the famous GAU-8 Avenger rotary cannon. It's also a thirty millimetre, but it uses a larger cartridge to push the rounds out about 15% faster than it's Warsaw Pact equivalent, and it has a more advanced design of projectile, too. Finally, it has a higher rate of fire, and about four times as much ammunition is carried than on the Sukhoi.
I don't at the moment think we'll see A-10s used as they were in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, but then again, they could be sent over without a single cartridge for the GAU-8, and still be very useful. And perhaps if HARM has enough impact, and Russian positions start to collapse, and escort were to be provided, either from Fulcrums and Flankers or western jets, they could go out and hunt down columns as they were designed to do.
The A-10 is dated, and far from perfect, but if it is what's available, it could still be very useful. If Ukraine were offered an equivalent number of F-15s instead, they ought to pick the F-15s, but it could well be A-10s are what's available for now. The fact that they can operate off rough landing strips or highways doesn't hurt, either. It's also possible that A-10s are seen as less escalatory than jets that could, say, hit Moscow. I don't agree with such arguments, but they might be affecting what is on offer. And perhaps if A-10s were sent, and Russia once again does not invite NATO to participate as belligerents, then fast jets could be sent?
