this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
309 points (97.2% liked)

World News

39110 readers
2411 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

One of Moscow's fighter jets has been shot down by Ukrainian forces, according to a military blogger with links to the Russian air force. Another pro-Moscow milblogger said that the Sukhoi Su-34 aircraft had been downed by a Western-supplied F-16.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] s_s@lemm.ee 23 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If the USAF doesn't want to deal with the A-10s supply chain, there's a good chance Ukraine doesn't either.

The only thing that keeps the A-10 flying is Congressional mandates from a few jobs-oriented congressmen.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

It's a morale booster. Marines want a battleship to roll-up and lob explosive vws at the enemy and the army wants to keep it's brrt buddy. With more modern electronics and better drone link they'd still be very capable at the job they are built to do.

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You don't spend excessive logistics on a "morale booster". Then, those morale boosters would get shot down in no time and it would have both the strain on the logistics, and the opposite effect for morale. It's an old plane that's not useful on modern battlefields. Get Ukraine what they need - long range rockets and permission to use them how they want. Get them more fighter jets. Get them more artillery. Don't send trash.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Dude you bring up a curiosity in a different situation, time and war, economy and scale. Ukraine doesn't have countless factories pumping out fighter jets to be able to dedicate those to making spare parts for an obsolete airframe. No amount of morale is worth it when you cannot supply the soldiers with what they need. Imagine ice cream barges going through the pacific when most of the US carriers would be on the bottom of the ocean with no more comming. It would be a laughable waste of resources.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You said we don't waste logistics on militarily useless morale boosters. Clearly the us does as do most militaries, good cas is well worth every penny. CAS that scares the shit out of your enemy and raises your troops spirits is even better.

It's never been a forward weapon, it was never meant to be. No one is suggesting to send it now they're saying it may be useful to ship pilots and get them started training and as far as I'm aware that's wrapped into funding.

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A10's aren't "good CAS". They are a hog on logistics, expensive, the gun isn't worth it anymore and the job can be done in 300 other, more efficient ways. It's a white elephant and nothing more, there is a reason they are getting retired.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There's more reason they've been trying to retire then since before many people here were born and yet haven't been. Troops love them, armchair strategists that have been saying they aren't worth the money don't. Who should I care about more I wonder.

[–] s_s@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

To your point, Ukraine lacks resources for both Ice cream and bbbrrrrrtttt.

They are fighting for their freedom.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

Point to where exactly it says now, it doesn't right?

So your point is any planning is futile, you must be a proper strategic genius.

[–] perestroika@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Ideally, people should try to get them Jas-39 Gripen with MBDA Meteor missiles to back up the F-16 fleet.

Currently, the situation seems to be: F-16 pilots are still inexperienced and their missiles are outranged by some missiles that a Su-35 could be carrying (e.g. R-77M with 190 km range). When a Su-34 (fighter-bomber) conducts glide bombing runs from a distance of 40 km, a Su-35 (air superiority fighter) typically provides it air cover. Under such conditions, it's a difficult task for an F-16 pilot to fire an AMRAAM at the bomber (at best 180 km range) and evade counter-fire from the fighter. Fortunately they've got shiny new ECM pods and hopefully Russian planes haven't got decent radars.

However, a plane with longer range weapons (Meteor can fly for 200 km) would deter even a fighter escort of the Su-34, and likely end glide bombing as a tactic.

Alternatively, one can hope that the actual range of AMRAAM exceeds the advertised range or the actual range of R-77M falls short of advertised range - or that they have better radars, or can somehow backport Meteor to F-16, or that their ECM can beat the electronics of R-77. However, as far as I'm aware, firing an AMRAAM from maximum range needs a really big target (actual bomber, not a fighter-bomber).

Either way, good to hear it happened. :) If it happens more, it might finally deter glide bombing. So far, air defense ambushes have also temporarily deterred it and drones have struck airfields where the Su-34 planes get equipped, but nothing has stopped it for long.

[–] AEsheron@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean, they made to strafe tanks. Pretty sure they were actually terrible at that when first introduced.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

They did fine, budget dweebs just never thought they were enough of an advantage to offset the cost. They stay in service because people in the actual field want them around, it's the same reason a lot of obsolete "useless" weapons stay in service.