Thanks Cap, fun video. As a general matter analysis to complement the video: 1. You guys improved with each run, and just a total of five runs. Now, imagine what a USAF pilot could do with years of training. 2. In reality, this mission would have had at least two fighters/strike aircraft to fly SEAD/DEAD to occupy and destroy any air defense, rather than relying on A-10's to do both jobs here. 3. The number of A-10s per this chunk of road is fairly accurate if you tried to assign attack aircraft to each segment of the convoy by area and/or saturation of convoy targets within a given stretch of the road. 4. The smart-cluster munitions would have actually done even more damage than in this example, as many of the photos and video documentation for this stalled convoy, in particular, had stretches of road where vehicles and armor were lined up 2-3 rows deep on each side of the road. I say this, as you can see the cluster munitions have more of a spread out distribution or wider attack pattern when compared directly with the single file convoy column on the road itself in this example. 5. The 5-minute time limit is favoring the Russians, if anyone, in my opinion. In addition to what I wrote below in #6 concerning their defenses, keep in mind the defensive capability would likely decrease from minutes 5 through ~30 before they were organized, brave enough, and threatened enough by officers, to go and man some heavy defensive guns (.50 cal and above). Limiting it to 5 minutes is more than fair. 6. Some will argue the tanks and IFVs etc. would have shot back, but the equipment from the photos looked largely abandoned (I doubt they were sleeping in potential steel coffins), and I think they went for the cover of local wooded areas. A high-volume attack would likely spook the defenders away as shit was blowing up all around, and that's even if they had any diesel left to power on their systems. That would leave them, at best really, with the occasional brave soldier on a .50 cal with tracers giving up his position. For this same reason (an insane environment, overwhelming firepower, and spread-out vehicle crew and infantry), I don't think there would be adequate MANPADS fire on the attack aircraft either. 7. The munitions used, including the cannon, would be suitable for disabling or destroying MBTs and IFVs, so that should eliminate any criticism that you used trucks as targets rather than armor. 8. If this were a full NATO attack, I imagine they would use B-2s to mop up any significant portions of the remaining convoy, in orbit, as soon as they had the damage assessment studied to identify the best target-rich portions of the convoy. The combination of the SEAD/DEAD mission, initial strike weakening their defenses and SAM capability, and B-2 stealth plus high altitude should have resulted in a safe enough environment to throw down massive amounts of JDAMs or SDBs over the entire convoy length. Fighter aircraft would escort if AA assets were identified and could actually see the B-2s, and defend against potential Russian CAP or QRF. With Russian jets in the sky, it's part of Russian doctrine to disable S-400 and other long-range SAMs apparently, so long-range SAM threats should be discounted in this scenario. Sure, a lot of what I wrote here is optimistic, but I don't have much evidence to conclude Russia would be in any other position except for being virtually ineffective if NATO forces were involved in the defense of Ukraine since the initial invasion. Until proven otherwise, this is the only conclusion I can see.
You talked of watched a warts hog crash? Me and my firends did used to sit and watched Warts Hogs practiced low altitude through of valleys flying fromed at VOLK AFB and then fly over of I-94 highway. They scared drivers very a lot when did they fly over the highway at VERY low.
The thing is they'll know that there is not enough to deal with a standoff level strike against the convoy if the us really decided to, they ain't so stupid to SEnd inn A-10 so deep into keive while they could use standoff weapons that will be less of a provocation although any way it'll mean war
When I was stationed in Bremerhaven Germany 1979 to 1981 with the USAF, we had A-10As from England bases practice on our three mobile radar units during training exercises. No fun looking at 30MM cannon coming at you. But, you knew the Russian would be looking at the same thing if the balloon went up.
I had exactly the same experience when stationed in Seedorf Germany 1982 when our M577 (artillery command vehicle|) was targeted by an A10 doing practice runs. Only the short Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt was absent, otherwise we would have been lit up like a christmastree! Glad they fight on our side.
Ha! When I saw the 40-mile stalled out convoy, I immediately thought of the target rich environment for an A-10 squadron. Thank you, and good shooting Capt. To add a comment, the convoy didn't have air defense. Russia expected nothing from the West, Russian AF would have air dominance, and the whole "military operation" would take just 2 to 3 days. The logistics got this convoy. No fuel. They did not deploy anything, and only started the armored vehicles periodically for heat. Remember, it was freezing. 🥶🥶🥶 Bayraktar TB2s cruised the stalled out convoy with impunity. Lots of videos.
@@NDR-hn3ue They certainly weren't kitted out for anything longer. Actions speak louder than words and of course you cant expect anyone that was in charge and still alive or not under arrest to admit anything....... BUT, the organization of the convoy, the suicide runs into Kiev, the chopper assaults into near by airports unsupported then disbanded..... It all pretty much matches how an attempted replay of the little green men move into Crimea would look if they were expecting the same tactics to work on a much larger national level. Actions speak louder than words...... But you already knew all this didnt you....??? lol
"In reality..." *In reality* the Russians, in the early parts of the war, didn't turn on their engines to power up their mobile radars very often because they had sold off up to two thirds of their diesel to Belorussians _at the unit level_ . The Awacs operated _inside_ of Russia while the ground forces depended on Belorussia for early warnings. That may have led to a communication delay. This is why Ukraine pulled off a few helicopter attacks early on. I shudder to think of what it might have been like if their air force had been more significant.
I was thinking if the Ukrainian military had 10 - A 10 THUNDERBOLTS , KNOWN AS THE WARTHOG @ ITS A GREAT TANK KILLING FIGHTER, MAD VLAD WOULDN'T HAVE HAD ANY TANKS IN UKRAINE IF THOSE WARTHOG FIGHTER JETS WERE IN UKRAINIAN SKYS .
@@russell4370 The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog" is a subsonic attack aircraft, not a fighter. When an aircraft in the US military inventory is designated "attack," it's primary mission is CAS (close air support.) However, there are aircraft that are considered multi-role, such as the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. The F is for fighter. A is for attack.
@@russell4370 Fool, you really think that 10 attacker aircraft can destroy 1k tanks and hundreds of other vehicles??? The realistic number of A-10s that would be needed to kill all the tanks is MINIMUM 1,000, probably even bigger (1.1K/D ratio). Russians have the best SAMs in the world (This is one of the upperhands that Russia has over US). Ukraine has almost no Bayraktars and jets because of them
@@МаксимФиллипин I guess you never heard of the highway of death when the Iraqi military was stealing all the nice stuff from Kuwait and the A 10s turned a 50 mile stretch of highway into burning scrap metal, exactly what they would have done to Russian tanks, you shouldn't comment on topics that you know nothing about, the A 10 was designed to destroy tanks and other armor , 10 would have turned the 40 miles of Russian tanks into scrap metals really quick @ GAU 20 MM CANNON in its nose that shoots spent uranium at 600 rounds a minute smart ass .
This mission is why the A-10 was born. The "titanium bathtub" was to keep the pilot alive over the convoy while hunting Shilkas, Gadfly and Gecko launchers. All of this while keeping an eye out for Grouse and/or Gimlet launches. Out-runners hunt the AAA, while the Death or Glory boys casually stroll right down the line of the convoy, doing nice little pop-ups every now then to, continue their gun runs. Chaff and flares were expected to be depleted along with all other munitions. Mixtures of Mk 81 Snakeyes w/ Mk 14 TRD, GBU-8/10/12, AGM-65, Mk 84, LAU and a few other toys. Mix in some fused air-burst, fused nose contact, with a sprinkling of WP and the traditional HE and you have yourself a party. For heavily defended, but vital bridges, you'd switch it up to a bunch of GBUs and glide bombs. MiGCAP supplied by F4/F16/F15 depending on the date. Depending on which scenario or battle plan estimate you read, a convoy of this size would have about 1/4 to 1/3 of its number comprised of AAA, just because Warthogs exist. This was all expected to take place in West Germany in a place known as the Fulda Gap. Life expectancy for A-10 pilots at that time was about 2 weeks.
It's just a truly wondrous machine. Is there something even more badass coming or with the advent of MANPADS and other such devices do they just not really work anymore?
@@sfurules A10's never worked. Also, with the use of drones, its not needed. You'd rather have a drone that can be in the area all day, drop some precise hellfires if you need them exactly where you need them. If you need to attack radar, just use the correct missile (AGM-88 HARM) from an F-35.
@@nukularpictures Never worked MY ASS. Even if we go extreme and say that their stikes were completely innacurate, are you really gonna ignore the psychological impact that beast has? not just on the enemy but for our boys as well. Go on, search strikes on youtube and tell me how many soldiers are cheering or getting happy when it comes.
I was there at the beginning when the A-10 was being considered for funding. Helped set up targets for them to hit, even some Russian T72s we were given by the Israelis. Near misses also did a lot of damage. One other thing is that the A-10 is for the most part is pretty quiet compared to other aircraft. Finished my service loading and fixing weapon systems with the 91st Tactical Fighter Squadron part of the 81st Fighter Wing located at RAF Woodbridge.
I called them "whisper jets". I've personally watched one getting much "friendlier" with the trees when it tried to rip the shingles off of my parents' house in Florida, back in 1981.
@@avia1295 No. It has dakka, though. Also, it was designed to do the same job as the A-10 and is capable of carrying a variety of rockets, bombs, and anti-tank missiles suitable to the task.
Honestly if this “NATO” mission had happened. Your time over target would have been unlimited, as you would have had F35’s and possibly F22’s, or at least some F15’s for air superiority. Ammunition would have been the only mitigating factor. And. . . some B52’s would haul in behind you to mop up with 250 each, 200 lbs SDB’s. And probably an AC130 or two. 😎🇺🇸
@@marklandrebe3521 You should review the air campaign of the iraq invasion. "overdone" doesn't begin to scratch the surface. They have a whole breakdown over at "the operations room" youtube channel.
its a very good simulation of an attack on a russian convoy headed for Kiev, but i find that it feels a bit slow as an attack of this magnitude would undoubtedly need to be fast, the A-10's are great but they become big targets when flying that low and slow to strafe over and over becoming vulnerable to shoulder mounted AA after the initial strike begins. I would send in 2 pairs of F-18's to locate and knockout the AA systems, then send in the 2 A-10s configured for GBU's and UGBs strafe and bomb the targets, with an additional A-10 to drop cluster bombs along the intended root of the convoy, then send in 2 F-16s with MK-77 Napalm bombs to drop on the north and south of the convoy along the road they are using, circle back and drop remaining payload in the center of the convoy, then RTB with the A-10s, while the F-18's make one last pass dropping any further ordinance on any stragglers and then RTB as well keeping out an eye for any enemy fighters that might have made it to cover the convoy. Note that strike Eagles could also be substituted for the F-18 Super Hornets. That is what I would do, then send in drones to survey the damage done and ground forces to mop up any stragglers.
@@Cauthon75 In a real world some A-10s would defiantly be shot down without proper support with them and they defiantly wouldn't be making multiple passes because each pass is another opportunity to get shot down by MANPADS. not to mention Russia knew they weren't dealing with this kind of firepower so their strategy or whatever you want to call it did not take into account a full airwing of ground pounders coming for them. I think a fully alert Russian convoy suspicious of a potential attack like this would have fire SAMs well before they got into gun range if they weren't flying tree level
If we were using exclusively USAF aircraft, I would suggest something like the F-35 to remove more advanced air defenses and get the best intel possible of the combat area, followed by a mixed attack of A-10s, F-16s, and F-15s with the load outs you suggested. The F-35 is meant to seek and destroy air defenses before it can be targeted, so that mission seems to be perfect. In addition, it’s particular sensor suit is meant to link up with 4th gen aircraft to give them better range and compliment its own limited payload with theirs. If an air response is expected, a follow up of F-22s for cover couldn’t hurt.
that story of the A-10 ditching behind your house sounds very interesting to hear, you should make a video about the story if you havent already. just a thought, i feel others would love to hear as well!
kinda scary that he as a kid was mishandling depleted uranium ammunition casually, hope he never actually touched the leading edge of the shells. or at the very least got sufficient amounts of potassium iodide tablets on prescription to remove the soaked radiation in his body. when the experimental drug "CBLB-502" is released it would be an interesting new drug for treating gastrointestinal & immune systems, very potentially useful for patients suffering from mild to moderate ARS (acute radiation syndrome)
The key would have been to take out the front and rear of the convoy pinning them in. The late winter farm fields to either side of the freeway would have basically been quicksand to tanks. The entire convoy would have been trapped and would have played the proverbial fish in the proverbial barrel. QUESTION: Are the Grim Reapers going to try the mission from "Top Gun: Maverick"?
I don't think they really needed help to be pinned from both ends and while the roadside was probably mostly mud, when attacked - the might have still rather hide risking getting stuck in the mud than be stuck in a neat row that's easy to target. I haven't watched this video, but I suspect the big issue would be Russian air support.
Here were the air defense weapons that were with that convoy. This is based off videos including that of TB2 Bayraktar strikes and from earlier civilian videos on the internet. Strelas, SA-8 Geckos, SA-15s, 2S6 Tunguskas, Buk-M1s, and the Pantsir systems.
@@GrahamMilkdrop Small arms would be ineffective against the A-10. Those manpads might be a bit tougher to deal with but you would have to be outside the vehicle waiting and ready for it. And early on the Russian troops showed very little operational readiness.
@@CombatIneffective Possible that their state of relaxation was due to realistic awareness of actual operational danger the convoys were faced with. For all of the talk in the media there seems to have been little that was actually done to attack these 'weak points'. And when I say 'small arms' I am including .50 cals and 20mm vehicle mounted weapons. I know the A-10 is tough and it has a titanium tub for the pilot but being fired upon in any type of way stops this kind of mission from being a turkey shoot. Britain lost 10 Harriers to small arms fire during the Falklands conflict.
@@GrahamMilkdrop The reasons no attacks were really done is it would have been extremely difficult for Ukraine to have done such an attack. Any air attack would have been in danger from the air defenses Russia had, including fighter coverage. The Ukrainian artillery has been good, but Russia does have ways of finding where the artillery came from and counterbattery fire would have been a real problem. The TB2 Bayraktars and some Special Forces raids did pick off some vehicles and troops, but a massed assault would have been dangerous. Video has also shown that Russian troops at that time had no real expectations because they didn't even know what the mission was. They were poorly trained and had no ability to adapt in the field. Now as far as the mounted weapons, the DsHK 12.7mm might have been a bit of a threat, but the ones above that wouldn't have been much threat unless they were from an air defense asset. That is because stuff like a BMP-2 or a BTR-2 would have a hard time tracking and firing on a fast moving target such as an A-10. I agree it wouldn't have been like this video with a bunch of fuel trucks, but BMPs, BTRs, and MT-LBs aren't much more armored than that of an uparmored humvee, if that. The original BTR-60 couldn't take much larger than a 7.62mm round.
thanks GR. I said this the second I saw that 40 mile lineup. I said the A10 could take out a considerable amount of that convoy and the war would be over before it began. Nice job.
Absolutely Outstanding, that was impressive guys, thanks for all the work in setting this up and for your awesome skills. I didn't think you stood a chance on the last run, but better tactics proved to be superior.
A nato mission of this type would most likely been a multi wave mission. E18 growlers for electronic jamming, A stealth type fighter squadron to sweep in at night to eliminate radars and aa, awacs for overwatch, f15s and or f18s for airial cover from intercepting russian fighters, apache helicopters and a10s for low level strikes all withing a matter of I'd say 30 minutes
Rq-180 would be orbiting at 60,000 feet using SAR to give the incoming attack planes a live moving map of the convoy with target IDs. Extensive EW would probably have opened up a pipe big enough for F-15E or B-1 fly through and do Cluster bombing things on those Russians.
During the Highway of Death in '91 A6 Intruders first struck the front and rear of the convoy at dusk. Then over the next 10 hours of darkness the convoy was hit with pretty much everything in the regional aerial arsenal including several B-52 strikes.
IRL, against such a target I would send the A-10s (obviously) but would have some F-16s equipped as Wild Weasels for suppression of the ground defenses, and some F-15s and/or F-22s as top cover. This would let the A-10s concentrate on max destruction of the convoy. But what you did was a cool video.
@@bernadettejulie2994 Exactly why the Wild Weasels would be needed to take out the multi-layered defenses around the convoy (or at least SHOULD be around the convoy). The Manpads would be a danger, but a much lesser one to the A-10s than the vehicle mounted sustems.
Hahah, that was one of the first thing I thought of when I saw that convoy on the news: "Oh man! if only Ukraine had a couple wings of A-10s!! They'd tear that shit apart in a legendary attack never to be forgotten!" As for these runs, MAN that 4th sortie was intense! So impressive the damage done by both the CBUs and especially the Avengers when lined up for a good run. What fun to watch.
Your comment reads to me like an armchair general with no real understanding of how warfare works. They shouldn't tear apart anything. Russian AA would shred them, which is exactly why the US hasn't sent them any A-10s, and why Ukraine doesn't even want them.
First, I am amazed that war gaming software exists that provides this much realism. Second, a minor point, but depleted uranium isn't much of a problem, unless they are shooting it at you. It must be ingested to injure you. It is a minor threat for its alpha radiation but more so as a heavy metal poison, as would be lead. Depleted uranium is no more or less danger than uranium metal as originally smelted metal. The gist is that nuclear power and weapons needs a higher percentage of U-235. Nuclear power needs minor enrichment (from 0.7%) to about 4%. Nuclear weapons need concentrations of 90% or so. So what do you do with the left overs? Make armor piercing penetrators. Its density allows for ballistic projectiles to have high sectional density, mass/weight divided by cross sectional area. FWIW, the Boeing 747 uses 950 pounds of 'DU' as it may be called, to efficiently provide counter-balance in rudders and ailerons to achieve dynamic stability.
A follow up: I've watched film (back in the day!) of DU penetrators passing through successive plates of steel, as they were testing its effectiveness. Because uranium is pyrophoric, every shard that peals off the penetrator during 'penetrating' burns thoroughly and thus creates a spectacular shower of sparks. RUclips has videos of such. Early research aimed to make longer penetrators to increase the sectional density. That means 'it don't slow down much' before it reaches its target. Sectional density, ballistic coefficient (determined by shape) and initial velocity completely determine ballistic trajectory. A rocket assist is a big deal. The US has XM1113 RAP.
People that complain about depleted uraniun need to see the bigger picture, if a a10 shoot at you till you turn into swisscheese or you get hit by a shell from a tank, mild radiation from depleted uraniun is the least of your problems
I love that there was just that 40 mile con Valley because I actually just ran out of gas because they’re commanders sold all the gas before the invasion that was great
The long Russian convoys included SAM, Surface to Air Missile systems. There were clear images of SAMs in the convoys. There were also tanks, infantry and artillery. The convoy was not defenseless. A-10s have a limited SEAD capability. Many of SAMs may not have been acrive.
Thats what I was talking about when the A 10 WARTHOGS TURNED IT THE HIGHWAY OF HELL.......THE A 10 THUNDERBOLTS COULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING WHEN 40 MILES OF RUSSIAN TANKS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT COULD HAVE BEEN TURNED INTO SCRAP METALS FOR SURE WITH 10 A 10 WARTHOGS .......
Yup, ground attack is what the A-10 does. If you absolutely want to kill an enemy's supply line, the A-10 is always a good option. And Russia's logistical system is not very good to began with, so if this were to happen in real life this would hurt them a lot... Or as a wise man once said, Soldiers win battles, logistics wins wars.
The A10 is not useful for its original application anymore. An A10 wouldn't even make it to the convoy before getting shot down. There are likely tens of thousands of MANPADS systems distributed everywhere with the russian troops, not to mention the S400s that are covering the sky from potentially hundreds of miles away. You don't deploy manned aircraft in high risk areas like that. A more practical approach (assuming that the full arsenal of US equipment is available) would be to just use cruise missiles or drones.
@@class.C Exactly, even lacking logistics the Russians had major eyes on the surrounding area, a small very low level helicopter could conceivably avoid radar for a short time, but would be more vulnerable to gun based AA, an A-10 unfortunately would be spotted a long ways away, and air superiority fighters would be covering the convoy before it was reached. A massive corradiated air push is the only option. You would need SEAD, attack aircraft and fighter cover, and it would be a dangerous one at that because the Russian AA is effective against high level aircraft, and all they would need to send is lots of fighters to intercept.
When taking out an SA-15, the best tactics I've found are: GBU-12 from 25,000 ft. It can't shoot that high, but climbing that high with all those CBUs will take a long time. GBU-38 from 10,000 ft at top speed. The SA-15 can fire at about the same time the bomb is in range, so you have to turn, dive, and flare immediately on release. Fire four or more mavericks in a quick salvo. It can't track them all.
We need a Jack in a Box tank mod. Great hordes of Russian tanks with turrets flying flying up in the air would be great for Ukrainian troop morale - not to mention we lowly valued viewers LOL.
This didn't unfold in real life because like A-10s, Ukrainian Su-25s would have hard time surviving the fighters and long range SAMs that were active and the Russian incompetence was not yet fully comprehended. They seem to have managed to shoot down several fighters but struggled against smaller drones because I guess their auto tracking softwares finds it difficult to determine the small and slow drones as targets unlike faster planes and missiles. Also why risk planes and pilots when drone guided artillery can do it cheaper
Also the TB2 has some level of jamming capability which combined with all of the above likely makes it a lot harder to manage for a force that isn't well trained for it
Pretty good, but missing some of the realistic parts of such an attack. First there would have been at least a pair of F-18 Growlers to block the defensive radar. Secondly there would have been an AWACS providing situational information and exact locations of the enemy. Third there would have been drones dispatched to take out the defensive guns/missiles. Finally there would have been angels on high (F-22 / F-18) to keep the bad guys away. Meanwhile all the A-10s have to is what they do best, low level attack and wipe them out.
I might have a strange experiment for you. Thinking of Wild Weasel/ Iron Hand duty. Could you use a F35 or F22 to make a target for the sams by having them open their bomb doors, get painted and then close up and notch out to get enemy radar locations that other stealth assets could then "remove". In other words break stealth with their bomb doors then go back into stealth and lose whatever may have been sent at them.
Problem is once the radar operator knows where to search for you it's way easier for them to get a weapons lock. We saw this unfortunately happen with a nighthawk.
The Kuwaiti highway of Death is an apt analogy. Targets all in close proximity, easy pickings. No AD to speak of as evidened by the non stealthy, slow flying Bayraktor drones free to roam and bomb unmolested. Which does make one wonder as mobile AAA, mobile SHORAD missile carriers, and the vaunted Pansir system were all clearly present in the columns
I went to school at the Royal Hospital School in Suffolk, there was an American airbase near by that had A10's and they used to use the school clock tower as target practice for attack runs
F35 maybe as cap, but F15 would have attracted attention of SU35 and blown the element of surprise for the A10s and the convoy would have "tried" to hide in tress, ect.
If US could have flown I would loved to see a B52 bomber with bay doors open. Ukraine would have had to rebuild the road, but oh what a sight it would have been.
Here is another thought about the use of A-10s against SAMs... I don't believe that they have ever carried them, but what if A-10s were equipped with HARMs and used the HARM Targeting System Pod like the F-16 does to give greater targeting ability over the HARM's buit-in systems? If the systems were compatible with the A-10's (or the A-10's could be upgraded), that would give the A-10 the ability to kill enemy radars from 50+ miles away... using a missile that is much harder to counter-missile than the Maverick. I can see that allowing a devastating 1-2 punch when employed in coordination with the F-16 Wild Weasels.
(The reason why the A-10 pulls to the right upon landing is......that the "Gau-8/A Avenger" or other iterations, forced the front landing gear on all models to be off center and placed slightly to the right." I don't know if this is coincidentally modeled.)
Would be interesting to see how the F-35 would stack up in this scenario, with a theoretical max load of 24 SDBs. Or, say, a combo of SDBs and CBUs. The 25mm wouldn't last long, but would do some damage.
Ya'll talking about how the A-10 is such a great plane for ground attack are completely neglecting the losses and poor performance it displayed in Desert Storm. It was never designed to operate in defended airspace and had to be pulled from combat areas in favor of F-111s and F-16s, which are fast enough to actually dodge missiles. A-10 is not a good plane for killing anything that is defended, but that's exactly the role F-35 was built for and y'all are willfully ignoring that fact. If you have to run dedicated SEAD and DEAD missions to clear the airspace for an A-10 to operate, you may as well use those same planes to bomb the tanks and convoys because they have similar ground attack capabilities anyway. Bonus if the plane is in active production (A-10 production stopped in the 80s so losses have been irreplaceable for 40 years now). And none of this even touches the fact that an A-10 is literally defenseless against enemy planes.
the right tool for the right job, planes like the F-35 can escort the A-10s and take out the SPAA, while the A10's dispense freedom on their targets. since most of this Russo-Ukrainian War has barely seen any airforce presence on the Russians side and only a modicum any AA to speak of, this would be a walk in the park for a strike group of A-10's and F-35's
@@chloekaftan It's been a pretty well documented strategic fact that an aircraft that needs an escort needs to have significant advantages to justify the escort. This has been known since WWII. An F-16 has essentially the same payload as an A-10 and can escort itself to some extent while also being less vulnerable to SAMs and AAA. Aside from that, USAF has significantly more F-16s than A-10s, and so losses among F-16s (which are factually lower than for A-10s) are more sustainable, especially given the A-10 has been out of production for so long. A-10 has no place in airspace that has a chance of being defended. This is why USAF pulled them back during Desert Storm, and let's remember that the Iraqi army in 1991 wasn't exactly known for being well trained or highly skilled. As for Russia's air defense, it's obviously good enough to prevent Ukraine from doing much beyond drones. Underestimating the enemy is a bad plan.
I think you should run this with zu trucks and manpads mixed into the convoy, along with the dedicated AD units spread around the edges. The real convoy would absolutely have things capable of shooting back, even if their only mission was to move to theatre, they'd get used to shoot back in the event of an air attack on the convoy.
It really shows how good the russian armed forces are that none of these simulations have turned into actual operations. Considering the success you guys continually have. Thanks guys another great video
I think you're misreading the situation, the Ukrainians simply don't have the air assets or personnel to conduct these operations even if they wanted to.
@@juliusfucik4011 reaper has made a whole series of scenerios of the allies ( im sure thats the name west would love) doing opeations against russia and succeeding. in real life these have not occured. i was giving credit to the russian armed forces for doing their job
@@estellemelodimitchell8259 You are right. If I'd said 'measurably' I'd have been on safe ground, but other references suggest they only lose a few mph with short strafing bursts. Boomer here, when the weapon was first being deployed momentum/speed loss was described as 'needing management' and I thought of it no further. Remember, too, that these planes fire this weapon at speeds closer to 'stall' than in other modes of flight. It is impressive that it can propel about one pound of projectile and gas to a speed of over 3,000 fps at 1,800 rounds per minute. That's a punch. But now with effective anti-aircraft missiles being shoulder-fired, I've got to believe mission planners would think twice about deploying them.
NICE ! A10's have been my favorite I wrote to them as a child Fairchild Republic in Maryland they sent some nice stuff to me back then I've seen them in action before and also see them almost everyday here. Whistling death /Tank killers 👍🏾💪🏾✌🏾
Hi Cap! I want see something like 100s++ of zero fighter, P51, and or ww2 carrier group etc against those modern warfare systems. Would large number win?
I would thing that the A-10s from Osan would have stayed in Korea. Also, concerning the aircraft that crashed near Kap's house, I would be surprised if it carried API (DU) ammo (unless there is a large live-fire range nearby). And it isn't the slight amount of radiations that is the problem with DU - it is the fact that it is a heavy metal, like lead, chromium, cadmium, tungsten, etc that makes it a health hazard.
I agree, but I also disagree. It it time to replace the A-10, and I suspect its replacement will be unmanned, among other things. It's a dangerous job as it is. That's why the A-10 has a Titanium tongue to protect the pilot from ground fire. But in a Chinese or Russian A2/AD situation, you're going to need to make a new version of the A-10, to allow you to operate in that environment, which will be so different from the original that it will essentially be a new model of aircraft that fills the same role, by for modern conflicts, i.e. against peers or near-peers, not against Saddam or Gaddafi. Sure you would want to establish air superiority with the F-22, etc., first, before sending in the A-10s, but that would likely not have been an option with the 40 mile convoy, because the Russian vehicles dispersed widely as soon as there was a clear danger to them, and if they had thought they were going up against US aircraft, they would have employed completely different tactics and weapons systems. So, realistically, the Russians would not fight US aircraft, knowing they can't beat us in the air, so they would just nuke the carrier groups and the bases in Europe instead with tactical nukes. Realistically with the Chinese, on the other hand, in a war over Taiwan, for example, where Tibet has also declared independence, and there there is a 200 mile long convoy of Chinese equipment stretching through the Hexi corridor in Gansu Province, on it way towards Tibet from the Beijing/Shanghai/Fujian area, where the bulk of PLA population and forces are located. So, in that scenario, how do you strafe that convoy with an A-10? You don't, really. Even if you could penetrate in with stealth aircraft, it would be incredibly dangerous for manned aircraft to try to do to those convoys what our A-10s did to Gaddafi's forces in Libya. However, it might be possible to design an unmanned variant that would do essentially the same thing. If it is mostly pre-programmed and autonomous, you might program it to do almost the whole mission without human input, because engaging a military convoy of clearly discernible tanks, IFVs, fuel trucks, troop carrying trucks, etc., is going to be one of the mission that an autonomous aircraft would be best suited for. You could, perhaps, have a human pilot observing the mission, and perhaps he give a go ahead once the convoy is within visual range, but before shots are fired by the aircraft. With certain other modifications that I will not describe here (which do not include stealth, because you can't really use stealth for what the A-10 does), I believe it should be possible to field such an A-10 replacement, with existing technology, which could strafe convoys in areas defended with a mobile S-400 system, Pantsir, ship-borne radars and SU-35s, without any risk to the pilot, with greater effects on target, greater precision, etc. And flying the thing would be exactly like flying the A-10 simulator model in DCS... Only problem is, DCS is Russian software, and we're training their autonomous combat air systems' AI, by playing DCS...DCS is a work of art, but at the same time, it is time for the US and UK to develop a superior combat flight simulator of our own, and then allow the two to compete in the free market to see who performs best. This is a sputnik moment for us. Russia is way ahead of us in commercial combat flight sims. It's time to put a US-made combat flight simulator on the moon.
@@bignibba380 One 30mm DU round costs $136.70. One T-72 Tank (as of 2012 Russian sales to Venezuela) costs $2 Million. That's a cost to benefit ratio of 1 : 14,630. One Hellfire missile costs $150,000 (2021). Meanwhile, an Iraqi insurgent bongo truck costs $3,300 (used pickup in Baghdad costs $500, 5 x AKs costs $1k, an RPG with rocket costs $300, and a PK machine gun costs $1,500 due to high demand). That's a cost to benefit ratio of 45 : 1. See the difference? Anyone who would simply discard a GAU Avenger (the most efficient means of converting military ground vehicles into radioactive scrap metal in the world today, short of a nuclear warhead), has woefully unrefined tastes in high-output, low cost, destruction. It's not the gun that's the problem. To the contrary, the problem is that we would run out of precision guided munitions within a month or two after the outset of any real war with Russia or China, after which, it's back to battleships, bombs, bullets, artillery, infantry and human intelligence. The trick is to not run out of precision guided munitions, by instead using 30mm A-10 bullets, 16" guns, and 500 lbs bombs with $18k JDAM kits on them, or the like, on 99% of targets, whenever possible and adequate, so you'll still have PGMs for use on targets where there are no cheaper and faster-to-manufacture alternatives that will get the job done. There is a reason we've moved away from that philosophy more and more after 1991. It's partly because we no longer had an enemy that was even 10% as strong as we were, for 25 years after the Berlin Wall fell, and partly because precision guided munitions sell for 10,000 times as much per unit of weight and volume, and per number of targets they can destroy, which results in 10x the profit margins, and the United States still has one major manufactured export that hasn't been outsourced to Asia, Germany or Mexico yet. The philosophy of the giant flying autocannon, which the A-10 concept is based on, will persist with the A-10's replacement, in some form, because that's the most efficient way to wreak the largest amount of destruction on the ground for the least possible cost. Indeed, it will be made more accurate, longer range, etc. But more than likely, if anything, the missiles will be removed, along with the pilot, to make room for more bullets of a higher caliber with greater accuracy and longer range.
@@Gabriel_McMillan not ony that there is 1 thing that nobody can deny, the A-10 is also a massive boost to ground troops making them willing to fight harder and longer, and you cant really put a price on that.
@@Potato-pl5cr I can confirm that first hand, as a former 101st Airborne Soldier, who has seen airstrikes called in with the A-10, and the effects the system had not only on the enemy, but also on our own forces. Now imagine you're the Taiwanese defenders of the coasts just outside of Taipei, and every time the Chinese manage to put a few dozens tanks, trucks and artillery pieces on the beach, several hundreds million dollars worth of equipment, it keeps getting turned into metallic swiss cheese, with $1,000 worth of ammunition, in a fraction of a second, using an unmanned version of the A-10, deployed from US, UK or Japanese carriers, or from a makeshift airstrip on a nearby Japanese or Filipino island. Image what a morale boost that would be for the Taiwanese Soldiers and People. Perhaps our new A-10 can even do it without having to come in "low and slow", as the current A-10 is made for, but perhaps it can conduct the same kinds of strikes, with equal or greater efficacy, from above shoulder-fired missile ranges, perhaps considerably higher, and perhaps moving at supersonic speeds while firing, or even faster. Perhaps the bullets are still cheap, but perhaps they cost a bit more than the $136.70 that the A-10's 30mm DU rounds cost, while drastically increasing accuracy, which would drastically reduce the number of rounds that would need to be fired per target, to ensure destruction of the target, while also ensuring that the rounds perhaps target specific subcomponents, to make sure the target will be at least completely disabled, if not totally destroyed. That would begin to sound like a worthy successor, if that were possible.
@42:52, I just looked on Oryx, and only 1 Pantsir has been taken out by air (Bayraktar), the other 6 were a combination of chernozem, bad tires, ground attack, and molotov. Still, having an armed drone take out a Pantsir is like paper beating scissors. Besides there are rumored to be only about 20 in existence in late February, unknown how many in theater.
"I love A-10As. We used to have these in England." I know because I used to crew them at RAF Alconbury (my hometown air base) and RAF Wyton. Dual-citizen here. I joined the USAF but was lucky enough to be stationed near my house in Alconbury (halfway between Peterborough and Cambridge near Huntingdon off the A1.)
4 SPAAs in the whole convoy vs 5 A-10s... Where are more SPAAs in the convoy? Where are the MANPADs? Why the whole convoy is protected with only one type of SPAA, when in reality russia has layered air defense tactic which engages close, short and mid range SPAAs at the same time? Finally, where are the S-400s, S-300Vs and AWACSes?
If in this simulation russians had had somewhat adequate AA defense, all A-10s would've been taken down without launching a single missle. That, of course, would not be very "murica fuck yeah" and kids would be upset, so that's not allowed to happen.
Ukraine-Russia Series:
Fulcrum/Flanker vs Foxbat/Super Flanker: ruclips.net/video/BhXfxc94JAU/видео.html
NASAMS vs Russian Cruise Missiles: ruclips.net/video/pJI_b95jzpk/видео.html
Russian KH-47M2 vs Polish Air Force: ruclips.net/video/cnrVxqL5q9w/видео.html
Su-27 & Drone vs Snake Island: ruclips.net/video/T_oRoU2Ayfo/видео.html
Su-25s vs Russian Convoy At Kyiv: ruclips.net/video/ryV65bUJzrw/видео.html
NATO Eurofighters vs Crimean AWACS: ruclips.net/video/EiJ2dFRh95g/видео.html
Patriot, Gepard & Gripen vs KH-65: ruclips.net/video/ZhxdrNjig1g/видео.html
A-10s vs Russian Convoy At Kyiv: ruclips.net/video/B0tZoo0uLh4/видео.html
USN Tomahawk Strike Kerch Bridge: ruclips.net/video/0vpi8xBygV8/видео.html
USAF Stealth Strike Kerch Bridge: ruclips.net/video/IJbf9Bcxnw0/видео.html
Ukrainian Jets Strike Kerch Bridge: ruclips.net/video/I8FumuZReB4/видео.html
F-22 Raptors vs Russian Fighters: ruclips.net/video/ComRcmrwJWk/видео.html
Raptor/Eagle vs Super Flanker: ruclips.net/video/keqYmuSEo-8/видео.html
USAF Bombers vs Mariupol Defenses: ruclips.net/video/aCsboOG0QU4/видео.html
Ukraine Bombs Snake Island: ruclips.net/video/BX696MKdkb8/видео.html
Stealth Fighters vs Russian Bombers: ruclips.net/video/rym90jnQDsA/видео.html
Sinking Of Moskva #3: ruclips.net/video/NIjoyIieOzY/видео.html
Sinking Of Moskva #2: ruclips.net/video/snjfbj_EwW4/видео.html
Sinking Of Moskva #1: ruclips.net/video/Bxwh6MGLJNc/видео.html
Russia Nukes Britain: ruclips.net/video/rzk45RFQwA8/видео.html
Ukraine Uses Danish F-16s: ruclips.net/video/17Pikrp0QaY/видео.html
Ukraine Uses Polish Mig-29s: ruclips.net/video/zCi4tAIzuOU/видео.html
Russian-Britain Missile Attack: ruclips.net/video/zwIGfabvzHA/видео.html
Ghost Of Kyiv: ruclips.net/video/Yrct8V4n1-U/видео.html
Belgorod Raid: ruclips.net/video/mQykTxt6ftw/видео.html
Eurofighter/Fulcrum vs Super Flanker: ruclips.net/video/MPyIipEhgR0/видео.html
US Strike vs Odessa ruclips.net/video/KeiOHgzic6Y/видео.html
Russian Helo Rocket Lob: ruclips.net/video/118GgGnP_sM/видео.html
Russian Su-25 vs US Patriot SAM: ruclips.net/video/asp69ZD_tO0/видео.html
Understanding Russian SAMs: ruclips.net/video/R4xTxLNZXcw/видео.html
Ukrainian Jets Road Operations: ruclips.net/video/hBpzQhinPbw/видео.html
Russian 40 Mile Convoy: ruclips.net/video/Vr_-2FLblBk/видео.html
Flanker vs Super Flanker: ruclips.net/video/VOAuOFLJGk4/видео.html
Thanks Cap, fun video. As a general matter analysis to complement the video:
1. You guys improved with each run, and just a total of five runs. Now, imagine what a USAF pilot could do with years of training.
2. In reality, this mission would have had at least two fighters/strike aircraft to fly SEAD/DEAD to occupy and destroy any air defense, rather than relying on A-10's to do both jobs here.
3. The number of A-10s per this chunk of road is fairly accurate if you tried to assign attack aircraft to each segment of the convoy by area and/or saturation of convoy targets within a given stretch of the road.
4. The smart-cluster munitions would have actually done even more damage than in this example, as many of the photos and video documentation for this stalled convoy, in particular, had stretches of road where vehicles and armor were lined up 2-3 rows deep on each side of the road. I say this, as you can see the cluster munitions have more of a spread out distribution or wider attack pattern when compared directly with the single file convoy column on the road itself in this example.
5. The 5-minute time limit is favoring the Russians, if anyone, in my opinion. In addition to what I wrote below in #6 concerning their defenses, keep in mind the defensive capability would likely decrease from minutes 5 through ~30 before they were organized, brave enough, and threatened enough by officers, to go and man some heavy defensive guns (.50 cal and above). Limiting it to 5 minutes is more than fair.
6. Some will argue the tanks and IFVs etc. would have shot back, but the equipment from the photos looked largely abandoned (I doubt they were sleeping in potential steel coffins), and I think they went for the cover of local wooded areas. A high-volume attack would likely spook the defenders away as shit was blowing up all around, and that's even if they had any diesel left to power on their systems. That would leave them, at best really, with the occasional brave soldier on a .50 cal with tracers giving up his position. For this same reason (an insane environment, overwhelming firepower, and spread-out vehicle crew and infantry), I don't think there would be adequate MANPADS fire on the attack aircraft either.
7. The munitions used, including the cannon, would be suitable for disabling or destroying MBTs and IFVs, so that should eliminate any criticism that you used trucks as targets rather than armor.
8. If this were a full NATO attack, I imagine they would use B-2s to mop up any significant portions of the remaining convoy, in orbit, as soon as they had the damage assessment studied to identify the best target-rich portions of the convoy. The combination of the SEAD/DEAD mission, initial strike weakening their defenses and SAM capability, and B-2 stealth plus high altitude should have resulted in a safe enough environment to throw down massive amounts of JDAMs or SDBs over the entire convoy length. Fighter aircraft would escort if AA assets were identified and could actually see the B-2s, and defend against potential Russian CAP or QRF. With Russian jets in the sky, it's part of Russian doctrine to disable S-400 and other long-range SAMs apparently, so long-range SAM threats should be discounted in this scenario.
Sure, a lot of what I wrote here is optimistic, but I don't have much evidence to conclude Russia would be in any other position except for being virtually ineffective if NATO forces were involved in the defense of Ukraine since the initial invasion. Until proven otherwise, this is the only conclusion I can see.
@@jamison884 you're a loser
You talked of watched a warts hog crash? Me and my firends did used to sit and watched Warts Hogs practiced low altitude through of valleys flying fromed at VOLK AFB and then fly over of I-94 highway. They scared drivers very a lot when did they fly over the highway at VERY low.
Ok now i wont read this
I think the brass would have just taken them out with long range/stand off weapons then risk going in without support against anti-aircraft systems.
The problem is that in real life you wont know how many anti air platforms are hidden around the convoy.
HAMMER,HAMMER!!! cool avatar m8 i have this as a tattoo
and the convoy would spread out once they hear the explosions or warned by the radar
The thing is they'll know that there is not enough to deal with a standoff level strike against the convoy if the us really decided to, they ain't so stupid to SEnd inn A-10 so deep into keive while they could use standoff weapons that will be less of a provocation although any way it'll mean war
And Russia got manpads, too...
@@miriamweller812 oooo yeah I forgot, great point, even more of a reason to use standoff weapons
When I was stationed in Bremerhaven Germany 1979 to 1981 with the USAF, we had A-10As from England bases practice on our three mobile radar units during training exercises. No fun looking at 30MM cannon coming at you. But, you knew the Russian would be looking at the same thing if the balloon went up.
I had exactly the same experience when stationed in Seedorf Germany 1982 when our M577 (artillery command vehicle|) was targeted by an A10 doing practice runs. Only the short Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt was absent, otherwise we would have been lit up like a christmastree! Glad they fight on our side.
@@BlackWit11 RussianS, we're waiting to feed u with BRBRRBRBRBRBRBRBRBeakfast SINCE 1982
Ha! When I saw the 40-mile stalled out convoy, I immediately thought of the target rich environment for an A-10 squadron. Thank you, and good shooting Capt. To add a comment, the convoy didn't have air defense. Russia expected nothing from the West, Russian AF would have air dominance, and the whole "military operation" would take just 2 to 3 days. The logistics got this convoy. No fuel. They did not deploy anything, and only started the armored vehicles periodically for heat. Remember, it was freezing. 🥶🥶🥶 Bayraktar TB2s cruised the stalled out convoy with impunity. Lots of videos.
thxx
You saw nothing but a trap.
No more UAF. Your information is false.
Did the Russian MOD say that the operations in the Ukraine theater was supposed to last 48-72 Hours ???
@@NDR-hn3ue They certainly weren't kitted out for anything longer. Actions speak louder than words and of course you cant expect anyone that was in charge and still alive or not under arrest to admit anything....... BUT, the organization of the convoy, the suicide runs into Kiev, the chopper assaults into near by airports unsupported then disbanded..... It all pretty much matches how an attempted replay of the little green men move into Crimea would look if they were expecting the same tactics to work on a much larger national level. Actions speak louder than words...... But you already knew all this didnt you....??? lol
@@NDR-hn3ue No and anyone claiming so is doing so based on wild speculation during the fog of war.
"In reality..." *In reality* the Russians, in the early parts of the war, didn't turn on their engines to power up their mobile radars very often because they had sold off up to two thirds of their diesel to Belorussians _at the unit level_ . The Awacs operated _inside_ of Russia while the ground forces depended on Belorussia for early warnings. That may have led to a communication delay. This is why Ukraine pulled off a few helicopter attacks early on. I shudder to think of what it might have been like if their air force had been more significant.
Chatterbox
I was thinking if the Ukrainian military had 10 - A 10 THUNDERBOLTS ,
KNOWN AS THE WARTHOG @ ITS A GREAT TANK KILLING FIGHTER, MAD VLAD WOULDN'T HAVE HAD ANY TANKS IN UKRAINE IF THOSE WARTHOG FIGHTER JETS WERE IN UKRAINIAN SKYS .
@@russell4370
The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog" is a subsonic attack aircraft, not a fighter. When an aircraft in the US military inventory is designated "attack," it's primary mission is CAS (close air support.)
However, there are aircraft that are considered multi-role, such as the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. The F is for fighter. A is for attack.
@@russell4370 Fool, you really think that 10 attacker aircraft can destroy 1k tanks and hundreds of other vehicles??? The realistic number of A-10s that would be needed to kill all the tanks is MINIMUM 1,000, probably even bigger (1.1K/D ratio). Russians have the best SAMs in the world (This is one of the upperhands that Russia has over US). Ukraine has almost no Bayraktars and jets because of them
@@МаксимФиллипин I guess you never heard of the highway of death when the Iraqi military was stealing all the nice stuff from Kuwait and the A 10s turned a 50 mile stretch of highway into burning scrap metal, exactly what they would have done to Russian tanks, you shouldn't comment on topics that you know nothing about, the A 10 was designed to destroy tanks and other armor , 10 would have turned the 40 miles of Russian tanks into scrap metals really quick @ GAU 20 MM CANNON in its nose that shoots spent uranium at 600 rounds a minute smart ass .
I wonder if a good number MANPADS were added to the defense of the convoy if the A-10 strikes would be so effective?
This mission is why the A-10 was born. The "titanium bathtub" was to keep the pilot alive over the convoy while hunting Shilkas, Gadfly and Gecko launchers. All of this while keeping an eye out for Grouse and/or Gimlet launches.
Out-runners hunt the AAA, while the Death or Glory boys casually stroll right down the line of the convoy, doing nice little pop-ups every now then to, continue their gun runs. Chaff and flares were expected to be depleted along with all other munitions.
Mixtures of Mk 81 Snakeyes w/ Mk 14 TRD, GBU-8/10/12, AGM-65, Mk 84, LAU and a few other toys. Mix in some fused air-burst, fused nose contact, with a sprinkling of WP and the traditional HE and you have yourself a party. For heavily defended, but vital bridges, you'd switch it up to a bunch of GBUs and glide bombs.
MiGCAP supplied by F4/F16/F15 depending on the date.
Depending on which scenario or battle plan estimate you read, a convoy of this size would have about 1/4 to 1/3 of its number comprised of AAA, just because Warthogs exist.
This was all expected to take place in West Germany in a place known as the Fulda Gap.
Life expectancy for A-10 pilots at that time was about 2 weeks.
Wait what
@@chadzilla85 sure.
Always fun to see A-10s doing the lords work.
It's just a truly wondrous machine.
Is there something even more badass coming or with the advent of MANPADS and other such devices do they just not really work anymore?
@@sfurules A10's never worked. Also, with the use of drones, its not needed. You'd rather have a drone that can be in the area all day, drop some precise hellfires if you need them exactly where you need them. If you need to attack radar, just use the correct missile (AGM-88 HARM) from an F-35.
@@nukularpictures Copium addict, I see. Pathetic and embarrassingly predictable.
@@nukularpictures Never worked MY ASS. Even if we go extreme and say that their stikes were completely innacurate, are you really gonna ignore the psychological impact that beast has? not just on the enemy but for our boys as well. Go on, search strikes on youtube and tell me how many soldiers are cheering or getting happy when it comes.
I was there at the beginning when the A-10 was being considered for funding. Helped set up targets for them to hit, even some Russian T72s we were given by the Israelis. Near misses also did a lot of damage. One other thing is that the A-10 is for the most part is pretty quiet compared to other aircraft. Finished my service loading and fixing weapon systems with the 91st Tactical Fighter Squadron part of the 81st Fighter Wing located at RAF Woodbridge.
I called them "whisper jets". I've personally watched one getting much "friendlier" with the trees when it tried to rip the shingles off of my parents' house in Florida, back in 1981.
Michael Gray , Woodbridge in Suffolk , UK , used to see the A10 often
You were doin the lords work my friend
Would be interesting to see the same mission with Su-25s, which Ukraine actually has (had?).
KMGU Dispencers FTW
Su 25 doesn't have brrrttt..
@@avia1295 No. It has dakka, though. Also, it was designed to do the same job as the A-10 and is capable of carrying a variety of rockets, bombs, and anti-tank missiles suitable to the task.
@@avia1295 It does have BRRTTT ruclips.net/video/L9QYZRCsZ5k/видео.html
well the Su25 it's capable of SEAD mission so in this scenario just 1 Su25 whit x6 anti radar missile and some rocket and job done
Honestly if this “NATO” mission had happened. Your time over target would have been unlimited, as you would have had F35’s and possibly F22’s, or at least some F15’s for air superiority. Ammunition would have been the only mitigating factor. And. . . some B52’s would haul in behind you to mop up with 250 each, 200 lbs SDB’s. And probably an AC130 or two. 😎🇺🇸
That sounds over done.
@@marklandrebe3521no such thing for the US of A 🇺🇸🗽🏈🦅
@@marklandrebe3521 You should review the air campaign of the iraq invasion. "overdone" doesn't begin to scratch the surface. They have a whole breakdown over at "the operations room" youtube channel.
@@grantwithers It's an absolute masterpiece of modern combat. Incredibly beautiful!
@@alexanderd6793 It really is bro
its a very good simulation of an attack on a russian convoy headed for Kiev, but i find that it feels a bit slow as an attack of this magnitude would undoubtedly need to be fast, the A-10's are great but they become big targets when flying that low and slow to strafe over and over becoming vulnerable to shoulder mounted AA after the initial strike begins. I would send in 2 pairs of F-18's to locate and knockout the AA systems, then send in the 2 A-10s configured for GBU's and UGBs strafe and bomb the targets, with an additional A-10 to drop cluster bombs along the intended root of the convoy, then send in 2 F-16s with MK-77 Napalm bombs to drop on the north and south of the convoy along the road they are using, circle back and drop remaining payload in the center of the convoy, then RTB with the A-10s, while the F-18's make one last pass dropping any further ordinance on any stragglers and then RTB as well keeping out an eye for any enemy fighters that might have made it to cover the convoy. Note that strike Eagles could also be substituted for the F-18 Super Hornets. That is what I would do, then send in drones to survey the damage done and ground forces to mop up any stragglers.
Right, in the real world wouldn't they just go in and do some shooting and then run and hide for a while?
Why does this feel like a description of what happened in Syria
@@Cauthon75 In a real world some A-10s would defiantly be shot down without proper support with them and they defiantly wouldn't be making multiple passes because each pass is another opportunity to get shot down by MANPADS. not to mention Russia knew they weren't dealing with this kind of firepower so their strategy or whatever you want to call it did not take into account a full airwing of ground pounders coming for them. I think a fully alert Russian convoy suspicious of a potential attack like this would have fire SAMs well before they got into gun range if they weren't flying tree level
f18 is a trashcan , use apaches
If we were using exclusively USAF aircraft, I would suggest something like the F-35 to remove more advanced air defenses and get the best intel possible of the combat area, followed by a mixed attack of A-10s, F-16s, and F-15s with the load outs you suggested. The F-35 is meant to seek and destroy air defenses before it can be targeted, so that mission seems to be perfect. In addition, it’s particular sensor suit is meant to link up with 4th gen aircraft to give them better range and compliment its own limited payload with theirs. If an air response is expected, a follow up of F-22s for cover couldn’t hurt.
that story of the A-10 ditching behind your house sounds very interesting to hear, you should make a video about the story if you havent already. just a thought, i feel others would love to hear as well!
I’d love to hear that too bro👍🏻
kinda scary that he as a kid was mishandling depleted uranium ammunition casually, hope he never actually touched the leading edge of the shells. or at the very least got sufficient amounts of potassium iodide tablets on prescription to remove the soaked radiation in his body. when the experimental drug "CBLB-502" is released it would be an interesting new drug for treating gastrointestinal & immune systems, very potentially useful for patients suffering from mild to moderate ARS (acute radiation syndrome)
I wouldn't mind hearing @Cap's story of the A-10 crashing behind his house either....
Me too. And stealing the rounds.
The key would have been to take out the front and rear of the convoy pinning them in. The late winter farm fields to either side of the freeway would have basically been quicksand to tanks. The entire convoy would have been trapped and would have played the proverbial fish in the proverbial barrel.
QUESTION: Are the Grim Reapers going to try the mission from "Top Gun: Maverick"?
Will see movie next week.
a 40 mile convoy at a stop, that's a traffic jam - only a few might get away if the front & rear were 'free' to move I reckon...
but if the a10s launched they would've seen it and hit them with stand off if not air intercept
I don't think they really needed help to be pinned from both ends and while the roadside was probably mostly mud, when attacked - the might have still rather hide risking getting stuck in the mud than be stuck in a neat row that's easy to target. I haven't watched this video, but I suspect the big issue would be Russian air support.
@@xyzzer yup, & if A10's were around, so would Russian jets
Here were the air defense weapons that were with that convoy. This is based off videos including that of TB2 Bayraktar strikes and from earlier civilian videos on the internet. Strelas, SA-8 Geckos, SA-15s, 2S6 Tunguskas, Buk-M1s, and the Pantsir systems.
i wanna see apaches go against the real convoy
I don't know what manpads Russia has but there's also small arms to take into consideration too. The trucks in the sim were totally unarmed.
@@GrahamMilkdrop Small arms would be ineffective against the A-10. Those manpads might be a bit tougher to deal with but you would have to be outside the vehicle waiting and ready for it. And early on the Russian troops showed very little operational readiness.
@@CombatIneffective Possible that their state of relaxation was due to realistic awareness of actual operational danger the convoys were faced with. For all of the talk in the media there seems to have been little that was actually done to attack these 'weak points'.
And when I say 'small arms' I am including .50 cals and 20mm vehicle mounted weapons. I know the A-10 is tough and it has a titanium tub for the pilot but being fired upon in any type of way stops this kind of mission from being a turkey shoot.
Britain lost 10 Harriers to small arms fire during the Falklands conflict.
@@GrahamMilkdrop The reasons no attacks were really done is it would have been extremely difficult for Ukraine to have done such an attack. Any air attack would have been in danger from the air defenses Russia had, including fighter coverage. The Ukrainian artillery has been good, but Russia does have ways of finding where the artillery came from and counterbattery fire would have been a real problem. The TB2 Bayraktars and some Special Forces raids did pick off some vehicles and troops, but a massed assault would have been dangerous. Video has also shown that Russian troops at that time had no real expectations because they didn't even know what the mission was. They were poorly trained and had no ability to adapt in the field.
Now as far as the mounted weapons, the DsHK 12.7mm might have been a bit of a threat, but the ones above that wouldn't have been much threat unless they were from an air defense asset. That is because stuff like a BMP-2 or a BTR-2 would have a hard time tracking and firing on a fast moving target such as an A-10. I agree it wouldn't have been like this video with a bunch of fuel trucks, but BMPs, BTRs, and MT-LBs aren't much more armored than that of an uparmored humvee, if that. The original BTR-60 couldn't take much larger than a 7.62mm round.
How about a similar video using Ukrainian SU-25s?
Rgr
The fact that they didn't hit the convoy in real life means that it wasn't worth the risk.
thanks GR. I said this the second I saw that 40 mile lineup. I said the A10 could take out a considerable amount of that convoy and the war would be over before it began. Nice job.
Wouldn’t that mission be delivered with two packages? First wave neutralize AA System and second wave strafe the column.
Yes of course but it wouldn’t make for much fun watching the a10 rip apart the Not-Z’s
@@loduke3905 But the tv man said the not-z's were the guys russia is trying to get rid of! lol
Absolutely Outstanding, that was impressive guys, thanks for all the work in setting this up and for your awesome skills. I didn't think you stood a chance on the last run, but better tactics proved to be superior.
Absolutely love how the game has modeled that you can’t hear the brrrrrrrt from the cockpit
You have to keep in mind that the A-10 is slow. 600km/h. But it has a lot of flares and chaffs.
That went exactly as I thought it was gonna end up. Those A-10s are the bomb! I luv them just cause they're beauties!
Yeah just make sure that you aren’t in a British tank around it
A nato mission of this type would most likely been a multi wave mission. E18 growlers for electronic jamming, A stealth type fighter squadron to sweep in at night to eliminate radars and aa, awacs for overwatch, f15s and or f18s for airial cover from intercepting russian fighters, apache helicopters and a10s for low level strikes all withing a matter of I'd say 30 minutes
WW3. Lovely idea
Strike eagles as well probably
Rq-180 would be orbiting at 60,000 feet using SAR to give the incoming attack planes a live moving map of the convoy with target IDs. Extensive EW would probably have opened up a pipe big enough for F-15E or B-1 fly through and do Cluster bombing things on those Russians.
During the Highway of Death in '91 A6 Intruders first struck the front and rear of the convoy at dusk. Then over the next 10 hours of darkness the convoy was hit with pretty much everything in the regional aerial arsenal including several B-52 strikes.
IRL, against such a target I would send the A-10s (obviously) but would have some F-16s equipped as Wild Weasels for suppression of the ground defenses, and some F-15s and/or F-22s as top cover. This would let the A-10s concentrate on max destruction of the convoy. But what you did was a cool video.
Excellent reply
In real life the defence would be 360 with manpads too because they are stationary in the open
@@bernadettejulie2994 Exactly why the Wild Weasels would be needed to take out the multi-layered defenses around the convoy (or at least SHOULD be around the convoy). The Manpads would be a danger, but a much lesser one to the A-10s than the vehicle mounted sustems.
Hahah, that was one of the first thing I thought of when I saw that convoy on the news: "Oh man! if only Ukraine had a couple wings of A-10s!! They'd tear that shit apart in a legendary attack never to be forgotten!" As for these runs, MAN that 4th sortie was intense! So impressive the damage done by both the CBUs and especially the Avengers when lined up for a good run. What fun to watch.
Your comment reads to me like an armchair general with no real understanding of how warfare works. They shouldn't tear apart anything. Russian AA would shred them, which is exactly why the US hasn't sent them any A-10s, and why Ukraine doesn't even want them.
The irony is that in the end all the air defense systems were stowed and uncrewed
Thanks! So much fun and great work to all the grim reapers!
Thanks Speedy!
First, I am amazed that war gaming software exists that provides this much realism. Second, a minor point, but depleted uranium isn't much of a problem, unless they are shooting it at you. It must be ingested to injure you. It is a minor threat for its alpha radiation but more so as a heavy metal poison, as would be lead. Depleted uranium is no more or less danger than uranium metal as originally smelted metal. The gist is that nuclear power and weapons needs a higher percentage of U-235. Nuclear power needs minor enrichment (from 0.7%) to about 4%. Nuclear weapons need concentrations of 90% or so. So what do you do with the left overs? Make armor piercing penetrators. Its density allows for ballistic projectiles to have high sectional density, mass/weight divided by cross sectional area. FWIW, the Boeing 747 uses 950 pounds of 'DU' as it may be called, to efficiently provide counter-balance in rudders and ailerons to achieve dynamic stability.
A follow up: I've watched film (back in the day!) of DU penetrators passing through successive plates of steel, as they were testing its effectiveness. Because uranium is pyrophoric, every shard that peals off the penetrator during 'penetrating' burns thoroughly and thus creates a spectacular shower of sparks. RUclips has videos of such.
Early research aimed to make longer penetrators to increase the sectional density. That means 'it don't slow down much' before it reaches its target. Sectional density, ballistic coefficient (determined by shape) and initial velocity completely determine ballistic trajectory. A rocket assist is a big deal. The US has XM1113 RAP.
People that complain about depleted uraniun need to see the bigger picture, if a a10 shoot at you till you turn into swisscheese or you get hit by a shell from a tank, mild radiation from depleted uraniun is the least of your problems
I love that there was just that 40 mile con Valley because I actually just ran out of gas because they’re commanders sold all the gas before the invasion that was great
Russia has lots of gas. Big fuel exporter. Ninety percent of what people hear is total BS
RAF Bentwaters. Home of the A-10A back in the 80's. Spent a few months there as you say, "A long time ago"
nice
27:30 holy crap that was cool! Well done.
The long Russian convoys included SAM, Surface to Air Missile systems. There were clear images of SAMs in the convoys. There were also tanks, infantry and artillery. The convoy was not defenseless. A-10s have a limited SEAD capability. Many of SAMs may not have been acrive.
That takeoff was like dropping your ice cream cone before getting a bite
The Russian convoy reminded me of the evacuating Iraqi convoy that was absolutely demolished by air forces at the end of the first Iraq war.
ruclips.net/video/Vr_-2FLblBk/видео.html
It was coined “The Highway of Death”
@@Av-vd3wk As we approached the highway later in the week you could smell it a mile away.
Thats what I was talking about when the
A 10 WARTHOGS TURNED IT THE HIGHWAY OF HELL.......THE A 10 THUNDERBOLTS COULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING WHEN 40 MILES OF RUSSIAN TANKS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT COULD HAVE BEEN TURNED INTO SCRAP METALS FOR SURE WITH 10 A 10 WARTHOGS .......
Yup, ground attack is what the A-10 does. If you absolutely want to kill an enemy's supply line, the A-10 is always a good option. And Russia's logistical system is not very good to began with, so if this were to happen in real life this would hurt them a lot... Or as a wise man once said, Soldiers win battles, logistics wins wars.
The A10 is not useful for its original application anymore. An A10 wouldn't even make it to the convoy before getting shot down. There are likely tens of thousands of MANPADS systems distributed everywhere with the russian troops, not to mention the S400s that are covering the sky from potentially hundreds of miles away. You don't deploy manned aircraft in high risk areas like that. A more practical approach (assuming that the full arsenal of US equipment is available) would be to just use cruise missiles or drones.
@@rubiconnn that and they would have been intercepted by ASF before getting there
@@rubiconnn LMAO
@@class.C Exactly, even lacking logistics the Russians had major eyes on the surrounding area, a small very low level helicopter could conceivably avoid radar for a short time, but would be more vulnerable to gun based AA, an A-10 unfortunately would be spotted a long ways away, and air superiority fighters would be covering the convoy before it was reached. A massive corradiated air push is the only option. You would need SEAD, attack aircraft and fighter cover, and it would be a dangerous one at that because the Russian AA is effective against high level aircraft, and all they would need to send is lots of fighters to intercept.
@@rubiconnn If that was the case I'm pretty sure that the airspace over ukraine wouldn't be contested anymore.
Is it just me or we all felt satisfied when you heard those continuous brrts followed by explosions?
When taking out an SA-15, the best tactics I've found are:
GBU-12 from 25,000 ft. It can't shoot that high, but climbing that high with all those CBUs will take a long time.
GBU-38 from 10,000 ft at top speed. The SA-15 can fire at about the same time the bomb is in range, so you have to turn, dive, and flare immediately on release.
Fire four or more mavericks in a quick salvo. It can't track them all.
thx
This tactic works only for Tor-M1. If we're talking about Tor-M2, its missiles can reach 10km high(9M311D or 9M388K missile)
@@Fullerite_ I haven't seen that in DCS. If they add it, we'll have to adapt our tactics.
@@j4s0n39 Oh, I thought you were talking about real life situation
AHHHH...... Thanks for scratching my BRRRRRTTTT!!! itch 😁👍
PS: Use drones to locate defenses.
Nice idea
I AM SCHOCKED THAT THIS ACTION WAS NOT CARRIED OUT IN FACT. AS IT COULD HAVE SAVED MANY CIVILIAN LIVES!!!!!!
By creating a nuclear war between us and Russia??
thanks Captain for a great video Be sure to keep us updated on your beautiful JDM car plz and thx.
rgr
We need a Jack in a Box tank mod. Great hordes of Russian tanks with turrets flying flying up in the air would be great for Ukrainian troop morale - not to mention we lowly valued viewers LOL.
yeah, here would be the only place where the great hordes of russian tanks be blown up. Ghost of Kiev 2.0 )
This didn't unfold in real life because like A-10s, Ukrainian Su-25s would have hard time surviving the fighters and long range SAMs that were active and the Russian incompetence was not yet fully comprehended. They seem to have managed to shoot down several fighters but struggled against smaller drones because I guess their auto tracking softwares finds it difficult to determine the small and slow drones as targets unlike faster planes and missiles. Also why risk planes and pilots when drone guided artillery can do it cheaper
Also the TB2 has some level of jamming capability which combined with all of the above likely makes it a lot harder to manage for a force that isn't well trained for it
Well, in real life A-10 would have support of NATO's jamming parties as well, Ukraine did not I assume.
@@bartoszbaranowski604 Growlers are in the theater right now.
Cap, I'm curious. Does Simba have his compass installed backwards in his craft?
He usually has his screen upside down and backwards
I wonder if he gets lost when driving car?
@@grimreapers or it is just the 3rd dimension, that gets him
Anal cranial inversion?
Pretty good, but missing some of the realistic parts of such an attack. First there would have been at least a pair of F-18 Growlers to block the defensive radar. Secondly there would have been an AWACS providing situational information and exact locations of the enemy. Third there would have been drones dispatched to take out the defensive guns/missiles. Finally there would have been angels on high (F-22 / F-18) to keep the bad guys away. Meanwhile all the A-10s have to is what they do best, low level attack and wipe them out.
So.. an entirely different scenario? Gotcha.
I might have a strange experiment for you. Thinking of Wild Weasel/ Iron Hand duty. Could you use a F35 or F22 to make a target for the sams by having them open their bomb doors, get painted and then close up and notch out to get enemy radar locations that other stealth assets could then "remove". In other words break stealth with their bomb doors then go back into stealth and lose whatever may have been sent at them.
F35 and f22 are mods in DCS how can we possibly get somewhat accurate info on what would happen
Problem is once the radar operator knows where to search for you it's way easier for them to get a weapons lock. We saw this unfortunately happen with a nighthawk.
If you want radar location there’s special SEAD aircraft and antirad missiles that will guide towards radar signatures
I feel like this would be a perfect target for the Old School F-111s or now F-15Es
My thought was more, Apache Longbow helicopters.
F-111s would have had a god damned field day!!! EF-111 providing ECM cover and not a truck would have been left unburnt.
I'm a simple man. I see a Grim Reapers video, I click. I see an A-10 Grim Reapers video, *I click harder.*
Simple = good.
The Kuwaiti highway of Death is an apt analogy. Targets all in close proximity, easy pickings. No AD to speak of as evidened by the non stealthy, slow flying Bayraktor drones free to roam and bomb unmolested. Which does make one wonder as mobile AAA, mobile SHORAD missile carriers, and the vaunted Pansir system were all clearly present in the columns
Just when I begin to suspect I'm watching Grim Reapers imposters, the REAL Grim Reapers reappear, and all is once again right with the world.
yay
Super Cap!
That mission is the wet dream of the A-10 pilots!
agree
I can see that you have been practicing with the GAU8 there Cap, nice shooting.
A10 wardhog is an absolute beast. I always love to hear the sound of that 30mm.burrrt.
I went to school at the Royal Hospital School in Suffolk, there was an American airbase near by that had A10's and they used to use the school clock tower as target practice for attack runs
This is great! But probably would had F-35 or F-15 CAP against AA and fast movers
F35 maybe as cap, but F15 would have attracted attention of SU35 and blown the element of surprise for the A10s and the convoy would have "tried" to hide in tress, ect.
That was pretty awesome, I felt like I was watching on actual war simulation
Ooh. My favorite aircraft… Thanks so much! I was hoping for this. In RL too, if only the US could have done this.
Yep, I wish that WWIII was occurring more openly.
@@Smokeyr67 /sarcasm.
If US could have flown I would loved to see a B52 bomber with bay doors open. Ukraine would have had to rebuild the road, but oh what a sight it would have been.
Here is another thought about the use of A-10s against SAMs... I don't believe that they have ever carried them, but what if A-10s were equipped with HARMs and used the HARM Targeting System Pod like the F-16 does to give greater targeting ability over the HARM's buit-in systems? If the systems were compatible with the A-10's (or the A-10's could be upgraded), that would give the A-10 the ability to kill enemy radars from 50+ miles away... using a missile that is much harder to counter-missile than the Maverick.
I can see that allowing a devastating 1-2 punch when employed in coordination with the F-16 Wild Weasels.
I admit, Hogs with HARMs would be immense.
Actually, in reality Pantsir has 12 missiles
agree
(The reason why the A-10 pulls to the right upon landing is......that the "Gau-8/A Avenger" or other iterations, forced the front landing gear on all models to be off center and placed slightly to the right." I don't know if this is coincidentally modeled.)
Ahhh... penetration....! Reminds me of the 80's Speccy game called Penetrator.
holy fuck that was the line up shot we were dreaming of.
Silly. But B-25 Mitchells with 14x.50 machine guns forward firing? With some fighter cover, of course.
The whole time that convoy was sitting there I was screaming "My kingdom for an A-10 squadron!" The war would have been over that day.
They would also have buk m3 coverage and Kyiv was also covered by S400 from Belarus
I used to live in Ipswich, parents were stationed at Bentwaters AFB with the A-10s. Many moons ago.
Would be interesting to see how the F-35 would stack up in this scenario, with a theoretical max load of 24 SDBs. Or, say, a combo of SDBs and CBUs. The 25mm wouldn't last long, but would do some damage.
in favour! or a bunch of Tornadoes with Brimstone
Im wondering how a B-2 or 21 would do
@@thatonedude2228 Play "Ride of the Valkyries" as the bombs drop.
22:21 the star wipe, what a classy choice!
No cows looking after you in the FARP?
How do you get the planes ready without them?!
They had gone for lunch.
@@grimreapers Ah, well they do need to keep their strength up!
Damn, Cap don't need no CBUs! He's a killer with that GAU.
Yeh that went better than expected...
Ya'll talking about how the A-10 is such a great plane for ground attack are completely neglecting the losses and poor performance it displayed in Desert Storm. It was never designed to operate in defended airspace and had to be pulled from combat areas in favor of F-111s and F-16s, which are fast enough to actually dodge missiles. A-10 is not a good plane for killing anything that is defended, but that's exactly the role F-35 was built for and y'all are willfully ignoring that fact. If you have to run dedicated SEAD and DEAD missions to clear the airspace for an A-10 to operate, you may as well use those same planes to bomb the tanks and convoys because they have similar ground attack capabilities anyway. Bonus if the plane is in active production (A-10 production stopped in the 80s so losses have been irreplaceable for 40 years now). And none of this even touches the fact that an A-10 is literally defenseless against enemy planes.
the right tool for the right job, planes like the F-35 can escort the A-10s and take out the SPAA, while the A10's dispense freedom on their targets. since most of this Russo-Ukrainian War has barely seen any airforce presence on the Russians side and only a modicum any AA to speak of, this would be a walk in the park for a strike group of A-10's and F-35's
@@chloekaftan It's been a pretty well documented strategic fact that an aircraft that needs an escort needs to have significant advantages to justify the escort. This has been known since WWII. An F-16 has essentially the same payload as an A-10 and can escort itself to some extent while also being less vulnerable to SAMs and AAA. Aside from that, USAF has significantly more F-16s than A-10s, and so losses among F-16s (which are factually lower than for A-10s) are more sustainable, especially given the A-10 has been out of production for so long. A-10 has no place in airspace that has a chance of being defended. This is why USAF pulled them back during Desert Storm, and let's remember that the Iraqi army in 1991 wasn't exactly known for being well trained or highly skilled.
As for Russia's air defense, it's obviously good enough to prevent Ukraine from doing much beyond drones. Underestimating the enemy is a bad plan.
I think you should run this with zu trucks and manpads mixed into the convoy, along with the dedicated AD units spread around the edges. The real convoy would absolutely have things capable of shooting back, even if their only mission was to move to theatre, they'd get used to shoot back in the event of an air attack on the convoy.
Maybe you guys should change Simba‘s callsign to Wrongway
lol
All I hear is massive amounts of sweet sweet freedom in my ears
Well, the A-10's would've been preceded by SEAD missions run by Growlers and F-35's
I was there in the USAF at Bentwaters and Woodbridge when the A10s were there.
nice
It really shows how good the russian armed forces are that none of these simulations have turned into actual operations. Considering the success you guys continually have. Thanks guys another great video
I think you're misreading the situation, the Ukrainians simply don't have the air assets or personnel to conduct these operations even if they wanted to.
There are no A10s in Ukraine. .. so what the hell are you talking about.
@@joshs3066 what is su25
@@juliusfucik4011 su25.
@@juliusfucik4011 reaper has made a whole series of scenerios of the allies ( im sure thats the name west would love) doing opeations against russia and succeeding. in real life these have not occured. i was giving credit to the russian armed forces for doing their job
My Heart is smiling :3 that was breathtaking ! Thank you Guys
:)
This may sound like a dumb question... the A-10 doesn't carry Harms anti-radar missile?
It seems like a natural fit.
@@TeenTeenFpv I really thought that was one of its primary.
"Thats how u kill SAM = 6x rocket".....
"I am winchester"
A truly great soldier.....
Fun fact: Rapid fire of the GAU-8A significantly slows the aircraft. To be managed.
This is a myth rather the truth.
@@estellemelodimitchell8259 You are right. If I'd said 'measurably' I'd have been on safe ground, but other references suggest they only lose a few mph with short strafing bursts.
Boomer here, when the weapon was first being deployed momentum/speed loss was described as 'needing management' and I thought of it no further. Remember, too, that these planes fire this weapon at speeds closer to 'stall' than in other modes of flight.
It is impressive that it can propel about one pound of projectile and gas to a speed of over 3,000 fps at 1,800 rounds per minute. That's a punch.
But now with effective anti-aircraft missiles being shoulder-fired, I've got to believe mission planners would think twice about deploying them.
NICE ! A10's have been my favorite I wrote to them as a child Fairchild Republic in Maryland they sent some nice stuff to me back then I've seen them in action before and also see them almost everyday here. Whistling death /Tank killers 👍🏾💪🏾✌🏾
Hi Cap! I want see something like 100s++ of zero fighter, P51, and or ww2 carrier group etc against those modern warfare systems. Would large number win?
Yup in the pipeline.
personally, i would use a coordinated A-10C attack split to take the AA , while having the A-10As joining the attack on the convoy low level in sweep.
I would thing that the A-10s from Osan would have stayed in Korea.
Also, concerning the aircraft that crashed near Kap's house, I would be surprised if it carried API (DU) ammo (unless there is a large live-fire range nearby). And it isn't the slight amount of radiations that is the problem with DU - it is the fact that it is a heavy metal, like lead, chromium, cadmium, tungsten, etc that makes it a health hazard.
I love this channel and the crack
Can you designate 4 A-10s to go after the launchers and the other two with a full armament of clusters.
From what I understood.
They didn't have air protection.
When will the carrier management series continue?
Next vid tomorrow
@@grimreapers *excited
Got to give your "Sensor" a little waggle! 😂😂😂
CAP did you know if you turn Gun PAC off the recoil will help you kill the next vehicle inline.
Tried but gun would not fire without gunpac??
There is an established psychoacoustic effect called "listening with your eyes".
Absolutely beautiful machine and a must have in any modern conflict for the US.
I agree, but I also disagree. It it time to replace the A-10, and I suspect its replacement will be unmanned, among other things. It's a dangerous job as it is. That's why the A-10 has a Titanium tongue to protect the pilot from ground fire. But in a Chinese or Russian A2/AD situation, you're going to need to make a new version of the A-10, to allow you to operate in that environment, which will be so different from the original that it will essentially be a new model of aircraft that fills the same role, by for modern conflicts, i.e. against peers or near-peers, not against Saddam or Gaddafi. Sure you would want to establish air superiority with the F-22, etc., first, before sending in the A-10s, but that would likely not have been an option with the 40 mile convoy, because the Russian vehicles dispersed widely as soon as there was a clear danger to them, and if they had thought they were going up against US aircraft, they would have employed completely different tactics and weapons systems.
So, realistically, the Russians would not fight US aircraft, knowing they can't beat us in the air, so they would just nuke the carrier groups and the bases in Europe instead with tactical nukes.
Realistically with the Chinese, on the other hand, in a war over Taiwan, for example, where Tibet has also declared independence, and there there is a 200 mile long convoy of Chinese equipment stretching through the Hexi corridor in Gansu Province, on it way towards Tibet from the Beijing/Shanghai/Fujian area, where the bulk of PLA population and forces are located. So, in that scenario, how do you strafe that convoy with an A-10? You don't, really. Even if you could penetrate in with stealth aircraft, it would be incredibly dangerous for manned aircraft to try to do to those convoys what our A-10s did to Gaddafi's forces in Libya.
However, it might be possible to design an unmanned variant that would do essentially the same thing. If it is mostly pre-programmed and autonomous, you might program it to do almost the whole mission without human input, because engaging a military convoy of clearly discernible tanks, IFVs, fuel trucks, troop carrying trucks, etc., is going to be one of the mission that an autonomous aircraft would be best suited for. You could, perhaps, have a human pilot observing the mission, and perhaps he give a go ahead once the convoy is within visual range, but before shots are fired by the aircraft. With certain other modifications that I will not describe here (which do not include stealth, because you can't really use stealth for what the A-10 does),
I believe it should be possible to field such an A-10 replacement, with existing technology, which could strafe convoys in areas defended with a mobile S-400 system, Pantsir, ship-borne radars and SU-35s, without any risk to the pilot, with greater effects on target, greater precision, etc. And flying the thing would be exactly like flying the A-10 simulator model in DCS...
Only problem is, DCS is Russian software, and we're training their autonomous combat air systems' AI, by playing DCS...DCS is a work of art, but at the same time, it is time for the US and UK to develop a superior combat flight simulator of our own, and then allow the two to compete in the free market to see who performs best. This is a sputnik moment for us. Russia is way ahead of us in commercial combat flight sims. It's time to put a US-made combat flight simulator on the moon.
A10 is dated trash. The only good weapon it has for modern conflicts are missiles, which can be carried by better suited aircraft
@@bignibba380 One 30mm DU round costs $136.70. One T-72 Tank (as of 2012 Russian sales to Venezuela) costs $2 Million. That's a cost to benefit ratio of 1 : 14,630.
One Hellfire missile costs $150,000 (2021). Meanwhile, an Iraqi insurgent bongo truck costs $3,300 (used pickup in Baghdad costs $500, 5 x AKs costs $1k, an RPG with rocket costs $300, and a PK machine gun costs $1,500 due to high demand). That's a cost to benefit ratio of 45 : 1.
See the difference? Anyone who would simply discard a GAU Avenger (the most efficient means of converting military ground vehicles into radioactive scrap metal in the world today, short of a nuclear warhead), has woefully unrefined tastes in high-output, low cost, destruction.
It's not the gun that's the problem. To the contrary, the problem is that we would run out of precision guided munitions within a month or two after the outset of any real war with Russia or China, after which, it's back to battleships, bombs, bullets, artillery, infantry and human intelligence. The trick is to not run out of precision guided munitions, by instead using 30mm A-10 bullets, 16" guns, and 500 lbs bombs with $18k JDAM kits on them, or the like, on 99% of targets, whenever possible and adequate, so you'll still have PGMs for use on targets where there are no cheaper and faster-to-manufacture alternatives that will get the job done.
There is a reason we've moved away from that philosophy more and more after 1991. It's partly because we no longer had an enemy that was even 10% as strong as we were, for 25 years after the Berlin Wall fell, and partly because precision guided munitions sell for 10,000 times as much per unit of weight and volume, and per number of targets they can destroy, which results in 10x the profit margins, and the United States still has one major manufactured export that hasn't been outsourced to Asia, Germany or Mexico yet.
The philosophy of the giant flying autocannon, which the A-10 concept is based on, will persist with the A-10's replacement, in some form, because that's the most efficient way to wreak the largest amount of destruction on the ground for the least possible cost. Indeed, it will be made more accurate, longer range, etc. But more than likely, if anything, the missiles will be removed, along with the pilot, to make room for more bullets of a higher caliber with greater accuracy and longer range.
@@Gabriel_McMillan not ony that there is 1 thing that nobody can deny, the A-10 is also a massive boost to ground troops making them willing to fight harder and longer, and you cant really put a price on that.
@@Potato-pl5cr I can confirm that first hand, as a former 101st Airborne Soldier, who has seen airstrikes called in with the A-10, and the effects the system had not only on the enemy, but also on our own forces.
Now imagine you're the Taiwanese defenders of the coasts just outside of Taipei, and every time the Chinese manage to put a few dozens tanks, trucks and artillery pieces on the beach, several hundreds million dollars worth of equipment, it keeps getting turned into metallic swiss cheese, with $1,000 worth of ammunition, in a fraction of a second, using an unmanned version of the A-10, deployed from US, UK or Japanese carriers, or from a makeshift airstrip on a nearby Japanese or Filipino island. Image what a morale boost that would be for the Taiwanese Soldiers and People.
Perhaps our new A-10 can even do it without having to come in "low and slow", as the current A-10 is made for, but perhaps it can conduct the same kinds of strikes, with equal or greater efficacy, from above shoulder-fired missile ranges, perhaps considerably higher, and perhaps moving at supersonic speeds while firing, or even faster. Perhaps the bullets are still cheap, but perhaps they cost a bit more than the $136.70 that the A-10's 30mm DU rounds cost, while drastically increasing accuracy, which would drastically reduce the number of rounds that would need to be fired per target, to ensure destruction of the target, while also ensuring that the rounds perhaps target specific subcomponents, to make sure the target will be at least completely disabled, if not totally destroyed. That would begin to sound like a worthy successor, if that were possible.
Man that ground view of the gun impacts just going down the road was terrifying
You are your team should play star citizen. It would be epic to watch.
Will consider
When the ukr war started. Someone done a sim with one a-10 . With out the Russian defence. The 40 miles was gone in minutes . Good show. 👍😊
@42:52, I just looked on Oryx, and only 1 Pantsir has been taken out by air (Bayraktar), the other 6 were a combination of chernozem, bad tires, ground attack, and molotov.
Still, having an armed drone take out a Pantsir is like paper beating scissors. Besides there are rumored to be only about 20 in existence in late February, unknown how many in theater.
Was just coming to make the comment of "yeah if the Pantsir's Chinese tires could survive long enough to get it in a good firing position".
"I love A-10As. We used to have these in England." I know because I used to crew them at RAF Alconbury (my hometown air base) and RAF Wyton. Dual-citizen here. I joined the USAF but was lucky enough to be stationed near my house in Alconbury (halfway between Peterborough and Cambridge near Huntingdon off the A1.)
4 SPAAs in the whole convoy vs 5 A-10s...
Where are more SPAAs in the convoy? Where are the MANPADs? Why the whole convoy is protected with only one type of SPAA, when in reality russia has layered air defense tactic which engages close, short and mid range SPAAs at the same time? Finally, where are the S-400s, S-300Vs and AWACSes?
If in this simulation russians had had somewhat adequate AA defense, all A-10s would've been taken down without launching a single missle. That, of course, would not be very "murica fuck yeah" and kids would be upset, so that's not allowed to happen.
You act like the Russians are well equipped or something.
One of your best missions! Thanks.
First again hello valued broadcasters