On Feb 11, 5:07*pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote:

They were also flying close support and going low. So they were
getting in close to the antiaircraft threats.

Yep. Which is a good way to get shot down. As The Revolt of the Majors
[1] argues, medium altitude high tech PGM droppers get the job done
and are survivable, while Sprey/Boyd style armored cheap dumb bomb
droppers aren't.

Countermeasures against new SAMs etc. have surely advanced since
1991.

It's a queen of hearts race. Both sides advance. My point is that
against the IADS of the Iraqis in 1991, the A-10 was not able to use
its GAU-30, because its armor was found to be insufficient. It's
armor hasn't changed much in the 18 years since, certainly by nowhere
near as much as AA weapons have. The ECM is better, but it's not like
the Iraqi's were using the best Soviet stuff in 1991; what would
facing that have been like? Do you have any reason to suppose that ECM
has improved faster than ECCM has?

[1]: http://web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_...ing/michel.htm

Chris Manteuffel