THE CASE FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE: 21ST CENTURY SCENARIOS.

On Feb 11, 3:55*pm, wrote:
On Feb 11, 2:41*pm, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:

They're also elderly and short of energy, which makes them less
survivable against any significant threat. The A-10 is a classic case of
designing for today's problem: it was intended to stand up to
optically-aimed AAA and first-generation MANPADS, but the threat moved
on rapidly.

A-10's weren't really survivable against Iraq in 1991. 144 were sent
and five were lost (another OA-10 was lost too) making it the Allied
airframe that was shot down the most in Desert Storm. 249 F-16's
deployed, and only three were lost. Oh, and the A-10 couldn't use its
gun for most of the war- USAF aircraft were for the most part ordered
to stay above 10k feet, because of the threat of Iraqi air defenses.
For a few days the USAF let up on that requirement, but extensive
losses of A-10's forced the USAF to put that requirement back in
place.

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

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

Chris Manteuffel

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

In message
,
David E. Powell writes
They were also flying close support and going low. So they were
getting in close to the antiaircraft threats.

So were the F-16s and Harriers, with much lower loss rates.

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

Sure, but they still work better on faster platforms that can contribute
more manoeuvre to the DAS's best efforts.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

On Feb 11, 6:16*pm, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message
,
David E. Powell writes

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

So were the F-16s and Harriers, with much lower loss rates.



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

Sure, but they still work better on faster platforms that can contribute
more manoeuvre to the DAS's best efforts.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -Thucydides

pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

as long as they understand that the idea is to perform the mission,
not fly fast and do fancy maneuvers.