"Charles Gray" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:21:45 -0000, Abe wrote:
On a modern battlefield, I wouldn't give the A-10 much of a life span.
It might armoured like a tank, but it's sitting duck.

How would the A-10 survive in a theatre full of modern vehicle-mounted
SAMs, I wonder?

Not well-- if you sent it in alone. However, with SEAD it would do
pretty well-- A-10's in the first gulf war took plenty of fire from
shoulder fired SAMs' as well as cannon fire and came back in a
landable condition-- imagine an F-22 or F-35 doing the same. Also,
unlike the faster, more "sexy" aircraft, slow CAS can loiter in the
area, prepared to shoot up the odd target.

But doesn't it sort of defeat the very idea of "survivable combat aircraft"
when you need a SEAD package et al to keep it alive?

Sure, passive protection will increase your survival chances in case of hit
but does it really help if you're so slow that you get hit much more often?

It should also be noted that During Desert Storm, A-10's did very
well:

Actually, A-10 operations to some well-defended areas were restricted after
some were shot down. Against something like Crotale or SA-15, I'd rate
A-10's survival odds as very low. Or gun systems like Marksman,
Tunguska...those have _very high_ hit probabilities. A turboprop CAS plane
would be even more vulnerable.

Of course, if you're content about bombing some hapless natives, then maybe
you don't have to worry about such threats and slow attack planes are
viable.