If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
THE CASE FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE: 21ST CENTURY SCENARIOS.
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
THE CASE FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE: 21ST CENTURY SCENARIOS.
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
THE CASE FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE: 21ST CENTURY SCENARIOS.
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to build a 21st century Stuka??? | Victor Smootbank | Piloting | 7 | August 30th 07 01:45 AM |
PRATT & WHITNEY PROPOSES F-22A ENGINE VARIANT FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE | Mike[_7_] | Naval Aviation | 0 | May 30th 07 02:44 PM |
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century | [email protected] | Soaring | 6 | September 5th 06 08:16 AM |
Is there a place for Traditional CAS in the 21st century? | Charles Gray | Military Aviation | 87 | March 20th 04 07:05 AM |
"Missile Defense for the 21st Century" | Mike | Military Aviation | 0 | March 8th 04 08:35 PM |