Re: Has an A-10 ever been lost in combat?
Bertie the Bunyip
46d3-849e-e...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 30, 10:14 pm, dumbstruck <dumbst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 2:39 pm, Dan <B2...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > dumbstruck wrote:
>> > > So can we concede that the much derised Su25 Frogfoot was the
better
>> > > solution outside of cold war Europe, and maybe order some export
>> > > versions?http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/su-25_frogfoot.pl
>>
>> > Why would anyone concede that?
>>
>> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> The Su25 is similar but faster, which not only sometimes helps
>> survivability but cuts down the enormous transit time that the A-10's
>> waste between target and distant safe airport. It's a force
multiplier
>> if you don't have a train of aircraft in the air doing slow round
>> trips. Anyway, the A-10 is scheduled to be eventually replaced by
>> F35; wouldn't a Su25X be more in the spirit of Thunderbolt3?
>>
>> I liked the A10 a lot originally, but it is so shaped by that
>> overweight tank-killer gun. All kind of weight, balance, and recoil
>> issues that I don't think the Su worries about with it's slightly
>> smaller gun. Nobody dares expose tanks like that nowdays, so why
spend
>> the extra money rebuilding A-10 with new wings and upgrading to C
>> models like they are now? Just upgrade a bunch of cheap Frogfeet.
Some
>> American pilots visited Russia, and were surprised to love their test
>> flights with the Su25. If cannot improve survivability, make then
>> UAV's (tee hee).
>
> I had an argument with an Army tactician awhile back
> about how an airforce could attack a well equip't army
> prepared in the field. It was brutal and I lost.
> Based on Surface to Air Missiles (SAM's), the Airforce
> will suffer severe attrition against a modern army.
>
> The airforce can spend a $500,000 missile trying to
> blind a $5,000 radar antenna, then the army just
> switches over to the next , and in the meantime the
> attacking aircraft is totally exposed to SAM's.
>
> I think it boils down to sensors.
> Ground based radar is better and cheaper than A/C
> based radars/sensors, and it's pretty hard to change
> that equation.
> Add to that, it's cheaper to launch a SAM than an AGM.
>
> Gentlemen, the electro-missile age has matured.
>
What, you put a light bulb on your Estes rocket?
Bertie