Warbirds Thread
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
Largely because they had direct experienced Soviet IADS that was implemented by (at least) semi-competent crews (because Israel gave Egypt their asses thanks to the Israeli Air Force, so Egypt accepted not only Soviet AAA systems like the BUKs and Shilkas but also the training to use them at least semi-competently despite coup-proofing being a priority... and Israel got its ass handed to them in round 2 until the Egyptians outran their IADS). So in that alternate timeline, Israel would have said no to the purchase of the tooling (let's be honest, Israel isn't going to be buying planes, it's going to be buying the tools to build said planes) of the A-10 because they would know that the A-10 isn't going to survive in an actual conflict with semi-competent AA doctrine.
Remember, Soviet (and thus Russian) IADS doctrine is surprisingly robust and tricksy to actually put down, let alone something like the Serbs (who literally made NATO SEAD/DEAD doctrine a laughing stock) putting their own spin on the survivability part of the doctrine.
You have never actually seen how an A-10 is supposed to be used.
also, if A-10s are so vulnerable to IADS, why is there so few casualties of them by such in Yugo and Desert Storm?
bintananth
behind a desk
Yugoslavia managed to shoot down a goddamn F-117. Their air defense knew what they were doing and that was a "don't underestimate them" wake-up call.
Iraqi air defenses, while less than competent, were not faced by A-10 pilots alone. They had escorts clearing the way so they could do what they were meant to do.
You do know how they shot down the F117 right?
Predictability iirc
bintananth
behind a desk
They used a missile system designed in the 1950s to defeat the F-117's "I'm practically invisible to radar" stealth.
To Aaron, if the A-10 is successful in a conflict this automatically proves that the IADS facing them was incompetent. When the same IADS shoots down one of his precious fast movers or a stealth platform it is super competent and proves that we need to get rid of the A-10.
Because they didn't make it unknown where it was coming from.
bintananth
behind a desk
The AF just made it easier for them by not changing things up. They knew when and where to look but still needed to spot, target, and hit something from miles away practically undetectable by then-modern radar.
Have...have you actually looked into how they did it? From what I know they didnt just get lucky
bintananth
behind a desk
Frequency band, IIRC.
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
They did get (comparatively) stupid amounts of losses in Desert Storm until the 'flight floor' was implemented (remember almost 20 A-10s were counted as losses in Desert Storm, by NATO's own accounts no less), and Yugo didn't use A-10s because of the lessons learned in Desert Storm (i.e. low and slow is death).
Anything that flew high and fast had practically half the losses at worst, note this is by NATO's own record keeping.
Only in a largely permissive environment. Every statistic we've got has the A-10 get horrible (to Western civilian, and to a lesser extent military, remember pilots and airframes aren't cheap) damage/loss rates. It is only successful due to a combination of Arab 'Coup Proofing' (i.e. kneecap any and all initiative/inventiveness) and NATO air force aggression. Even in such an environment, only the Tornados had higher loss rates (and they had one of the most dangerous jobs in airfield destruction)... which is saying something.
We've seen what happens when Soviet IADS does when it has actual competence and inventiveness to it... and that is literally running rings around every single attempt to suppress Serbian IADS. The Serbs retained practically their entire IADS inventory, NATO simply ran out of SEAD ordinance and lost an F-117.
That and not being 'coup proofed'.
Should I mention more F16s were written off then A10s.
bintananth
behind a desk
A quick check says that for every A10 ever built there's at least 6-7 F16s.
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
Er, that isn't the case. The A-10 had a surprising amount of losses to it, be those where the damage needs to replace entire portions of the aircraft or cause the aircraft to land dart. Remember, aircraft -even the A-10- requires at least a better part of a day just to fix some holes (remember, even if the bullets pass through, it doesn't mean that the bullets did something on their pass, things like spall are still a thing you know). The more damage inflicted, the more likely it is written off and cannibalized.
High-speed, high-altitude aircraft tend to die anyway thanks to physics. You're just more likely to have the pilot survive because he can properly eject.
This too. It should also be noted that compared to the A-10's losses (be either requiring significant time in the hanger or outright scrapped), the F-16s had very few losses attributed to it.
bintananth
behind a desk
Heck, in terms of the number built there were two Me262s for every A10. Those were extremely fussy jet aircraft which were a terror in the air obove Europe once they got up to speed because nothing could catch one and being on the receiving end of a 4x30mm volley sucked.
The Allies had a counter: attack the airfields because an Me262 is a sitting duck when taking off, landing, or on the ground between missions.
There was a 2nd counter that was almost ready when Germany surrendered: The P-80 Shooting Star. 60mph faster at any altitude and far less fussy than a Me262.
The A-10 continues to exist for the same reason the Russians still use the Su-25.
Both the A-10 and Su-25 are effective battle tested aircraft.
On the other end, we have the Chinese JH-7. At least 6 have crashed for a variety of reasons, the design is godawful, and the quality is abysmal.
Both the A-10 and Su-25 are effective battle tested aircraft.
On the other end, we have the Chinese JH-7. At least 6 have crashed for a variety of reasons, the design is godawful, and the quality is abysmal.
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
Not quite, for the Su-25 was designed around missiles and rockets, not its gun. At the end of the day, the Su-25 is basically a missile truck since day 1 or at least had that capability in the first place.
The A-10, on the other hand, was designed by a certain laughable gaggle of idiots (the Reformers), built around an unnecessary gun (the GAU-3), and had to be heavily reworked to accept what actually destroys vehicles (ATGMs).
You forget how many damn lemons that the Kriegsmarine made in terms of ships between WW1 and 2. Building/rebuilding institutional knowledge of domestic RnD and production is fucking hard. Especially if the majority of your previous experience boils down to 'buy it off the Soviet Union' in the case of the Chinese.
Actually, the P-80 would find itself in the same situation that the Sabers would find themselves in when confronting jets with their .50cals: you'll expend entire bins just to get one aircraft. Hence why most US aircraft were making their way to 20mm cannon towards the end of the war. When you get viable jet aircraft, the .50cal ain't going to cut it. The only reason that the US used the .50cal is that either BuAer (Bureau of Aeronautics) or BuOrd (Bureau of Ordinance) couldn't get a fucking Hispano (which is, to be honest, one of the best aircraft autocannon in the war) to work right and kept fucking up despite getting help in making them work!
bintananth
behind a desk
The P-80 wasn't designed for ground attack or pilot training. By the time Korea rolled around it was obsolescent and that was its roles. A P-80 was not easy prey for a MiG15 in a dogfight and the fuel hogging WWII turbine design meant a large bomb load instead of drop-tanks was doable.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
Because other aircraft did the heavy lifting for them. As others have pointed, they suffered considerable losses early on in Iraq, so they changed tactics, for them to be used only in areas where air defense has been neutralised by other aircraft and even then they were mostly used from higher altitude. In Yugoslavia they were pulled back after two were damaged early on and didn't see much action throughout the war.