U.S. blocks Turkey's F-35 equipment over S-400 deal with Russia

[Jredbaron96]

S band detects stealth just fine except the very upper limit which overlaps with x band, however s band has a lower range than L band.

In other words, the main band used to detect aircraft that you conveniently ignore. Low frequency S band radars can only get within 10,000 feet of target.

Your continued insistence that S band is some magic stealth killer, when the actual frequency rages used by most S band radars are countered by stealth designs just shows how little you actually know on the subject.

 

[beerftw]

In other words, the main band used to detect aircraft that you conveniently ignore. Low frequency S band radars can only get within 10,000 feet of target.

Your continued insistence that S band is some magic stealth killer, when the actual frequency rages used by most S band radars are countered by stealth designs just shows how little you actually know on the subject.

Can you point to stealth designs that counter s band other than delta wing designs which are only capable of single purpose designs? Fyi s band was capable of farther than 10k feet, and has been since the 1940's, to believe s band is stuck in ww2/korea level would be the extremme level of ignorance, not only have they been built that way, the sam system with the record on kills used s band and it is called the sa-2 or the s-75, and took out numerous jets in vietnam and after, and it worked on the most ancient of tech.

you literally could look this crap up but at this point I think you are so invested in the argument that you do not want to contradict yourself.

 

[beerftw]

No, they're not. The Air Force is completely correct in saying that they want to get rid of an old, slow aircraft that would be shredded if it went up against modern air defense systems.

They wished to do the same in vietnam and it proved a disaster, the us airforce operates much older aircraft including the c-130, and currently are using the bronco in syria wich is more than a decade older than the a-10 to do the same task, so this getting rid of older aircraft is bs since the a-10 is around the same age as the f-15 and f-16.

Also slow is literally a requirement for cas, if you drop guided bombs from a very high altitude it is literally the opposite of cas. Cas is designed to operate at low altitudes and slow speeds to support troops with precision strikes that can attack enemies while not harming our own troops, this crap has already been tried every decade and every atte,mpt to replace dedicated cas has failed every decade.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, this makes the leadership in the airforce insane as literally the same has been tried numerous times every decade since vietnam, but somehow they expect this time the results to be different from the last 30 attempts.

 

[beerftw]

The fact that you think the F22s would be working in an environment like that with out AWACS is more indications that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. They were not doing any sort of deep strike mission that would preclude the use of it and it it would not make sense to not have them up in the air. Telling the enemy that you have fighters in a couple hundred square mile ( which the AWACS has at least 400 miles) territory doing a CAP mission is not some big deal. As to the F35 working as an AWACS the intent is to have one acting as a relay to others flying silent and unnoticed. It makes perfect sense to those who actually know what they are talking about.

The problem is you don't remember correctly. Every single one of those nations is working on some type of stealth aircraft. And that is not even getting into the countries that have our are working on stealth drone programs. Including Russia. And again you pretending that somehow other countries wanting to buy stealth rather then develop it own thier own means they don't see the value in stealth is just ridiculous. If they thought stealth was a waste of time there are other options. Just like you joke argument that Japan isn't interested in stealth because they wanted the F22 over the F35. You do realize the F22 is a more stealth aircraft then the F35. Your own arguments prove you wrong. I have no idea how you don't see that.

Just like with Russia. Why did they waste money reducing the RCS of the mug 35 if they thought that stealth was a waste of time. You do understand what stealth does right. So why do you thing they are money and time working on projects like the Mikoyan Skat or the Sukhoi Okhotnik.

Again you own arguments prove you wrong and at this point it's rather obvious that you will just make ridiculous claims rather then admit that you are wrong and that the Russian military isn't the greatest at everything. It's pathetic.

An f-22 in an environment with awacs literally destroys any stealth it has, as awacs can be detected much father than they can detect, which eliminates any stealth advan5tage when the enemy knows you are coming. Again older stealth models relied on passive sensors and techniques including internal navigation to bypass detection, modern stealth ignores that and tends to do things that give them away, that is very simple. On the f-35, one acting as a relay is still a piss poor point, as the relay one is detectable no matter how stealthy it claims to be, and without an awacs size radar, it is a given they will be nearby, these are simple basics of radar and detection going back to ww2, which makes me think these air force guys completely ignored prior history and knowledge, or are so sure they will never fight a near peer adversary that they can get away with half assing a design theory.


Go ahead and name the aircraft those nations are working on, go ahead, because so far evidence shows the vast majority are planning to buy the f-35 not develope their own.



On reducing rcs that is not a bad thing until it comes at a cost of functionality, if you can half rcs like with the su-35 or the f-15 silent eagle without affecting any performance it is a good gain, when it comes at a hefty cost of lower munitions carried, major maintenance and downtime costs, or massive aquisition costs for tiny gain, it becomes pointless.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Also slow is literally a requirement for cas, if you drop guided bombs from a very high altitude it is literally the opposite of cas. Cas is designed to operate at low altitudes and slow speeds to support troops with precision strikes that can attack enemies while not harming our own troops, this crap has already been tried every decade and every atte,mpt to replace dedicated cas has failed every decade.

"Man, how come so many A-10s keep getting show down? Oh well, I guess we'll never figure it out."

 

[Jredbaron96]

C Fyi s band was capable of farther than 10k feet,

Read that again slowly, and then get back to me.

the sam system with the record on kills used s band and it is called the sa-2 or the s-75, and took out numerous jets in vietnam and after, and it worked on the most ancient of tech.

Against non-stealth aircraft. Jesus, are you even trying?

you literally could look this crap up but at this point I think you are so invested in the argument that you do not want to contradict yourself.

You have not provided a single source for any of your claims.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Could be. Or as I already stated. 1) The Pentagon would rather NATO countries purchase NATO compliant weapons systems and

And it is not even the US, that is part of the keystone of NATO.

Why else do you think the US ended up using such strange calibers of weapons as 9mm, 5.56 and 7.62?

All members of NATO use common weapon systems for a reason. It is because of supply. If any member comes under attack, they can be resupplied by common stocks that all share. This is a lesson from WWI, WWII and Korea where this made huge differences on the battlefield. Cannons, tanks, rifles, aircraft, missile systems, all are compatible with each other.

But hey, if they want to buy equipment from Russia, I say be my guest. Just do not complain if some conflict with them or a more important Russian ally becomes hot, and you are all out of missiles and have no way to get new ones.

Oh, and the comments about Stealth I find rather funny to be honest.

 

[Fledermaus]

And it is not even the US, that is part of the keystone of NATO.

Why else do you think the US ended up using such strange calibers of weapons as 9mm, 5.56 and 7.62?

All members of NATO use common weapon systems for a reason. It is because of supply. If any member comes under attack, they can be resupplied by common stocks that all share. This is a lesson from WWI, WWII and Korea where this made huge differences on the battlefield. Cannons, tanks, rifles, aircraft, missile systems, all are compatible with each other.

But hey, if they want to buy equipment from Russia, I say be my guest. Just do not complain if some conflict with them or a more important Russian ally becomes hot, and you are all out of missiles and have no way to get new ones.

Oh, and the comments about Stealth I find rather funny to be honest.

Interesting side note. I was at Subic Bay during the draw down . Munitions were piled on piers left and right. Among all the NATO 5.56MM, 9MM, etc. there were pallets and pallets of 7.62x39 ammo.... Official word it was for allies armed with Soviet/Russian rifles.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Interesting side note. I was at Subic Bay during the draw down . Munitions were piled on piers left and right. Among all the NATO 5.56MM, 9MM, etc. there were pallets and pallets of 7.62x39 ammo.... Official word it was for allies armed with Soviet/Russian rifles.

*nods*

Anybody who has studied the support of the Mujahedeen know that almost all of the weapons and other supplies we gave them were of Russian design. Russian rifles, Russian ammunition, Russian medical supplies, etc. This was by design. If we gave them M16s and 5.56mm ammo, then resupply would have been hard. By giving them the very weapons used against them, they only had to kill more Russians to get more.

Also we use it for OPFOR. In the 1980s we had several units that were equipped with Russian weapons and equipment. Primarily for training purposes, so they could simulate the equipment and tactics we might be facing on the battlefield.

About 10 years ago when I participated in a large Air Defense exercise, some of the "enemies" I faced were using actual Russian aircraft. Like the AN-2 Colt, Mi-24 HIND, and MiG-29 FULCRUM. And that was right here in the US.

 

[beerftw]

Read that again slowly, and then get back to me.



Against non-stealth aircraft. Jesus, are you even trying?



You have not provided a single source for any of your claims.

I should not have to read anything slowly, s band operates at range and altitude proportionate to the power and tech provided devided by the bands wavelength.

Against non stealth aircraft well technichally the sr-71 was stealth and it evaded it through speed not through avoiding detection.

I have provided no source nor have you, if you like though I can post plenty, it is literally a simple understanding of wavelengths that goes back to ww2 it is not some magic voodoo. Stealth in and of itself was understood by the soviets before americans and done by accident by the germans before the soviets who stole the research from them.

 

[beerftw]

"Man, how come so many A-10s keep getting show down? Oh well, I guess we'll never figure it out."

How many a-10's keep getting shot down? The number of a-10's shot down is extremely low considering they fly in extremely hostile environments.


Also This is literally a cas requirement, to demand aircraft fly high and outside radar is the same as trying to design warfare to fit your equipment rather than building equipment to fight the wars you fight. There are no surgical strikes when you are high in the air using guided bombs, as bombs in a close environment where your own soldiers are fighting is extremely counter productive, hence why the famous brrt is so loved from the a-10, it not only tears things up, it is precise enough to do so without killing more of your own guys than enemies.

Trying to justify cas that is not cas is about as worthless as the crap the army pulled to keep the acu uniform rolling, it matched no battlefield except urban, but not urban of any environment we fought since the middle east painted their houses every color of the gay rainbow. When I deployed I noticed gray gravel seemed to cover every inch of every fob, and it dawned on me, the acu was such terrible camo that to defend it's use instead of using real camo to match their environment they tried to make the environment the soldiers operated match the camo. Imagine the same with the f-35, it does not meet cas requirements, to the airforce is trying to fabricate new requirements that defy battlefield logic to justify the f-35 as the a-10 replacement.

Fyi the airforce still operates much older aircraft than the a-10 just for cas, and the f-15 and f-16 is in the same age bracket, the c-130 and the chinook helicopter goes back to the 1950's, so this whole it is old bs is just that, bs.

 

[Jredbaron96]

snip

God you are practically incoherent.

Fixed-wing gunships are worthless free kills to anyone with the most rudimentary of anti-air weapons. AC-130s are strictly limited to night operations, and in the Gulf War one died ignominiously to a SA-7, a 1960s uncooled IR MANPADS that stopped being a threat to real combat aircraft in the mid-70s.

Against modern day air defense systems you either need to be fast or stealthy. That's why attack helos are being built by everyone but fixed wing gunships are largely legacy stuff from the 70s. The A-10 is old and the USAF realizes it would be gutted by modern IADS.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Against non stealth aircraft well technichally the sr-71 was stealth and it evaded it through speed not through avoiding detection.

The SR-71 is what many classify as "Semi-Stealth".

This was not by design, but by largely circumstance. The craft was "stealthy", because the shape was effective in throwing off a lot of the RADAR sent at it. But that was just a fluke of design, not part of the actual design itself.

The Northrup Flying Wing designs shared many of the same features. Hard to detect not by design, but by happenstance of the design used. The same with the UK Avro Vulcan. The exaggerated Delta Wing used and small cockpit and upper control surfaces made for an aircraft that was only a fraction of it's actual Radar Cross-Section. After that was discovered, a great many militaries jumped on and designed and fielded similar Delta Wing jets.

Many other aircraft that use wood and fabric also share much of this capability. In the age of RADAR, such aircraft still have a role in many nations because RADAR largely passes through such construction, there is not enough metal to reflect the signal efficiently.

The advantage of the SR-71 mostly came from it's speed and altitude. Very few Soviet missiles could reach a target flying at 80,000 feet. And when that target is cooking along at MACH 3.3+, it is past and gone before you can really get a lock on and engage it. They had tried the same thing with only high altitude previously with the U-2, but we all know how that went.

 

[Oozlefinch]

How many a-10's keep getting shot down? The number of a-10's shot down is extremely low considering they fly in extremely hostile environments.

The actual number that have been shot down is 4.

In April 2003 one was shot down over Iraq by a German made ROLAND missile. That is the only loss since 1991.

In the Gulf War we lost 3. February 2 1991 one was lost to an SA-16. February 15 two were lost the SA-13.

Side note, we did loose an additional 4 OA-10 jets, all in 1991. Two to groundfire on February 15. One shot down by an SA-9 on February 19. The last on 27 February by an unknown missile. But as the name suggests, those were primarily Observation aircraft, attack was a secondary role.

That makes a total of 8, actually a rather low number considering all of the conflicts they have been in.

I am actually scratching my head at that incredibly nonsensical claim. Yes, the A-10 has a remarkable ability of taking a huge amount of damage, and still returning to base. That is one reason the pilots absolutely love them. We have had dozens hit by missiles and ground fire, and even lost huge amounts of wing and control surface. And still return to base.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The actual number that have been shot down is 4.

In April 2003 one was shot down over Iraq by a German made ROLAND missile. That is the only loss since 1991.

In the Gulf War we lost 3. February 2 1991 one was lost to an SA-16. February 15 two were lost the SA-13.

Side note, we did loose an additional 4 OA-10 jets, all in 1991. Two to groundfire on February 15. One shot down by an SA-9 on February 19. The last on 27 February by an unknown missile. But as the name suggests, those were primarily Observation aircraft, attack was a secondary role.

That makes a total of 8, actually a rather low number considering all of the conflicts they have been in.

I am actually scratching my head at that incredibly nonsensical claim. Yes, the A-10 has a remarkable ability of taking a huge amount of damage, and still returning to base. That is one reason the pilots absolutely love them. We have had dozens hit by missiles and ground fire, and even lost huge amounts of wing and control surface. And still return to base.

It was of course part of the design of the plane. A titanium tub for the pilot to sit in, redundant controls, two engines, all part of the design to allow it to take massive damage, and keep the pilot alive to hopefully fly back to base

 

[Oozlefinch]

It was of course part of the design of the plane. A titanium tub for the pilot to sit in, redundant controls, two engines, all part of the design to allow it to take massive damage, and keep the pilot alive to hopefully fly back to base

Exactly. Hence the "A" designation.

Now when it comes to almost anything military, I am a big believer in "dual use" equipment. Anti-aircraft missiles that can shoot down not only aircraft but other missiles. Guns in tanks that can shoot other tanks, as well as operate as artillery. Vehicles that can be weapon carriers and firing platforms as well as transport. But that does not eliminate the need for specific equipment that are able to do a single job very well.

Since WWII, aircraft have fit into 3 general classifications. Bomber, Fighter, Ground Attack. And while each can do many jobs, they excel at those specific jobs because that is what they are designed to do. Yes, you can strap bombs onto an F-16 and bomb land targets, but it is not as good at doing that as an A-10. You can strap missiles onto an AV-8B Harrier and do air-to-air missions, but it is nowhere near as good at that role as even an F-4.

And the F-4 is one of those craft that was designed as a "Fighter Bomber". Intended more as a fighter than a bomber, it could still do that mission well (if with a limited payload capacity). A similar aircraft in many ways was the F-14 Tomcat. Built purely as a fighter, towards the end of it's life it got an extension when it was realized it also made a formidable fighter-bomber. It earned the nickname "Bombcat" because of their increased bombing capability, but the program to turn them into a full fighter-bomber was cancelled over money and they were scrapped.

The F-35 is an impressive aircraft, but it should never replace the A-10 series (or any future replacement). And while the Air Force has never wanted it, the Army and Marines have enough friends in Congress to keep the A-10 from getting killed. The Hog is not well respected by most of the Air Force, but the pilots of those ugly low and slow things love it. And one of the most interesting developments in the last year or so is SM-27 Machete. The Air Force has gotten permission to acquire small numbers of aircraft to fulfil holes in their requirements, and many are looking to this one to be an A-10 replacement. The SM-27 is a turboprop pusher design, but there is also a jet powered SM-28 design. But both can still use the GAU-8 cannon that makes the A-10 so formidable against ground targets.

But they share much of the capabilities of the A-10, but being decades newer they take advantage of a lot of newer technologies to reduce the cost and still do the mission.

 

[beerftw]

The actual number that have been shot down is 4.

In April 2003 one was shot down over Iraq by a German made ROLAND missile. That is the only loss since 1991.

In the Gulf War we lost 3. February 2 1991 one was lost to an SA-16. February 15 two were lost the SA-13.

Side note, we did loose an additional 4 OA-10 jets, all in 1991. Two to groundfire on February 15. One shot down by an SA-9 on February 19. The last on 27 February by an unknown missile. But as the name suggests, those were primarily Observation aircraft, attack was a secondary role.

That makes a total of 8, actually a rather low number considering all of the conflicts they have been in.

I am actually scratching my head at that incredibly nonsensical claim. Yes, the A-10 has a remarkable ability of taking a huge amount of damage, and still returning to base. That is one reason the pilots absolutely love them. We have had dozens hit by missiles and ground fire, and even lost huge amounts of wing and control surface. And still return to base.

The a-10 is extremely good given the circumstances it operates it, and circumstances that often can only be carried out by a low flying slow moving aircraft packed with guns.

I think we need a dedicated cas replacement, now on the f-35 I feel the tech is there but they focused too much on cramming too much in by trying to make a one size fits all aircraft that is everything for everyone, and it ended up being worse at any given task than any aircraft it is replacing. The f-22 was stealth and air superiority, the b-2 was stealth and a bomber, the f-35 however is poor at nearly everything, and lockheed and the us govt should have focused on building 3 aircraft types rather than one and done. The things like communication is a good idea, as are better sensors and fusion of data, but those could have been done with multiple aircraft.

 

[beerftw]

The SR-71 is what many classify as "Semi-Stealth".

This was not by design, but by largely circumstance. The craft was "stealthy", because the shape was effective in throwing off a lot of the RADAR sent at it. But that was just a fluke of design, not part of the actual design itself.

The Northrup Flying Wing designs shared many of the same features. Hard to detect not by design, but by happenstance of the design used. The same with the UK Avro Vulcan. The exaggerated Delta Wing used and small cockpit and upper control surfaces made for an aircraft that was only a fraction of it's actual Radar Cross-Section. After that was discovered, a great many militaries jumped on and designed and fielded similar Delta Wing jets.

Many other aircraft that use wood and fabric also share much of this capability. In the age of RADAR, such aircraft still have a role in many nations because RADAR largely passes through such construction, there is not enough metal to reflect the signal efficiently.

The advantage of the SR-71 mostly came from it's speed and altitude. Very few Soviet missiles could reach a target flying at 80,000 feet. And when that target is cooking along at MACH 3.3+, it is past and gone before you can really get a lock on and engage it. They had tried the same thing with only high altitude previously with the U-2, but we all know how that went.

The sr-71 was the earliest stealth, I guess your term semi stealth works. However soviet missiles did even then manage to target them, and even fire at them, one even hit an sr-71 indirectly through shrapnel in vietnam which was not discovered until the aircraft returned to base and it was discovered the shrapnel lodged in the wing from the sa-2 missile. The sr-71 was grounded after the hit then brought back into service shortly after with a modified strategy, after which it put more focus on speed to outrun sam sites rather than hoping altitude and low radar cross section was enough.

 

[beerftw]

God you are practically incoherent.

Fixed-wing gunships are worthless free kills to anyone with the most rudimentary of anti-air weapons. AC-130s are strictly limited to night operations, and in the Gulf War one died ignominiously to a SA-7, a 1960s uncooled IR MANPADS that stopped being a threat to real combat aircraft in the mid-70s.

Against modern day air defense systems you either need to be fast or stealthy. That's why attack helos are being built by everyone but fixed wing gunships are largely legacy stuff from the 70s. The A-10 is old and the USAF realizes it would be gutted by modern IADS.

This is all incorrect, as fast did not stop sam systems in vietnam, rather strategy did like learning to dodge the missiles or avoid their path entirely, and even the sr-71 with a very low rcs was still targetted by the ancient systems.


The a-10 has a purpose of cas, which is not to fly fast or high and stealthy, it is to fly low and slow with high cockpit visibility to administer cas support to ground troops on the fly, which also requires high loiter times as well. Truthfully same sites themselves pose a high threat to anything below mach 2, and even mach 2 is not invulnerable except against older nato systems like the hawk missile. Any jet operating in a hostile environment is vulnerable to sams, especially if they use the russian doctrine of multiple batteries with one active radar and many radars and launchers being remote waiting, meaning if you dodged the one radar or even took it out the next one comes in, if you knocked out a launcher, there are probably 2 or 3 hiding where you can not see them. The soviets had practiced such ideas since the 50's, and even went as far as using methods to counter electronic warfare since the 50's as well for sams.

The a-10 is no more vulnerable than the f-35 for sams unless it exceeds 10k feet altitude in which it is not cas at all but rather a high altitude bomber pretending to be cas, and conducting none of the cas roles.

 

[Jredbaron96]

The a-10 has a purpose of cas, which is not to fly fast or high and stealthy, it is to fly low and slow with high cockpit visibility to administer cas support to ground troops on the fly,

Low and slow is how you get shot down these days. Modern SAM systems have shown repeatedly the only reliable methods to avoid being shot down is extremely fast or stealth.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I am actually scratching my head at that incredibly nonsensical claim. Yes, the A-10 has a remarkable ability of taking a huge amount of damage, and still returning to base. That is one reason the pilots absolutely love them. We have had dozens hit by missiles and ground fire, and even lost huge amounts of wing and control surface. And still return to base.

Incompetent and poorly maintained Iraqi Air Defenses are hardly a qualifier when compared to actually competent trained crews manning modern air defense systems. The armor on the A-10 is designed to protect it against flak, not missiles. It was well established by the Air Force that in the event of a conflict with a peer opponent fielding modern SAMs that the A-10 would've suffered very heavy losses.

That doesn't mean the A-10 is useless or a ****ty plane. At the time it was built Soviet tactical air defenses consisted mainly of SPAAGs and it was therefore expected that it would be the most common ground based threat the A-10 would face. It just so happened that by the time the A-10 entered widespread service the Soviets had made the doctrinal and technological switch of supplying their tactical elements with SAMs.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Incompetent and poorly maintained Iraqi Air Defenses are hardly a qualifier when compared to actually competent trained crews manning modern air defense systems. The armor on the A-10 is designed to protect it against flak, not missiles. It was well established by the Air Force that in the event of a conflict with a peer opponent fielding modern SAMs that the A-10 would've suffered very heavy losses.

OK, let me remind you again the A-10 combat losses since the aircraft was introduced. I know I already said this once before.

The actual number that have been shot down is 4.

In April 2003 one was shot down over Iraq by a German made ROLAND missile. That is the only loss since 1991.

In the Gulf War we lost 3. February 2 1991 one was lost to an SA-16. February 15 two were lost the SA-13.

Side note, we did loose an additional 4 OA-10 jets, all in 1991. Two to groundfire on February 15. One shot down by an SA-9 on February 19. The last on 27 February by an unknown missile. But as the name suggests, those were primarily Observation aircraft, attack was a secondary role.

That makes a total of 8, actually a rather low number considering all of the conflicts they have been in.

And you apparently do not understand the role of the A-10 in a battlespace.

A land-air battle has 3 main areas. The one that is the most risky is the ones that operate behind enemy lines. This is the location that they are most likely to come under ground fire. In areas like this it is not the role of the A-10 to take operate, this is the realm of air to air fighters if there is no air superiority, or fast moving air to ground capable fighters, to eliminate such threats.

Then you have the FEBA, or Forward Edge of Battle Area. This is where the enemies are actively fighting. There is a risk here, but that is primarily MANPAD type systems, and conventional Anti-Aircraft Artillery like the ZU-23. The more powerful AA missiles are already going to be roadmarching their equipment and pulling back if they are in this area, because they are highly vulnerable to targeted artillery or even fast moving columns of ground forces.

Then you have the battle area itself, and the area right behind it where stragglers might be found. Also this is the area of MANPAD and conventional AA. And AA missile systems caught here are likely being prepared for destruction, in the event the unit is overrun by land forces.

Oh, and the armor is armor. It is designed primarily to protect the pilot and the cockpit. The aircraft is designed to be able to take a lot of damage, and that is on purpose. An A-10 can loose half of a wing, half of it's tail control surfaces, 1 of it's 2 engines, and loose half of it's control systems and still be able to return to base. And in reality, AAA is far more of a risk to them than missiles. Missiles do relatively little damage to one because of proximity fuses and their using essentially shotgun effect to destroy control systems (like hydraulic lines in most aircraft). Because the A-10 had redundant hydraulic and wire control systems, this is less of a threat.

And missiles are generally not fired more than 2 at a time at most, with a smart missile operator launching no more than 1/8 to 1/4 of their available missiles, less the A-10 be a decoy for some faster moving aircraft armed with HARM intending to take it out while it is bingo on missiles.

But first, let me school you in some accurate terminology. SAM is used to refer to conventional ground to air missiles, like the SA-9 or SA-13. MANPAD is the term for light weight missiles either fired directly by a human, or in the hybrid systems that mount those missiles on a vehicle (like the US AVENGER system). And because the A-10 does not generally operate forward of the battle area, this is a very low threat. In fact, any missile crew if given the choice between an A-10 as a target and an F-16 as the target are going to go for the A-10 every time. They know how resistant the A-10 is to fire, and the fast moving F-16 is much more of a threat both to themselves as well as to their fighters trying to keep them away.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Ground fire however can be a considerable threat to an A-10. Remember at most they are generally fire no more than 1 or 2 missiles at a target. At most they might get off a second volley before the A-10 has detected the threat and powered clear of the area. The ZU-23 on the other hand is most often aimed manually (so no RADAR to warn the pilot), and fires at anywhere from 400 to 2,000 rounds per minute. And those are 23x152mm high explosive or armor penetrating rounds. A hundred or so rounds of that is going to do a lot more damage then 1 or 2 missiles. Especially since a ZU-23 battery generally works in coordination between 3 and 8 guns.


The A-10 on the other hand is almost negligible as a threat to other aircraft. And generally lacks the kind and amount of ordinance to be a serious threat to SAM sites.


Maybe you forgot, but for over 5 years this was my military specialty. And as such I threw myself deeply into not only our own capabilities and tactics, but those of our adversaries. And do not be a fool the Iraqi air defense systems was one of the most sophisticated on the planet both in 1990 and in 2003. What they fell victim to was a well coordinated attack by the US to their command and control system, so each Battery was essentially operating on it's own and blind. We took out their ground communications, we jammed their radio communications, and we prevented them from using satellite communications. By the time one location was able to warn another an attack was inbound, it was generally to late.


And yes, in 2003 the US actually played with a new tactic, of using the capabilities of rapid deployment and emplacement of PATRIOT systems to place them right behind the front line troops. It worked, but was hardly needed since we had such air dominance that it was hardly needed other than against ballistic missiles (something they have SHORAD for now). And the weak link in that strategy was driven home very hard on 23 March 2003 when the Maintenance Company of 5-52 AMD got lost during a movement to a new location with the 3rd Infantry Division and was captured.


After that, the tactic was scraped and is no longer part of our SOP. The risk is simply not worth any possible reward. Now instead they leapfrog forward AVENGER missile trucks and SHORAD. The PATRIOT and all other missile systems (like THAAD) stay safely in the rear, and are moved up once the situation is stable and safe for them to advance.

Oh, and a final note about the "poor quality of Iraqi air defenses". In 1990 they were actually among not only the best trained, but most battle experienced air defense forces in the world. They had only recently finished an almost decade long war with Iran, and almost all of the crews had first hand experience in battle against real aircraft.

Unlike the US forces, which had not actually had any real Air Defense experience since the Vietnam War almost 2 decades earlier.

 

[Jredbaron96]

OK, let me remind you again the A-10 combat losses since the aircraft was introduced. I know I already said this once before.

A-10s took so much damage attacking Republican Guard formations that they had to be re-assigned to lower priority targets.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1991/June 1991/0691horner.aspx

"The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's [less formidable] front-line units. That's line if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard."

You're acting as if being completely blown out of the sky is the only thing that can impede the usage of an aircraft system.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Maybe you forgot, but for over 5 years this was my military specialty. And as such I threw myself deeply into not only our own capabilities and tactics, but those of our adversaries. And do not be a fool the Iraqi air defense systems was one of the most sophisticated on the planet both in 1990 and in 2003. What they fell victim to was a well coordinated attack by the US to their command and control system, so each Battery was essentially operating on it's own and blind.

Oh, and a final note about the "poor quality of Iraqi air defenses". In 1990 they were actually among not only the best trained, but most battle experienced air defense forces in the world. They had only recently finished an almost decade long war with Iran, and almost all of the crews had first hand experience in battle against real aircraft.

Once again, you have demonstrated absolutely no understanding of the actual nature of the Iraqi military and it's performance between 1980-2003.

"Iraqi Air Defense crews lacked proper understanding of the nature of their equipment, resulting in many crews using simple visual identification to target Coalition aircraft. This was largely ineffective, and resulted in Iraq's much vaunted air defense network failing to meaningfully impede the Coalition's air campaign." -Iraqi Perspective Project.

"By about 1983, Iraq had won air superiority almost by default. Spare parts shortages had crippled the IRIAF to about the point where it could only generate 10-15 sorties per day on a sustained basis...The declining numbers of operational Iranian planes ultimately provide decisive in the battle for air superiority because the Iraqis could not make their numerical advantage count in the air-to-air war. Iraqi pilots were extremely timid and frequently aborted their missions when they detected Iranian fighters." -Pollack, Arabs at War.

Iraqi military forces were largely incompetent and failed to show any meaningful improvement in tactical capabilities despite 10 years of war.