2 ms·
Low speed is not a problem. Compared to missiles, all publicly known manned aircraft are really really slow. Even the SR-71 was kind of slow, and it no longer f
by burfog 10y ago
Low speed is not a problem. Compared to missiles, all publicly known manned aircraft are really really slow. Even the SR-71 was kind of slow, and it no longer flies.
Radar profile is a minor issue. Normally, the A-10 would be facing unguided and perhaps IR-guided threats. The A-10 has flares and chaff.
I don't think modern radar-guided AAA is much of an issue given the use case. The radar gets taken out, either by the A-10 itself or by something high and stealthy or even by a cruise missile. The larger systems are not easy to move and hide. For the smaller systems, the A-10 can withstand 50mm shells hitting the cockpit armor.
- sandworm101 10y ago>> the A-10 can withstand 50mm shells hitting the cockpit armor. No. Wherever you read that is dead wrong. 0.50 caliber glancing rounds yes, the sort of thing from a machine gun. And it is meant to survive nearby air bursts from 37mm AA shells, their shrapnel, but not direct hits. A hit from a 50mm exploding shell would rip the plane into pieces no matter where it impacted.
- burfog 10y ago0.50 caliber sounds more like the canopy. Minor correction, from Wikipedia, with references: The armor has been tested to withstand strikes from 23 mm cannon fire and some strikes from 57 mm rounds. References: Donald and March 2004, p. 18 Jenkins 1998, pp. 47, 49 Note "strikes", not shrapnel. The armor thickness varies. From some angles, the cockpit can take a 57mm shell. From other angles, it's only good for 23mm.