4 ms·

They survive pretty well. Don't expect perfection. It's war. Check out the loss rates for WWII bombers over Europe, but we sent them anyway and they worked fine

by tropo 7y ago

They survive pretty well. Don't expect perfection. It's war. Check out the loss rates for WWII bombers over Europe, but we sent them anyway and they worked fine. The A-10 of course is capable of SEAD. It carries the equipment. However... There is no requirement that the A-10 go alone. It can be accompanied by the EA-18G or F-22. If it mattered, we could have the A-10 carry the AN/ALE-50 towed decoy system. The threat isn't serious enough to bother, but we could.

greedo 7y ago
I'm sure the crews in the 8th AF who attacked Schweinfurt in WW2 would disagree. Until the P-51 and P-47 were able to escort the B-17s start to finish, the attrition rate was terrible. Daylight bombing was completely unproductive; the only good thing was that the escorting fighters eventually degraded the Luftwaffe. The A-10 is not tasked with SEAD. The only weapons it could use in that role would be Mavericks, CBU, dumb bombs, and the GAU. It carries the ALQ-131 pod, but that's only for self-defense (jamming). Also, the operational envelope for ALE50 is too high to be useful for the A-10, unless it's going to just be used as a bomb truck at medium altitude. Plus it only has two "buddies" so it's of limited use. If you can get your hands on some of the literature regarding it's intended deployment in Europe if the GSFG rolled through Fulda, you'd be horrified at it. Both it and the Apache would have attrition rates that would never fly with today's voters. And it's not that the threat isn't "serious enough to bother", but that it wouldn't be cost effective to increase the A-10s survivability. If the conflict gets too hot, the USAF simply won't deploy the A-10.
- tropo 7y ago
  Sure, the attrition rate was terrible, but we sent them anyway. That is war. Under the right conditions, today's voters will tolerate the same. Human brains haven't changed that much. We don't tolerate the losses when playing around in Vietnam or Iraq, but another Pearl Harbor will put us right back in the mood. Until such a conflict, our enemies have weak air defense. So either way, the A-10 works. Either we are in the mood for serious war with serious losses, or we're fighting an enemy that can't put up much of a fight.
  - scottlocklin 7y ago
    > another Pearl Harbor will put us right back in the mood... Yeah, well, they kind of said that with the WTC attack, and I guess it's carried us through on a multi trillion dollar war against a bunch of countries that never attacked us, and a growing surveillance hellscape. Pretty sure most people are sick of it. I know I am! Another attack on US territory; well, if they took out certain areas of the government, I'm about at the point where I would welcome them as liberators.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Sent them anyway as the brass's belief in the Norden bomb sight was far in excess of its ability. Tests had been in perfect steady level flight, in perfect visibility in the desert. Daylight raids had horrific losses, yet were repeatedly shown that in practice accuracy was no better. Night raids would have cut losses markedly and achieved no worse accuracy.

by tropo 7y ago

greedo 7y ago

I'm sure the crews in the 8th AF who attacked Schweinfurt in WW2 would disagree. Until the P-51 and P-47 were able to escort the B-17s start to finish, the attrition rate was terrible. Daylight bombing was completely unproductive; the only good thing was that the escorting fighters eventually degraded the Luftwaffe. The A-10 is not tasked with SEAD. The only weapons it could use in that role would be Mavericks, CBU, dumb bombs, and the GAU. It carries the ALQ-131 pod, but that's only for self-defense (jamming). Also, the operational envelope for ALE50 is too high to be useful for the A-10, unless it's going to just be used as a bomb truck at medium altitude. Plus it only has two "buddies" so it's of limited use. If you can get your hands on some of the literature regarding it's intended deployment in Europe if the GSFG rolled through Fulda, you'd be horrified at it. Both it and the Apache would have attrition rates that would never fly with today's voters. And it's not that the threat isn't "serious enough to bother", but that it wouldn't be cost effective to increase the A-10s survivability. If the conflict gets too hot, the USAF simply won't deploy the A-10.

tropo 7y ago
Sure, the attrition rate was terrible, but we sent them anyway. That is war. Under the right conditions, today's voters will tolerate the same. Human brains haven't changed that much. We don't tolerate the losses when playing around in Vietnam or Iraq, but another Pearl Harbor will put us right back in the mood. Until such a conflict, our enemies have weak air defense. So either way, the A-10 works. Either we are in the mood for serious war with serious losses, or we're fighting an enemy that can't put up much of a fight.
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  > another Pearl Harbor will put us right back in the mood... Yeah, well, they kind of said that with the WTC attack, and I guess it's carried us through on a multi trillion dollar war against a bunch of countries that never attacked us, and a growing surveillance hellscape. Pretty sure most people are sick of it. I know I am! Another attack on US territory; well, if they took out certain areas of the government, I'm about at the point where I would welcome them as liberators.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Sent them anyway as the brass's belief in the Norden bomb sight was far in excess of its ability. Tests had been in perfect steady level flight, in perfect visibility in the desert. Daylight raids had horrific losses, yet were repeatedly shown that in practice accuracy was no better. Night raids would have cut losses markedly and achieved no worse accuracy.