4 ms·

Ukraine has shown that when your airspace and airstrips are contested, the only real answer is limited CAS where you fly in low, drop your load from as far away

by hajile 3y ago

Ukraine has shown that when your airspace and airstrips are contested, the only real answer is limited CAS where you fly in low, drop your load from as far away as possible, then pop flares and head back. A plane that is highly survivable and resistant to MANPADS is going to be superior. For this, the US has the A-10 which was designed with this exact war in mind. It takes off from a short runway (and it can be a pretty rough runway because the engines are so high), requires more basic maintenance, and is proven to take MANPADS hits then still make it back.

Vecr 3y ago
The A-10 is too old at this point and I really doubt anyone is going to make more. The Sky Warden has better electronic systems but who knows if that's actually going to be acquired. The best tactic now is to fly high enough to avoid laser targeting from the ground and avoid radar targeting with stealth.
nradov 3y ago
The A-10 was designed for an all-out conventional war with the Warsaw Pact. It was never considered survivable even then; plans assumed that almost all would be destroyed in the first few days of the conflict and that was considered acceptable. A few airframes have taken missile hits during Middle East conflicts and made it back to base. Those then took months of extensive maintenance to restore to operational condition, and in some cases were written off entirely. A-10s are not at all survivable against modern Russian air defenses and would be mostly useless in Ukraine.
dralley 3y ago
...No. That's the best option when all you have are shitty short-range Soviet-era missiles and unguided rockets / bombs from the 1980s and radars that can't see anything past 35km. If you have low-observability or stealth aircraft, with powerful radars, and weapons with 80km+ range, you would absolutely rather use anything else. It doesn't matter if your plane is "highly survivable to MANPADS" when A) the enemy has a lot of MANPADS and larger AA weapons, and B) you run out of functional planes because they all got shot up. Not getting hit is strictly better than getting hit, regardless of how "survivable" the plane is.

by hajile 3y ago

Vecr 3y ago

The A-10 is too old at this point and I really doubt anyone is going to make more. The Sky Warden has better electronic systems but who knows if that's actually going to be acquired. The best tactic now is to fly high enough to avoid laser targeting from the ground and avoid radar targeting with stealth.

nradov 3y ago

The A-10 was designed for an all-out conventional war with the Warsaw Pact. It was never considered survivable even then; plans assumed that almost all would be destroyed in the first few days of the conflict and that was considered acceptable. A few airframes have taken missile hits during Middle East conflicts and made it back to base. Those then took months of extensive maintenance to restore to operational condition, and in some cases were written off entirely. A-10s are not at all survivable against modern Russian air defenses and would be mostly useless in Ukraine.

dralley 3y ago

...No. That's the best option when all you have are shitty short-range Soviet-era missiles and unguided rockets / bombs from the 1980s and radars that can't see anything past 35km. If you have low-observability or stealth aircraft, with powerful radars, and weapons with 80km+ range, you would absolutely rather use anything else. It doesn't matter if your plane is "highly survivable to MANPADS" when A) the enemy has a lot of MANPADS and larger AA weapons, and B) you run out of functional planes because they all got shot up. Not getting hit is strictly better than getting hit, regardless of how "survivable" the plane is.