A-10 something doesn't add up
By Anonymous | Updated 01/17/26(Sat)06:15:54
The A-10 (1972) predates the appearance of the S-300 (1975) by just a few years.
Unless the S-300 was a complete surprise to the US the A-10 must've been designed and adopted with the knowledge it will be facing "modern air defences".
So why do people keep saying that this Cold War plane wasn't designed to face proper AD?
During the Cold War A-10 pilot training focused overwhelmingly on low altitude flying, and as we see today in Ukraine low flying remains one of the primary methods of mitigating AD.
The idea that a cost effective plane packed full of firepower which excels at low flying is not equipped to operate in a contested air space is absurd.
What also changed between now and 1972 was the USAF becoming loss averse due to deindustrialization, technophilia, and the receding memory of WW2. Pinning everything on technological advancement of AD doesn't add up.
Sorry but I don't really like to think about war >>12735640
Your enemies applaud your cognitive cowardice and I pray I am one of them. >>12735643
I don't have enemies >>12735644
You will if you keep this up. >>12735671
Oh sure I'm really scared >>12735644
You have them whether you acknowledge it or not. >>12735681
I'll be sure to let the people spying on me know >>12735682
You wouldn't have enough time in your life to tell that to all the different people spying on you. >>12735688
I wonder why you're posting here in the first place >>12735695
I wonder why you eat boogers. >>12735698
That's funny >>12735637
It has always effectively been a lower altitude bomber so it needs a fleet and or air superiority to operate effectively
These days they use missiles that hover for a long time in the air like drones and those are harder to counter and maintain air superiority (clear airspace)
Also the a-10 isn’t fully obsolete they probably just want to waste a shit load of money and embezzlement designing a new one with improved capabilities >>12735637
A-10 was obsolete at introduction. Can't run, can't climb, can't pen a t-62, and definitely can't dodge an sa-8 Osa radio command guided missile or even a manpad. S-300 would not really be the main threat to the a-10 because of the radar horizon.
https://youtu.be/4DsWg8Dm71I?si=zGD
>can't pen a t-62
Oh you're retarded. >>12736352
watch the video, hit probability of a hit to be a penetrating hit is 10%, it can pen it but its just dogshit at doing it, makes sense since it needs to hit the engine or on the flat part of the turret to penetrate, also consider the fact that in a fulda gap scenario an a 10 is going to be shooting a t62 from the front about 30 degrees pitch down angle under combat conditions and under fire, so yeah probabilty of a brtttt boy taking out a t62 pretty small. >>12736397
Maybe you should stop getting your information from YouTube videos? >>12736583
sources in description, not like you're gonna read them anyway, pussy ass bitch >>12736103
Sorry but the low angle of the test is bullshit you would want to dive bomb from a higher angle to avoid the curve of the angled armor from the side
Also it would most likely just drop a missle or guided bomb on it from a safe distance
All you can really say is it’s slow and not super maneuverable but it also has powerful engines and a godly radar system can be attached to the top so it can always have a role as a support vehicle
Your video is essentially propaganda showing the 35mm cannon only and from an unfortunate firing angle
The thing is a workhorse
Anonymous is a reporter from /s4s/