Search results

It also doesn't help that various bits of equipment that would be only available to high-end militaries (MANPADs, Body Armor) previously proliferate that even insurgents from Whateverstan have them in usable numbers... and that is exactly the problem.

Unless you're swimming in aircraft, you're effectively grounded unless you want to go the Star Wars Empire route... Sadly enough, it is very likely that like MANPADs and body armor, it absolutely will proliferate.

You would actually be surprised in that regard. We're getting various IR suppression and camouflage systems out in force and getting shit like GURPS's 'blackout paint' (i.e. IR stealth for cheap stakes/people with less advanced industrial bases) isn't entirely impossible. The only reason...

As I said, neither because if you are hit by ground fire in either, shit has gone seriously pear-shaped. The F-16 has the advantage of being at a higher altitude though, which limits on what sort of ground fire will be able to hit me and gives me options in avoiding those options. While the A-10...

Neither because in all but the smallest of cases, I'm already dead one way or another. That is a very resounding, no.

This is heavily due to the opponent, given that the majority of the Middle East is more towards 'coup proofing' their militaries than allowing them to make modern war. Iraq is just one of many of them in this regard. The Yugoslavia intervention used how even a fairly incompetent (in general)...

In combat, any real damage is considered an effective loss due to how aircraft are. Being shot at isn't conclusive to all the components to allow you flight, like being shot at isn't conclusive to living. Out of the various airframes in Desert Storm, only the Tornado got it worse.

However, the AH-64 Apache has one advantage compared to any low and slow fixed wing that they can never replicate, they can be -for all intents and purposes- crabgrass to enemy radars. Trying to fly a heavily armed fixed-wing 30 meters from ground level is -for all intents and purposes-...

If the Iraqis of all people can rip the A-10s apart, anyone more competent would simply outright slaughter the A-10. We've seen the massive difference between Iraqis using soviet ADS and someone competent in soviet ADS in the form of the Serbs. To give you an idea of how competent the Serbs...

The main reason that helicopters are still around right now is that they work far closer with allied tanks and infantry than an aircraft do. They don't go far from said tanks and infantry unless shit has gone horribly wrong. You are ignoring all the other bits into an airframe that drive up...

Only to add sensor mast and datalink capability last I've checked, that and allowing for more modern ATGMs to be fitted onto said helicopters. In a combat scenario, if a SPAAG or MANPAD is in the area, the helicopter(s) have to bug out because they're just in a losing proposition last I've...

Not really, given Desert Storm. Which against anyone with even Iraqi levels of competence is harder than it looks. Hell, the entire NATO SEAD/DEAD paradigm fell apart once it went up against someone that was competent (Serbia). Not according to the Coalition's own data. Losses were 20 A-10s...

No, 1980s Soviet ADS manned by Arabs shredded A-10s in Desert Storm. That is the highest bar you can have for an A-10 deployment. If the enemy has more than one MANPAD between a platoon, well, it's going to get reked. It's a Tactical Bomber, not a heavy bomber, and two that is only for the...

However, PGM capability has also been evolving to meet that threat. If EW capabilities can jam optical, IIR, UV (IR systems are becoming more of UV systems from what I've read a while back, starting with the humble Stinger), or inertial guidance, then even the Mk1 eyeball is useless.

That and the equipment for even a 1980s Soviet ADS is proliferating. The only reason that more 3rd World nations aren't replicating it is because of money. The CAS game has completely changed. It's all about where your ordinance lands, not how close to the troops you are. The more people accept...

Nope, the A-10 took 20 casualties in Desert Storm, the F-16 only took seven. CAS as of the A-10s specs is no longer a thing, hell A-10 proponents have screwed with the definition of CAS so divergently from its original definition (i.e. air support (i.e. aircraft mounted weapon deployment)...

Sadly, the technological context more or less made the A-10 obsolete in its role. CAS is no longer gunning and rocketing shit, it's throwing SBDs and ATGMs at targets at altitudes where the plane has the energy advantage against SAMs and is high enough to stay out of the AAG and MANPAD envelope...

They already did in that respect. Or have you forgotten the 20 A-10 losses in Desert Storm against monkey-export Soviet ADS (and given training by said Soviets in their ADS network doctrine) manned by Arabs whose leaders 'coup proof' their own militaries than allow them to actually function...