Search results

Not necessarily. In fact, the main reason for A-10 losses in Desert Storm was that aircraft was prohibited from flying below 15 000 feet despite being designed precisely for this role. It is almost as if USAF brass wanted to maximize A-10 losses. But low-altitude attacks actually keep aircraft...

Or maybe change the way aircraft are employed? You said that: So what about utilizing fixed-wing aircraft in said role? Basically, instead of going off into deep strikes, they loiter behind battlefield and provide close air support on-call, and in area where one's own artillery can at least...

True, but there will be learning curve involved. Yeah, but that is not just it. A peer opponent would be able to largely neutralize the very systems (radar, GPS, laser and IR guidance) which enable fast movers to perform close air support. And if environment can still be made too dangerous for...

Basically, US Army needs to learn how to fight without aerial support.

Actually, they did not. Serbs mostly gave up due to a) diplomatic pressure from Russia and b) prospect of land invasion (British troops were massed at the Macedonian border). Air campaign, by itself, achieved little to nothing.

So an A-10 replacement should be smaller and more agile to better perform low-level surprise attacks... what about something akin to Blitzfighter proposals?

US Army is spending millions to modernize Apache, which is lower-flying, slower-flying, less armoured and less lethal than A-10. So why not give A-10 to the Army and let them decide on how relevant it is?