You won't react fast enough woth how the A 10 is supposed to fly. It flies low, the sound is actually not that loud until it would be to late as it pops up and unloads.
No stealth aircraft is silent
Warbirds Thread
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
No stealth aircraft is silent
paulobrito
Well-known member
A lot of anti-aircraft Russia developed are designated to deal with A-10. While Brrt is entertaining, only works in very permissive environments. Stealth is not invisibility and doesn't work at the ranges the A-10 needs to operate.
What Anti air?
Tunguska? The ZSU series? Still need line of sight.
Plus the radar being on will give them away
paulobrito
Well-known member
So needs the A-10. And modern versions have very decent electro-optical/IR look-targeting systems on top of the radars.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
And Pantsir. And Tor. And Buk. And S-300. Russian doctrine envisions deployment of different systems in mutually supportive pattern to create a denial area and not unsupported, like their clients usually do.
paulobrito
Well-known member
Yep, the dastardly Russians use the Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), like it is supposed to be used, not like the usual morons, the US forces are used to deal with.
I always have to remind people that THIS is my area of expertise.
The thing is, the A-10 still flies low enough that unless flying over and open field, they are like attack copters in that they can fly low, pop up and disappear.
I mean, I know this. We have a whole doctrine focused on taking them out.
We also have something called EW and Anti-radiation missiles, and a whole Inteliggence focused on ELINT.
The whole thing is, if they want to be in a position where they are effective, they have to wait until the right moment to turn it on.
One needs to realize the A-10 is still useful in a force on force war even with ADA in play. Because with how quickly the battlefield will change, having ADA on all the time is also a way to lose it and have it not able to move.
paulobrito
Well-known member
And the only time in relatively recent years that US goes against a moderately competent opponent that uses soviet doctrine and weapons, even if dated - Yugoslavia - that suppression doesn't work very well.
Face it - the US forces never confronted the full IADS system, other than the one in the early variants - aka Vietnam. That time takes a lot of losses. What the US forces confronted in last decades are mostly incompetent 5th grade forces.
Face it - the US forces never confronted the full IADS system, other than the one in the early variants - aka Vietnam. That time takes a lot of losses. What the US forces confronted in last decades are mostly incompetent 5th grade forces.
I mean, Yugoslavia did a good job at shooting down a stealth aircraft but couldn't hit the A-10s providing air support and spotting for the pilot who was shot down....
The thing is, no IADS system is perfect, and the US has gotten things in its arsenal to make them even less effective.
Iraq and Yugo both had IADS. Didnt defeat the US AF
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
The problem is that in most cases when the A-10 pops up over terrain barrier the Tunguska and Pantsir will be able to acquire target and engage faster than A-10, due to both system and crew limitations (in A-10 the pilot is both driver and gunner). If they go against IADS, the A-10 will have to be used as they were intended during the Cold War, as sacrificial pawn.
Iraqi IADS was 20 years out of date and poorly led.
Yugoslavia did not have IADS but two dozen SAM batteries that were 30 years out of date. And yet, despite flying thousands AD suppression missions, USAF failed to destroy a single SAM launcher and in ground attacks destroyed only something like two dozen armored vehicles, it was only attacks on civilian infrastructure and American willingness to tone down it's demands that brought war to an end.
USAF tech and tactics did improve since then, but so did Russian.
How quick do you think the Pantsir and the Tunguska can acquire, lock on, and fire and then turn it off right after?
Because in the modern battlefield it is joint actions. Navy with cruise missiles, Army with artillery and air force with aircraft.
he AF has EW, as does the Army to make sure this stuff does not happen.
The USAF is the strongest AF in the world and IADS ain't going to do shit when cruise missiles and long range arms take out said armament before they get to fire.
ELINT is a specialty of mine, and you over estimate how good Russia systems are, and underestimate the various ways the US has to destroy said systems
paulobrito
Well-known member
I said moderately competent - Iraq is not, Yugo is - at the end, the Yugo defense system emerged mostly intact.
I think you overestimate by a wide margin the effectiveness of US systems. Is normal, all of your military service has been against third of 5th rate adversaries, you don't have a metric of how a competent one with modern weapons works. One that studied intensively how your side does things.
We study what our adversaries do in a daily basis and plan for that every damn day. We have changed a lot of our doctrine since then, to prepare for such a war. Longer range munitions, EW, etc etc.
No I do not overestimate. I know VERY well what we are capable of, more so then majority of people here out of having to for my job
paulobrito
Well-known member
You forget that war is a democracy - the other side also has a vote, and most of the time don't cooperate with you, or your way of thinking. Is called the enemy, after all.
You maybe know your capabilities, but you only think that you know the capabilities of the other side, and their doctrine. All wars/conflicts teach us that surprises exist.
For example, tell me the last time the US forces operate against an adversary that can use capable EW systems. Ones that they never confronted before.
Again, you are used to go against incompetent adversaries with old hardware in a very permissible environment. Is not going to stay that way, and no, you don't know how the other side operates. That is the worst kind of self-delusion you can have.
You maybe know your capabilities, but you only think that you know the capabilities of the other side, and their doctrine. All wars/conflicts teach us that surprises exist.
For example, tell me the last time the US forces operate against an adversary that can use capable EW systems. Ones that they never confronted before.
Again, you are used to go against incompetent adversaries with old hardware in a very permissible environment. Is not going to stay that way, and no, you don't know how the other side operates. That is the worst kind of self-delusion you can have.
Never confronted before? That is a far sight.
They have few things that can compete, and majority of thier ADA are still Soviet era stuff. From the 90s. Majority if everything is from the 90s.
We have to know how we have to prepare for the combat with such enemies.
paulobrito
Well-known member
AFAIK the US never see on the battlefield the recent variants of Russian or Chinese weapons. Systems developed/updated after both nations have plenty of time analyzing how the US forces work. Again, you are talking about old hardware, I'm talking about recent/current one in use by near-peer adversaries. If god forbid, US forces go to the mat with Russian ones in Ukraine, I bet you be more than a bit surprised.
The fact his, and you are constantly failed to acknowledge that, Russia and China have plenty of time to see, analyze, and plan against American doctrine and equipment. The US against Russian and/or Chinese? Not so much, if any.
BTW, you tried, drone attacks by 'unknown forces' against the Russian base in Syria. With a Poseidon near, to analyze the data. Not a good op, is the least I can say.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
Exactly, it's joint actions ON BOTH SIDES. Your side hasn't faced an enemy that could actually fight back in decades, so meeting such enemy would be a rather brutal reality check, especially since American tolerance for casualties is much lower than Russian. Also, both Russia and China know that biding for time is the best strategy, as USA is determined to sacrifice everything, including competence of the armed forces at the altar of wokeism.
So is most of the USA arsenal. Sure, it got upgraded but Russians are upgrading their stuff as well. USA has a general quality and competence edge but the gap is narrowing. The problem is the doctrine, the thinking on your side has ossified, probably because the generals are too busy fighting imaginary nazis at home, so in case of war Russia has a chance of forcing a draw.
Faster than A-10 pilot can spot them and engage them. Unless you use active ground observation radar you will have trouble finding your target on the ground, due to your own speed and the angle of observation. Thereby ground units are able to spot aircraft faster than aircraft can spot them.
paulobrito
Well-known member
Doctrine-wise, the US has always been very weak. They win because they go against very weak, incompetent, poor, and old tech-armed nations.
The very few times they fight near equal/equal-armed forces they record is meh to be generous.
Problem his - they believe too much in their propaganda, never admitting that they only look good because they go against the lowest adversaries, and have a lot of control over the media.
The very few times they fight near equal/equal-armed forces they record is meh to be generous.
Problem his - they believe too much in their propaganda, never admitting that they only look good because they go against the lowest adversaries, and have a lot of control over the media.
bintananth
behind a desk
A-10s don't have to comply with noise regulations. Airliners do.
Wierdly enough, train horns and the vehicles used by emergency first responders also have to comply with noise regulations. When those say "I'm coming through, please get out of the way" ... you're going to hear it before you can see it.
I take it you've never been privileged to be at an A-10 flyover. I have, you don't hear them until they pass over. Those engines are mounted in such a way that most of the noise is radiated up and behind, and they aren't very loud to begin with.
If they manage to further suppress the IIR signature, then the A-10 becomes even more dangerous.
As Zach says, the US is actually very well set up to deal with the full up modern Russian IADS. And the Russians know it, which is why they're spending so much on it to try and plug the holes that the US would use to tear it apart.
If they manage to further suppress the IIR signature, then the A-10 becomes even more dangerous.
As Zach says, the US is actually very well set up to deal with the full up modern Russian IADS. And the Russians know it, which is why they're spending so much on it to try and plug the holes that the US would use to tear it apart.