“We can go on and one but it is clear, for CAS nothing beats the Hog.”
That was a very good, clear and concise rebuttal.
The Russians have lost at least nine of their version of the A-10 in battle and the Russians have been very circumspect in using any aircraft in the Ukrainian conflict. Whether their SU’s are as good as the A-10...probably not, but they are comparable. Of course, one data point on a graph where we don’t really know what the axes are isn’t much of a data point. You may be right in your assessment. Personally, I think the A-10’s mission should go to unmanned drones, but they have their own issues...mostly electronic counter measures which at the moment the Russians don’t seem to have any.
Here’s my fear. People tend to fall in love certain designs. I’ve seen people saying, gosh, just bring back the P-51 Mustangs, or battleships. I’ve seen some articles debunking the performance of the A-10’s in the Gulf War because the expectations were so high every tank killed was attributed to an A-10. Was this true? It would be hard to establish after the fact. But the true test is how would the A-10 do in a really high threat environment. It doesn’t matter if the plane brings back to pilot, in the greater scheme, if it is so damaged it can’t fly again.
The A-10 is a hugely competent design, no doubt. But I think what the Airforce wants to do is spend the two billion yearly dedicated to the A-10 on whatever the next generation will be. Who is the more correct? Only time and the next big engagement where the A-10 faces more ground threats will tell. As it appears we will be keeping the A-10 I certainly hope your assessment is the correct one.
Kind regards,
Gen.Blather
Thank you. Well stated and while we may disagree on the margins, all we can do now is argue the theoretical.