Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PreciousLiberty
The scenario you described would be suicide for any of our helicopters, assuming whoever shot the missiles could shoot straight. I'd much rather be in the A-10 with the system redundancy and survivability it has, not to mention sitting in that titanium bathtub.

Read the reports from those who ask for CAS or want an FAC on station. Bombing from 10,000' isn't what they are asking for. They seem to like having the A-10 around.

The only thing A-10 seems to lack is speed. One thing it does have is a proven track record of doing the job and getting its pilot back home.

63 posted on 06/29/2007 6:35:10 AM PDT by GBA (God Bless America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]


To: GBA

The problem with A-10 that most are overlooking here is it would take a pounding in a dense IADS environment, despite its survivability. Thats not dissing the A-10, its just acknowleding that it has a limitation on employment.

Those that are poo-pooing the stand-off CAS support are failing to recognize that against a sophisticated enemy with dense IADS (AA and missiles), low is not where you want to be. Afghanistan and present day Iraq are not dense IADS environments, so A-10 shows its stuff there.

If we were only building to fight against third world countries, we would not need new aircraft. We are building to fight against major adversaries.


65 posted on 06/29/2007 6:47:16 AM PDT by Magnum44 (Terrorism is a disease, precise application of superior force is the ONLY cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson