Quote:
|
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck You know how quickly you'd have to react to a low flying bird traveling at high speed? |
That's `Shilkas` and other high intensity AA chainguns are designed for...
Quote:
If you're out in the open, they'll hit you with Mavericks. If you're in a forest they'll pop up for a split second, fire off a burst of GAU-8 and before you know it the trees will get in your way and you won't get a shot off.
No doubt there will be A-10s shot down anyway one way or another but I still think it would be a feasible close air support jet.
If you don't agree, we'll go with your logic and say SAM renders the Air Force obsolete.
|
Nope, SAM does not make AF obsolete. But if armed forces have proper, up to date anti-aircraft systems, there wouldn't be easy bombing and air-to-ground attacks without any countermeasures (in fact in `RSR` Clancy writes so - he makes couple of A-10 burn down dozens of Soviet tanks with no anti-aircraft activity from Soviet side). Further, it means that wide use of A-10 and Su-25 type aircraft will be possible only after gaining full control of air space over battlefield, or in those parts of front line, where anti-aircraft defense of enemy is weakened, destroyed of fled the battlefield.
Air-to-ground planes can be quite effective, if certain criteria fullfills (overhelming control in air space, high casualties of enemy ground-based and mobile anti-aircraft defense systems). If these criteria will not be achieved, efficiency of attack aircraft will be quite low with high casualties.
Respectively, for wide use of air-to-ground attack planes, the first you have to:
- shot down most of enemy interceptors and fighters;
- take out most of ground-based and mobile long and medium range SAM systems;
- take out most of enemy mobile short-range AA defense systems (`Shilkas`, `Volcanos`).