От Forger
К SSC
Дата 06.11.2020 07:57:17
Рубрики Современность; ВВС; Локальные конфликты;

Re: Справка о...


>Реактивные штурмовики вообще ни разу не действовали в условиях сколь-нибудь серьёзной ПВО. Появление ПЗРК второго поколения в Афгане вызвало кризис, а какой-нибудь Панцирь вообще стал бы катастрофой.
Война в Заливе? Не? Югославия?

От Ibuki
К Forger (06.11.2020 07:57:17)
Дата 07.11.2020 19:53:24

Re: Справка о...

>>Реактивные штурмовики вообще ни разу не действовали в условиях сколь-нибудь серьёзной ПВО. Появление ПЗРК второго поколения в Афгане вызвало кризис, а какой-нибудь Панцирь вообще стал бы катастрофой.

>Война в Заливе? Не? Югославия?
 https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0691horner/
A-10s vs. F-16s

Q: Did the war have any effect on the Air Force’s view of the A-10

A: No. People misread that. People were saying that airplanes are too sophisticated and that they wouldn’t work in the desert, that you didn’t need all this high technology, that simple and reliable was better, and all that.

Well, first of all, complex does not mean unreliable. We’re finding that out. For example, you have a watch that uses transistors rather than a spring. It’s infinitely more reliable than the windup watch that you had years ago. That’s what we’re finding in the airplanes.

Those people . . . were always championing the A-10. As the A-10 reaches the end of its life cycle– and it’s approaching that now–it’s time to replace it, just like we replace every airplane, including, right now, some early versions of the F-16.

Since the line was discontinued, [the A-10’s champions] want to build another A-10 of some kind. The point we were making was that we have F-16s that do the same job.

Then you come to people who have their own reasons-good reasons to them, but they don’t necessarily compute to me-who want to hang onto the A-10 because of the gun. Well, the gun’s an excellent weapon, but you’ll find that most of the tank kills by the A-10 were done with Mavericks and bombs. So the idea that the gun is the absolute wonder of the world is not true.

Q: This conflict has shown that

A: It shows that the gun has a lot of utility, which we always knew, but it isn’t the principal tank-killer on the A-IO. The [Imaging Infrared] Maverick is the big hero there. That was used by the A-10s and the F-16s very, very effectively in places like Khafji.

The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It’s a function of thrust, it’s not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq’s [less formidable] front-line units. That’s line if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard.

Q: At what point did you do that

A: I think I had fourteen airplanes sitting on the ramp having battle damage repaired, and I lost two A- 10s in one day [February 15], and I said, “I’ve had enough of this.” It was when we really started to go after the Republican Guard.

Initially, much of the air assets were devoted to strategic targets, to make sure we got those down, while we were also hitting the frontline forces. As we killed off the research and development stuff-storage, those kinds of targets-we brought more and more assets into the Kuwait Theater of Operation. We really started heating the battle up in the KTO.

Q: General Schwarzkopf said that he didn’t care to kill the Republican Guard; his goal was to break its will.

A: He never emphasized the killing of people. I think that is personally abhorrent to him, as it is to most of us. It really didn’t serve any purpose other than to ensure hatred in the postwar era. What we had to do is destroy the enemy’s capability to inflict casualties on us. Since we were fighting tanks, the way you do that is destroy tanks and artillery. I think we were very successful at that.

От Ibuki
К Ibuki (07.11.2020 19:53:24)
Дата 07.11.2020 19:59:29

Tank Plinking

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1093plinking/

В общем отхлестали этот хваленный А-10 мокрой тряпкой по щщам, а серьезною опасную работы делали бомбардировщики с тепловизорами и управляемыми бомбами со средних высот. В общем то что мы видим сегодня делают БПЛА, а азербайджанские штурмовики Су-25 ничего не штурмуют.

Штурмовик в эпох управляомой ракеты - антипапуасное оружие.
От SSC
К Forger (06.11.2020 07:57:17)
Дата 07.11.2020 08:25:20

Re: Справка о...

Здравствуйте!

>>Реактивные штурмовики вообще ни разу не действовали в условиях сколь-нибудь серьёзной ПВО. Появление ПЗРК второго поколения в Афгане вызвало кризис, а какой-нибудь Панцирь вообще стал бы катастрофой.
>Война в Заливе? Не? Югославия?

В заливе их использовали уже после подавления ПВО ИБА. В Югославии А-10 летали мало, "продемонстрировав высокую живучесть" - читай "в отличие от ИБА получали от маловысотной ПВО".

С уважением, SSC