tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post6813191127305980875..comments2024-01-12T18:59:05.080+00:00Comments on Defence With A "C": The A-10 retirementUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-72376971821816425102014-06-30T19:31:10.455+01:002014-06-30T19:31:10.455+01:00Indeed, the list of A-10 friendly fire incidents i...Indeed, the list of A-10 friendly fire incidents is quite remarkably long considering it's supposed to be all the all seeing dealer of CAS and the lengths that coalition forces have gone to in the past to mark their vehicles in an obvious manner.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-22039284553197936262014-06-30T02:04:14.801+01:002014-06-30T02:04:14.801+01:00There's also a selection bias problem.
A-10 f...There's also a selection bias problem.<br /><br />A-10 fanbois express their outrage at every non-A-10 friendly fire accident and assert that this wouldn't have happened with A-10s.<br /><br />But there's the case of an A-10 over Iraq attacking a convoy of USMC AAV-7s (the most unique APC of all) under clear skies daylight conditions.<br /><br />It's also curious how the A-10 is supposedly necessary, but no other air force appears to agree and buy it. The Soviet/Russian Su-25 is different in concept (unguided rockets instead of overwheight gatling), and made the transition to dive attacks with release at above autocannon altitude immediately once it faced thin Igla/Redeye/Stinger defences over Afghanistan (Stinger didn't stand out as much as the common myth about it). The A-10 was faced to make the same transition long ago.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.com