? where did you read that? Because thats far from true...
Afraid not. Even late model T72s tend to be covered in ERA bricks that will be extremely problematic for even the GAU-8 to overcome. This is ignoring the hazards involved in descending below 10,000ft to conduct said strafing run...
It was designed to counter the Soviet armor advance in the 1980's and 1990's. It was designed to survive a long list of threats like MANPADS (Strela, Igla), SPAAGs (Shilka, Tunguska) and medium range SAMs (Buk,Tor) already in service with the Soviets by then.
Actually this is false. The A-X program (from which the A10 was born) called for a
design driven by requirements derived from lessons learnt in Vietnam - namely for a CAS aircraft that could operate at low to medium altitude (to the exclusion of high altitude ops) with:
- a long loiter time
- a large payload
- the ruggedness to operate near the front line and in the face of battle damage.
- an emphasis on using terrain masking at low level to avoid enemy fire
This was all in a context that well and truly predates the systems you mentioned. ie. one dominated by crew served AA guns, and primitive MANPAD/SHORAD missiles whose ability to engage a fast, low flying jet was inconsistent at best. Back then all you had for CAS was dumb bombs, unguided rockets and a cannon so you literally HAD to fly low to be accurate and/or effective doing CAS. NOT the case today, and it hasn't been for quite some time.
The CAS landscape has changed considerably since the A10 was
designed:
*
CAS aircraft don't need to rely on low altitude operation to the same extent now due to:
1.) The prevalence of air launched guided weapons.
2.) The advent and proliferation of high quality targeting pods
3.) SAR mapping radars, particularly those found in AESA's like APG79 or 81
*
The proliferation of highly capable SHORAD systems (like the ones you mentioned) has seen a move away from the low altitude domain across a multitude of platforms, ranging from the A10 to the F111 (in its day), Tornado and the B1B. My understanding is that this was driven in large part by losses sustained during Desert Storm in this part of the flight envelope.
These systems are still consider quite modern and will still wreck most planes' day even in 2015. The A-10 is not some sitting duck just because 20 years has passed.
I didn't say it was - if you re-read my post I referred to those systems "
being developed" by Russia and China, not those currently fielded.
The 30mm cannon can still be effective against modern armor. While it can't penetrate frontal armor, the sides/top as well as external equipments of the tank are still highly vulnerable to damage. You don't have to defeat the frontal armor to put a tank out of commission. A single 30mm round to the engine compartment and that tank is immobilized. Take out the thermal sight and optics and that tank is nothing more than a combat ineffective tractor.
Again, trying to get a 30mm to pen the engine compartment of even a late model T72 (ie. not an especially current platform) is a big ask for a Hog driver. This is for a few reasons:
- He/she has to get right into the engagement envelope (and quite possibly the No-Escape-Zone) of any local SHORAD systems to do so.
- Being "able to take a hit" is not a popular defensive tactic in USAF circles to the best of my knowledge.
- The effectiveness of the A10's countermeasures suite are steadily declining relative to the capabilities of the SHORAD systems that engage targets at this altitude.
- The chances of having the effects on-target that you mentioned are remote in the presence of ERA bricks covering areas of weaker armor.
- If all you're left with is taking out vulnerable peripherals then the GAU-8 isn't giving any more anti-tank capability than that possessed by the 20mm cannons on any other friendly combat aircraft in the area.
- He/she can have much more certainty of killing the tank outright by simply hitting it with a PGM, all without going below 15,000ft, and thereby staying out of SHORAD reach.
