The A-10 (1972) predates the appearance of the S-300 (1975) by just a few years.Unless the S-300 was a complete surprise to the US the A-10 must've been designed and adopted with the knowledge it will be facing "modern air defences".So why do people keep saying that this Cold War plane wasn't designed to face proper AD?During the Cold War A-10 pilot training focused overwhelmingly on low altitude flying, and as we see today in Ukraine low flying remains one of the primary methods of mitigating AD.The idea that a cost effective plane packed full of firepower which excels at low flying is not equipped to operate in a contested air space is absurd.What also changed between now and 1972 was the USAF becoming loss averse due to deindustrialization, technophilia, and the receding memory of WW2. Pinning everything on technological advancement of AD doesn't add up.
>>12735637Sorry but I don't really like to think about war
>>12735640Your enemies applaud your cognitive cowardice and I pray I am one of them.
>>12735643I don't have enemies
>>12735644You will if you keep this up.
>>12735671Oh sure I'm really scared
>>12735644You have them whether you acknowledge it or not.
>>12735681I'll be sure to let the people spying on me know
>>12735682You wouldn't have enough time in your life to tell that to all the different people spying on you.
>>12735688I wonder why you're posting here in the first place
>>12735695I wonder why you eat boogers.
>>12735698That's funny
>>12735637It has always effectively been a lower altitude bomber so it needs a fleet and or air superiority to operate effectively These days they use missiles that hover for a long time in the air like drones and those are harder to counter and maintain air superiority (clear airspace) Also the a-10 isn’t fully obsolete they probably just want to waste a shit load of money and embezzlement designing a new one with improved capabilities
