- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Thucydides said:Having been in the sights of an A-10 during it simulated gun run, I can attest that it can also come in very low and fast, much faster than any hand held weapon could react.
Of course we (or at least modern Western military forces) don't defend against low flying aircraft with pintle mounted machine guns and open sights either...
It is instructive to look at some of the capabilities we let evaporate over the years. 35mm Skyguard cannons with AHEAD ammunition and integrated into the ADATS/GBAD system were reputedly capable of intercepting not just the aircraft, but even incoming bombs and missiles. If modern GBAD can do that, then a big bomb truck would be needed to saturate a high value target and ensure the target is "serviced" properly.
Even modern non-western nations such as China and Russia have made significant developments in Counter Precision Guided Munitions (C-PGM) technology, including the addition of the S1- Pantsyr C-PGM system. Having seen the effects of US PGMs on the Iraqi and Serbian AD systems the Russians and Chinese have made their systems more survivable by developing systems such as the Pantsyr to intercept PGMs and by making their higher level AD systems more mobile and avoiding static installations like the Iraqi's had.
A modern near-peer nation armed with HIMAD systems, SHORAD systems, MANPADs, and C-PGM would have few issues dealing with small numbers of systems, particularly if they have strategic depth that forces our aircraft to go further into their territory to engage. A single solution, in a conventional fight, is a poor solution. A c-130 gunship is an easy target against high level AD while the A-10 is susceptible to low level systems. You need the mix (whether that is in a coalition or national context) to be effective against a near peer. Canada needs to find its niche, accept that it's not going to be a big player like the US, and purchase an aircraft that allows it to fill that niche and/or focus solely on NORAD tasks.