On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:25:16 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 14:23:22 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:55:31 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:38:46 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Ignoramus32266 wrote:

I was thinking, about those smart fuzed bombs and such.

Are they actually effective against a smart opponent?

Could they be rendered useless by some simple tricks, like inflatable
tanks, spray painted tank outlines on the ground, or something else
that is cheap but can confuse those weapons?

Although not mentioned in the video, these can hit moving targets.

For stationary targets, I'm sure that self-heated decoys could work.

Basically, the original rationale was to break a mass of tanks flowing
through the Fulda Gap in Germany, from afar.

The Warsaw Pact had something like three or four times as many tanks as
Nato, so there was lots of attention spent on ways to even the balance.
Actually, The A-10 was one of these ways.

I don't see why they want to replace the lovely and SUPER-EFFECTIVE
Warthogs. What's a little DU among friends?

DU is only ONE of the rounds that can be fired from the A10

Its a very safe and VERY effective aircraft and should be retained.

It's also extremely low-cost to build and operate. Aha, perhaps
that's why the arms dealers want it gone and are convincing the Brass
to dump it...

They're dumping it because an illiterate, barefoot gook with a
three-generations-old, black-market Russian MANPADS can knock them out
of the sky like flies with a flyswatter.

Otherwise, they're great.

--
Ed Huntress