As I understand it, it was 8 years old when ED modelled it, so would be 15 now or whatever. Doesn't really matter though to my argument, since even if it was 8 years old, there would still be guesswork involved. I believe only planes as old as early Phantoms / MiG17s maybe don't have any secrets left nowadays.

@nadal: Yeah, I think so, too. It's one of the known features of the F-35 for example that its sensor suit will mark aircraft and even ground targets with icons / boxes on the HMD even when below the airplane, when blocked by the aircraft frame itself etc. But that's not really news either, because such concepts already existed earlier and were already simulated in DiD F-22 and EF-2000 sims. I could imagine that this capability might already exist to some extent even in older airframes when upgraded with such a sensor suit or could be retrofitted. Not as perfect as with a plane built around such a system from the ground up, but probably in degrees.

That brings up another point though I find worth mentioning here: Imho the latest and greatest tech does not always translate into good gameplay. Especially when the opposing sides capabilities become too dissimilar, you will quickly end up with a boring game. I doubt many people would find it fun to pilot a Reaper drone firing Hellfires into individual personel from an orbit at 40,000 feet over Pakistan. To make such gameplay fun at all, you would have to include the intelligence gathering process, sophisticated AI for personel movement etc. and would end up rather with an RPG / Deus Ex / MGS than a flightsim.

In my opinion already the A-10C was a poor choice. The A model in a late 80s Cold War gone hot scenario for high intensity and / or over Cuba, Iraq for a mid-low intensity scenario would have been much better. The A-10C is a Hero a Zero airplane: Has no real place in a high threat environment with theater ranged SAMs like SA-10 and enemy CAPs still active, but is overpowered when those threats are gone, since it will just drop smart munitions from 20,000 feet like that Reaper drone. If you model the latest planes like the F35 and F22, you would also have to provide a high-end opposing force.
With the A-10A you could model interesting scenarios with its natural enemies like the ZSU-23, SA-8, SA-19. Similar with the Hornet. I'm glad they are modelling (well, if it ever comes out) the C version and not the Superhornet for that same reason, and I think the earlier the version, the better. Besides the fact that it also looks much better than the F-18E. While not a beauty, I can live with the looks of the F18C, but the "Superbug" to me looks just plain fugly. Too stretched in its length, ugly rectangular air intakes, and those broad leading-edge extensions really makes it look like a squashed bug. Too bad that the old adage of "When it looks good, it probably flies good" is no longer very relevant these days thanks to advanced computer controlled flight systems. Same with the F-35. I honestly believe that is one of the reasons it is getting so much flak, haha. The pilots just don't want to fly such an ugly stub through the sky. The Russians are doing much better still with their great Sukhoi lineage, though seem to be slowly switching over to the darkside when looking at the PAK FA.

1v1 a HARM shooter has 0 Pk against an SA-10; roughly the same chance as an A-10.

I don't mean to belabor the point, but arguably, a 700 knot Tornado/Bone/'Vark would have a much more difficult time staying low, even on TF Hard Ride, because its essentially limited to a wings-level bunt when crossing a ridge. A Hawg can take a ridge crossing at 120 degrees of bank, pull down the back side of the ridge and never get higher than 300 feet AGL.

A-10C was bad model to make IMHO too.

I always found weird that someone likes to bomb "insurgents" from 20000ft with zero threat again and again.

While it may have 0 Pk, I'd still rather be in an aircraft that has altitude, speed, and an afterburner. At least I can do *something*... ducking behind cover would be done faster at 500 knots than at 250. Defensive maneuvering, while inferior to terrain masking, is still at least better than doing nothig because you don't have the airpseed or maneuverability or altitude.

At this altitude, you're not really worried about the SA-10 more than you are worried about some shoulder-launched IR SAM... then we go into the discussion of "would you rather be at 700 knots in a Tornado or 300 knots in a Warthog"?

Well, to be fair, they didn't really "pick" the A-10C, it was the actual JOB that they were asked to do.

Always thought anythng over 5,000ft AGL was too high for the Warthog. It takes forever to get to 20,000ft AGL anyway

That's really not as big of a thing as you believe it to be - an fighter flying high is going to lose its speed in one turn in defensive maneuvering. You don't dodge missiles with maneuver, you dodge them with maneuver+countermeasures, and those maneuvers are usually medium, not high g. Medium at best.
Lack of airspeed might not be as bad as you believe: Your turn rate may still be high and the point here isn't to get out of the missile's way (you can't) but rather to help you blend in with your CMs. No simulator actually simulates most of this stuff; DCS does do some aspect related stuff, so if you've got your head on straight you can sit around in that A-10C at 30000' and dodge SA-10's all day long.

But that's exactly how they fly. It's how they flew in the balkans (29000' IIRC, so that they can respect their 10000' or 8000' floor or whatever it was) and they had similar limits in OIF. That's not to say they never went under those altitudes, but the rules was that you don't.
So the armament was representative of this flight profile: Two AGM-65's of whatever variety, and 2-4 bombs of whatever variety. None of this 6 mavs + 28 bomb strike eagle pretender BS (And IIRC ... a loaded down strike eagle may need to to AAR in min AB to keep up with he tanker )

While it may have 0 Pk, I'd still rather be in an aircraft that has altitude, speed, and an afterburner. At least I can do *something*... ducking behind cover would be done faster at 500 knots than at 250. Defensive maneuvering, while inferior to terrain masking, is still at least better than doing nothig because you don't have the airpseed or maneuverability or altitude.

At this altitude, you're not really worried about the SA-10 more than you are worried about some shoulder-launched IR SAM... then we go into the discussion of "would you rather be at 700 knots in a Tornado or 300 knots in a Warthog"?

Except in the proposed scenario the A-10 is already low and using direct terrain masking to the maximum extent possible; a faster aircraft holds no advantage.

You're moving the goal post. The stated hypothesis was an A-10 is not survivable in a high-threat scenario with theater-defense SAM systems like the SA-10. My position is that it was designed and operated in exactly such a scenario and furthermore, the A-10 remains every bit as viable in such a scenario today. The reason is because the TTPs used to defeat 1) the IADS as a network, and 2) any individual double-digit SAM system, are equally as effective for faster, more maneuverable fighters as they are for slower, less maneuverable ones. The TTPs rely on neither a striker's speed nor maneuverability.

The question of who is more survivable against systems like the GAINFUL/GADFLY/GRIZZLY, GAUNTLET, or even MANPADS is a different one altogether. But the answer still lies in the TTPs...and the SPINS.

Was it? In my mind, I was comparing A-10 and, say, F-16 both at altitude and/or in-the-weeds. Saying an A-10 is in-the-weeds and already behind cover is not an "advantage" to the A-10 as it would also be an "advantage to the F-16 if it were in the same location. However, if they were both at 25,000 feet, the F-16 has more capability to utilize that altitude into something useful. Like I said, terrain masking or being "behind cover" may be the best solution, but we're not always in the best solution all the time...

No, I'm simply analyzing that particular situation. Terrain masking is all fine and dandy if you have a big mountain to hide against.... but I doubt it. I think we're talking about low hills here, stuff under 1,000ft elevation. So again, while terrain masking may be the best solution, won't you then be worried about IR SAMs? It's not so much as moving the goal post as entertaining a different scenario that is an offshoot of the first one.

Also, what is TTP? IADS is integrated air defense systems, right?

Just make sure you consult with the JMEM/JAWS to determine your Pk and 0.1% PI distance and CDE. And for goodness sake, make sure you have good TLE before putting dropping a BOC/BOT PGM. Your aircraft's GAINS can build up a significant EVE when operating in CDO environments.

JAWS?

You know, the real answer is 'it depends'.

Techniques, Tactics and Procedures
SPecial INStructions

Uh oh, good thing we didn't get into a discussion about the JFACC's CONOPS and CCIR, which are used to craft PIRs and RFIs and drive the TCPED cycle, guide the JIPOE and JOPP processes, and create the AOD, ATO, ACO, and SPINS. To say nothing of establishing FSCM, ROZ, HIDACZ, and MRR for deconfliction purposes.