My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.

TN4994 wrote:

fallsfromtrees wrote:MAD-4A and Tenshinai,

The argument seems to be getting a little heated and personal. Let's please have a little civility.
Mad-4A, I might note that Tenshinai's location is Sweden, so I assume he is Swedish. And while the Swedes have been doing a good job of teaching English as a second language in the school system (at least they were when I was in Stockholm on TDY in the mid 80s), it is still a second language for them. You might keep that in mind when casting aspersions on his understanding of the language - I suspect that your command of Swedish would be much worse. Tak

If Tenshinai is Swedish, his proficiency in The Queen's english may be the problem when conversing with us Americans.

I can guarantee you, Tenshinai's English proficiency is not an issue.

To make a long story short(er), thanks to my father, I and my brother are dual citizens of the US and Sweden. While I chose to stay here in the U.S., my brother went there to go to school... and stayed. I never did gain the mastery of Swedish as he has. But I can tell you this:

As far as Market Researchers are concerned, of all the European countries, Sweden is the most "like" the U.S.. {Note that from their point of view, this may even include Great Britain.} That's why a lot of products for the US are first tested in Sweden, as well as visa-versa.

Swedes there have a LOT of access to the electronic media, the internet, and of course a LOT of day-to-day interaction with people whose only common language with them is English.

And... As TN4994 hinted at, their public school system makes a special point of requiring English as a mandatory language study. (Our own school systems could use some lessons from them.)

If you lump all these generalities together, and look at his mastery of the written word, I seriously doubt that Tenshinai's grip on English is deficient in ANY reasonably way.

=====

I do agree with the up-list comment about let's all get along; please lets.

=====

Also, I've been meaning to respond to MAD-4A's (Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:48 am) comment about my not liking multi-mission planes by spelling out all the requirements that a good CAS plane should have... (and only a few ever have had) but I've not had the time. Maybe this week.

=====

Finally: In case it's not clear by now, as much as I do like the A-10, my gripe is not as much with the F-34, F-22, F-this or F-that, as much as my gripe is with the Key West Agreement, and the two follow-on agreements. (See original post.) i.e.: Let the Army have their fixed wing CAS airplanes.

=====




ERR




Edits: Added two tweaks: "as much" and "as much as".


.

Tenshinai is a professional linguist so his technical English proficiency is high, but I believe he suffers from a similar problem to mine (Australian with English first language) in that we struggle to relate to the US mind set. As they say US and UK, two countries divided by a common language.

Regarding the Air Force versus Army aviation debate, I can discuss the Australian situation up to the public knowledge limit, as I was pivotal in that field for a decade.
We originally had all air assets under Air Force but that proved impractical as there are few 5 star Motels in easy reach of the front line for Air Force pilots to sleep in, and the Army needs air support in rainy weather as well. Having wrested the control of rotary winged aircraft away from AF, we struggled as they kept most of the maintenance budget. I was brought in to fix that & believe I did.
During my tenure we needed some fixed wing assets for surveillance and transport of Generals so we leased a few Super King Airs (AF took them over after I left).
When we looked at gaining a ground support capability I suggested the A-10 but internal politics regarding AF and fixed wing scuttled that so we looked at attack helicopters such as the Apache, Cobra and Tiger among others. In an exhaustive process the Tiger won as being most suitable for our needs.
Would I have liked some A-10s? Yes, but not possible due to politics and they would probably have been difficult to maintain becoming orphans anyway.

Daryl wrote:Tenshinai is a professional linguist so his technical English proficiency is high,

perhaps my wording was a little strong but have had issues with Tenshinai before taking everything 100% literal, for the strongness I apologize, but not the point,

Daryl wrote: Would I have liked some A-10s? Yes, but not possible due to politics…

the bane of any real soldier.

Once upon a time, I found out about a book edited by Dina Rasor
"More Bucks Less Bang: How the Pentagon Buys Ineffective Weapons".
Link to image of cover:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4 ... 3,200_.jpg
Link to Amazon page:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Bucks-Less-B ... dina+rasor
and the organization she founded.

ASIDE:
Because of that book, I also learned about an organization that was then called "Project on Military Procurement". Since then, the group changed its name to "Project On Government Oversight" and web came along, so they can now be found at "www.pogo.org".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_O ... ht#History



I no longer have a readily available copy of that book, but my recollection is that one or two of the very last stories in that book had to do with how, despite the inertia at the Pentagon, it actually is possible to procure a quality product at a good, and decreasing, price per unit.
i.e.: The story(ies) of how the procurement for the 30 mm ammunition (and/or the A-10 itself) happened.

This was my first exposure to the A-10 on an more intellectual level, and not just an adolescent's "Oooooo Shiny!" infatuation with large bore weapons.

I think I've also read Dennis R. Jenkin's book ("Fairchild-Republic A/OA-10 Warthog"; 1998; ISBN 1-58007-013-2). If someone was only going to read only ONE book on the A-10, I think it's fair to say that Jenkins has done the most "Authoritative" one out there. Unfortunately, I also don't have a copy of this book either.

Then there's the various conversations I've had with Veterans over the years, both Air Force and Army about the A-10.

In more recent years, interviews with Pierre Sprey have become readily available on YouTube. If you can find the right video(s), it(they) provide a good summary of the requirements for a CAS aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Sprey

But no, I have no first hand experience with the A-10.

=====


So, I'm running on my own recollections here, of what the above listed sources have said is needed in an aircraft intended for the Close Air Support mission.


One of the biggest requirements that is not so obvious is LOITER TIME. You can't have an aircraft that is burning through its fuel supply at an enormous rate. It has to have somewhat efficient engines or an enormous fuel reserve. When compared to high performance jet fighters, this is exactly what the A-10 has.

Another non-obvious "feature" is the ability to fly SLOW. It doesn't matter how fast you can go for the CAS mission. You have to be able to set your pilot's eyes on the ground, and line up for a cannon run. If the wings on your plane are so small (i.e.: optimized for high speeds), your plane will not physically be able to stay airborne at slower speeds ("Stall! Stall!" says the on-board computer).

Another feature is of course the big cannon itself. I won't go into too much detail over the 30mm cannon, as I suspect most people reading this forum already know about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger



What's NOT so obvious is why the cannons in the F-16, F-15, F-22, F-35, etc. are NOT adequate to the job. Take a look at the magazine's capacity of rounds in these guns:

F-15: 20mm M61A1 Vulcan cannon, 940 rounds
F-16: 20mm M61A1 Vulcan cannon, 511 rounds
F-22: 20mm M61A2 Vulcan cannon, 480 rounds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan

F-35A: 25mm GAU-22/A, 4-barrel version of GAU-12 Equalizer 182 (plus 220 external)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-12_Eq ... GAU-22.2FA

A-10: 30mm GAU-8 Avenger, 1,174 rounds (Capacity 1,350)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger

It's nice to have a big gun in the CAS mission, but what's even MORE important is to have the MAGAZINE CAPACITY to continue firing with AIMED series of shots, over and over again.


Next, because one needs to fly slower for observation (Mark-one eyeball) and placing 30mm rounds on target, you're going to be taking fire from the ground. That's were features like the control redundancy and the titanium armored "tub" for the pilot come in.

=====

I'm sure that the above is only a partial list of the primary features needed in a CAS aircraft. However, what should be obvious from even the above partial list is that generally speaking, each and every one of the above items is (almost) exactly the opposite of what is needed in high performance fighter aircraft.

Yes, I do understand that the Navy's infatuation with multi-mission aircraft has produced a marginally adequate f/A-18E and f/A-18F SuperHornet. The big difference with these Attack aircraft versus conventional CAS aircraft is that they are optimized for hit-and-run dropping precision munitions, and not for hanging around the battlefield for the full scope of the CAS mission.

And yes, I do know that the Marines use the D & F versions for the Forward Observer role.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell ... rnet#C.2FD

So, back to MAD-4A's comment about my attitude towards multi-mission aircraft…

I'm sure that there area all sorts of missions that multiple aircraft designs, in the past, present and future, are capable of being carried out adequately or even with excellence. However, all the specific requirements needed in a CAS aircraft are so much the opposite of what most Fighter aircraft need that in my opinion the CAS mission is NOT one that can reasonably fit into a multi-mission aircraft.

Others have written more and better about this next point, so excuse me if I phrase it poorly:
It can be said that the A-10 can be used in more different kinds of missions that have some similarity to the CAS mission versus more conventional aircraft. In fact, the A-10 has already once been designated as an Observer aircraft (i.e.: the 'O' in the once used "OA-10" designation). A more perfect aircraft for the Observer mission would be the A-10B or Two-Seat version of the A-10. (One HAS been produced; see original post.) When other aircraft try to do these other missions that are related to CAS, their adequacy to the job is even worst.

So, yea, I remain a big fan of the A-10. But even more important in my mind is the fact that the top brass of the Air Force continue to intentionally or unintentionally oppose any aircraft that could do a legitimate job of doing the CAS mission… BECAUSE any aircraft that COULD do the CAS mission is inherently NOT the type of aircraft that they care about.

So, I continue to beat on the same dead horse:
Hey Ashton Carter!!!
Revise the Key West Agreement!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Carter



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_West_Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace-Finletter_MOU_1952
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-Mc ... nt_of_1966



ERR



.

Ensign Re-read wrote:One of the biggest requirements that is not so obvious is LOITER TIME. You can't have an aircraft that is burning through its fuel supply at an enormous rate. It has to have somewhat efficient engines or an enormous fuel reserve. When compared to high performance jet fighters, this is exactly what the A-10 has… Another non-obvious "feature" is the ability to fly SLOW. It doesn't matter how fast you can go for the CAS mission. You have to be able to set your pilot's eyes on the ground, and line up for a cannon run...

Right, this requirement is the same for maritime patrol aircraft (anti-sub hunters) that’s why the P-3 Orion uses turbo-prop instead of jets, to reduce fuel consumption, like CAS the MP mission doesn’t require high speed (like a Tank there are no Subs that can outrun even a slow plane)

Ensign Re-read wrote:Another feature is of course the big cannon itself. I won't go into too much detail over the 30mm cannon…It's nice to have a big gun in the CAS mission, but what's even MORE important is to have the MAGAZINE CAPACITY to continue firing with AIMED series of shots, over and over again.

a BIG feature but not only the gun itself but the ordinance stores. Having 1 big gun with a lot of ammo is great but you also want bombs, rockets, missiles etc… which the A-10 delivers in spades.

Ensign Re-read wrote:Next, because one needs to fly slower for observation (Mark-one eyeball) and placing 30mm rounds on target, you're going to be taking fire from the ground. That's were features like the control redundancy and the titanium armored "tub" for the pilot come in.

something few other aircraft have, otherwise (as I sarcastically pointed out before) it would be far cheaper to go back to wood & canvas over titanium and aluminum.

Ensign Re-read wrote:I'm sure that the above is only a partial list of the primary features needed in a CAS aircraft. However, what should be obvious from even the above partial list is that generally speaking, each and every one of the above items is (almost) exactly the opposite of what is needed in high performance fighter aircraft.

right – just as with Naval warships, why did they not build a hybrid Battleship/Carrier? Because all the features that make either of them good (or even adequate) interferes with the other. Flight deck in the middle/where do the guns go-guns in the middle/where do the planes land, weight to armor or to fuel/bombs get in close to shoot or stay away and launch? Same situation slow and efficient or fast and powerful, short arrow dynamic wings of long high lift wings etc…

Ensign Re-read wrote:I'm sure that there are all sorts of missions that multiple aircraft designs, in the past, present and future, are capable of being carried out adequately or even with excellence. However, all the specific requirements needed in a CAS aircraft are so much the opposite of what most Fighter aircraft need that in my opinion the CAS mission is NOT one that can reasonably fit into a multi-mission aircraft. When other aircraft try to do these other missions that are related to CAS, their adequacy to the job is even [worse]… I remain a big fan of the A-10. But even more important in my mind is the fact that the top brass of the Air Force continue to intentionally or unintentionally oppose any aircraft that could do a legitimate job of doing the CAS mission… BECAUSE any aircraft that COULD do the CAS mission is inherently NOT the type of aircraft that they care about.
Revise the Key West Agreement![/b]

Agreed, the multi-role aircraft is needed, to have aircraft on hand that can be used as needs arise, but there are specific missions (like CAS) that have special needs and require an excellent specialized aircraft for the mission. You could refit the F/A-18 to carry a torpedo, but that doesn’t make it a maritime patrol aircraft, any more than it makes it a helicopter, (though, in theory, it could be used to drop ordinance were a P-3 tells it too), no more than strapping a M-60 to an ultralight makes it a CAS aircraft. Abolish the Key West Agreement.

fallsfromtrees wrote:MAD-4A and Tenshinai,

The argument seems to be getting a little heated and personal. Let's please have a little civility.
Mad-4A, I might note that Tenshinai's location is Sweden, so I assume he is Swedish. And while the Swedes have been doing a good job of teaching English as a second language in the school system (at least they were when I was in Stockholm on TDY in the mid 80s), it is still a second language for them. You might keep that in mind when casting aspersions on his understanding of the language - I suspect that your command of Swedish would be much worse. Tak

Considering i´m a professional English/Swedish translator and proofreader for both languages, it´s quite possible that my command of English is better than his.

That´s not exactly uncommon.

##########

TN4994 wrote:If Tenshinai is Swedish, his proficiency in The Queen's english may be the problem when conversing with us Americans.

Good thinking, but nah, i actually tend towards US English too much as it is.

If i spend the effort, while i´m a pisspoor interpreter, i am however good enough that in a conversation i can make just about any English speakers mistake me for being an Aussie, Scot, Welsh, "industrial north English", Londoner or a New Yorker.

With the average standard in online forums being distinctly low however, (and me being out of practise) i just don´t have any reason to make the effort to write with perfection, as that would slow down my typing to less than a quarter.



##########

Ensign Re-read wrote:Swedes there have a LOT of access to the electronic media, the internet, and of course a LOT of day-to-day interaction with people whose only common language with them is English.

And it´s not entirely uncommon to use English when speaking with people from the other Nordic countries, as while many Swedes and Norwegians easily understand each other, and a lot of people in Finland has Swedish as secondary or tertiary language, there are still very noticeable differences.

As far as Market Researchers are concerned, of all the European countries, Sweden is the most "like" the U.S.. {Note that from their point of view, this may even include Great Britain.} That's why a lot of products for the US are first tested in Sweden, as well as visa-versa.

Yeah, oh the horror, it´s so dreadful!

Nah seriously, the expression of Sweden being the 51st state may not be extremely common, but most people have heard it.

And... As TN4994 hinted at, their public school system makes a special point of requiring English as a mandatory language study. (Our own school systems could use some lessons from them.)

Started learning English in 4th grade in school. And then an elective language(or some other subjects) in 7th, i went with German.

If you lump all these generalities together, and look at his mastery of the written word, I seriously doubt that Tenshinai's grip on English is deficient in ANY reasonably way.

After spending a few years proofreading, even when you´re not serious you tend to be fairly decent.

Still, whoopsies happen, and sometimes stupid annoyances develop, like what someone commented on here a few months ago, that i accidentally wrote "wether" instead of "whether", which was very strange since i knew perfectly well which was correct.

Some testing later i however found that the keyboard i use(really ought to get a better one), if i type fast, then some key sequences drops some letters, and combined with how common this error is on forums, i got used to not noticing it even when i did write it.

Dreadful to get lulled into repeating a mistake.


#####

Daryl wrote:Tenshinai is a professional linguist so his technical English proficiency is high, but I believe he suffers from a similar problem to mine (Australian with English first language) in that we struggle to relate to the US mind set. As they say US and UK, two countries divided by a common language.

That may very well have some truth in it yes.

MAD-4A wrote:That was an flippant example (you may have to look up that word since you seem not to understand it)

I really had to consider whether i should reply at all, because you either do not understand, do not want to understand, or isn´t reading what i wrote.

MAD-4A wrote:I never said it was “truly suited for all missions”. Do you read English? I said it can perform them "adequately" (look the word up) – that means it can get the job done not that its good at it, much less the best.

Lets quote you exactly then shall we? You wrote "The F-16 is a multi-role aircraft & it’s been consistently good at all its roles.".

The only place the word adequate is used is where you try to say that was what you said, except that that was NOT what you said.

Please refrain from such ridiculously obvious lies?

The F-16 has most definitely not been "consistently good" in all the roles it has been used in. It has been able to complete the missions, that´s a very different thing.

F-16 works as a multirole plane for the same reason that a Su-27 does, not because it was designed for it.

The F-16 was designed to be a low cost, high performance DAY only fighter. It was then found to be fully capable of being used for other roles.

It has however clearly lost some of its effectiveness as a fighter while being turned into a multirole plane.

MAD-4A wrote:The "right plane" would be the one that provides the most "effective" support, duh.

And again, here you clearly show that you are not looking at reality as a whole.
And you fail logic 101 as well.

Because by your own words above, the A-10 may or may NOT be the "right plane".

If you have more effective CAS by using more cheap planes which reduces total casualties then by your own words, the cheaper planes are the "right plane".

But as i ALREADY SAID a few times, USA should not need to force itself to choose, because it´s already spending a crapload of cash on a big airforce anyway, so keeping enough A-10s around to always have enough available when needed shouldn´t be in question at all.

*Duh*

MAD-4A wrote:you say we should do away with the best and buy up a bunch of cheap crap

And again you claim something which is a blatant lie. I´ve most certainly NEVER SAID ANYTHING SUCH! I´ve specifically said the very opposite, that you should damn well keep the A-10 because it IS the best CAS plane around.

Which means you either do not read what i write, or you only take it to mean what you want to, something i´m frankly baffled that you could this time because this time you actually claim the EXACT OPPOSITE of what i have written.

MAD-4A wrote:So, what? your saying, buy a bunch of cheap crap – why stop there lets replace them with (what) about 500 Sopwith Pups, made mostly of canvas and wood, no aluminum needed, we could get them for dirt cheap, way better than 10 A-10s! (& since you need things spelled out – that’s sarcasm)

Wheee, pointless stupidity ahoy!

Actually, even by your own words, if 500 Sopwith Pups CAN GENERATE A BETTER CAS FOR THE GROUND TROOPS, then hell yes, it IS the better option.

Not that that´s ever going to be likely, as that plane sucks for CAS to the point where numbers wont make up for it.

And that´s the point you keep ignoring, that what i was repeatedly writing about is what makes up the most optimal CAS. Not what makes up the most optimal CAS plane.

Overall, the A-10 almost certainly is the best today. That does not make it the best for every situation, nor does it automatically make it the best compared to the resources spent on providing CAS.

MAD-4A wrote:heh , you just contradicted yourself (again) you say its questionable and then your statement says it's true?

As i´ve already intimated, you really should work on your reading comprehension and logic.
There was no contradiction in that statement.

Perhaps you should make sure you have not failed in the subject of language yourself, before flinging derisive jibes about it in regards to others?

Yours shows you don’t care about the safety of pilots

Another lie. I just do not place the lives of the pilots above that of others like you do. A life is a life. If the mission precludes negating losses more than to a point, then trying to do it anyway will either make you fail your mission completely, or it will be dragged out to the point where your losses are much higher anyway, just spread out over a longer time.

Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples of this, insufficient numbers of troops were deployed, and were deployed far too cautiously, not even trying to exert area control, end result becoming utterly failed longterm missions, missions being stretched out until buggering out and total casualties probably being higher than they could have been because initial occupations were mostly useless.

Trying to avoid casualties is a great idea, as long as doing so does not make you ineffective.

The entrenched attitudes here are pretty amazing, considering you are arguing over an aircraft designed in the 1970's to take out massed armoured columns in a heavy GBAD environment.

Most of the comments on what makes a good CAS aircraft are spot on, but the conditions have changed so much that I strongly suspect that unless the enemy has a very limited GBAD or CAP capability, you are going to get your butt handed to you. The recent conflict in Ukraine should be a clear warning, the SPETSNAZ operators working with the rebels have had a great deal of success against Ukrainian SU-25 Frogfoot CAS aircraft (which are close analogues to the A-10, even to the point of resembling the "second place" entry in the competition that created the A-10 in the first place).

Using late model MANPADS, they have shot down multiple SU-25's and effectively swept the Ukrainian airforce from contention in the contested areas. Closer to the border, the SU-25's dare not go, since the fully integrated GBAD umbrella is in place and can extend a great distance into Ukraine.

So the various elements that make for a good CAS aircraft will have to be unpacked and reassembled in different formats to be useful. Loitering and having good observation of the target is reasonably simple to forecast; various forms of drones providing continuing and overlapping coverage of the AO will provide eyes on.

Smart ordinance in the form of laser guided bombs and missiles, GPS guided and seeking munitions are already here, and having seen Taliban being vapourized by "smart bombs" dropped from aircraft flying at airliner altitudes above the battlefield is a pretty sobering experience. Many types of weapons now have extended wingspans, making glide bombs or missiles with ranges measured in tens or more miles (the SDB has a glide range of 60 nautical miles, and the SDB 2 is reputedly able to hit a moving target from a distance of over 45 miles).

Just over the horizon are energy weapons. The USN has demonstrated a powerful laser weapon and is working on railguns, powerful lasers have been prototyped on large transport aircraft and it is reasonable to expect a scaled down form of railgun to be mounted on a large aircraft sometime in the future. These could engage targets from hundreds of kilometres away given proper line of sight.

Thucydides wrote:Smart ordinance in the form of laser guided bombs and missiles, GPS guided and seeking munitions are already here

A serious enemy is capable of jamming the GPS, or actually killing the satellites. There´s even some ability to make GPS munitions "intentionally miss" by messing/interfering with or partially jamming their signals.

Lasers can not penetrate smoke. Guess what just about every modern armored(and some others as well) vehicle carries as standard equipment? Smoke launchers.
Those who paid the cost, carry launchers that uses IR-blocking smoke.

Thucydides wrote:various forms of drones providing continuing and overlapping coverage of the AO will provide eyes on.

Very difficult against any enemy that is using any real modern tech level.

Main problem is, you can either have lots of small drones with very limited abilities, or you can have a few that have a better chance at survival as well as being able to perform a lot of functions.

Most militaries already have or are developing ~"anti-drone warfare". I know the Swedish tech warfare group is already capable of hi-jacking or remotely killing all drones currently in use.

And since control protocols are not easy to just "write from scratch" without introducing the same or similar weaknesses, it´s not an issue that can be removed easily.

Which is why Swedish military actually uses TCP/IP for a lot of stuff, simply because then they can use common and highly developed commercial firewall technology for protection.

Thucydides wrote:So the various elements that make for a good CAS aircraft will have to be unpacked and reassembled in different formats to be useful.

Will it really? Serious question, at least in regards to USA, since the main topic was thereabouts.

With trying to have the F-35 replace nearly everything, well even if it had worked superbly and as it was supposed to, it´s still definitely not a CAS plane, it´s mostly a bombtruck.

And has been shown repeatedly, drones are not nearly as capable for the role as real CAS planes are(regardless if they´re highend A-10 or low-end A-37), mostly because they just don´t have the ability of a human being present and able to say "THAT is a target, THOSE are civillians or THAT is a decoy".

Remember how in Yugoslavia(not so much drones, but most aircraft either stayed high or went past at "non-CAS" speed, so the effect is similar to trying to use a camera link), US air campaign "officially" destroyed more Serbian tanks than existed, except that later on it was found that in reality, over 95% of those were just decoys. Most of them even just simple and basic decoys, the kind everyone doing basic training here learned to chuck together at a 3-6 per hour rate.

And that´s again before accounting for what a modern tech level opposition could counter with.

Thucydides wrote:Just over the horizon are energy weapons. The USN has demonstrated a powerful laser weapon and is working on railguns, powerful lasers have been prototyped on large transport aircraft and it is reasonable to expect a scaled down form of railgun to be mounted on a large aircraft sometime in the future. These could engage targets from hundreds of kilometres away given proper line of sight.

Yeah, again "line of sight" means smoke dispensers can really mess with them at exceedingly low costs.

Also, energy weapons have one HUGE problem.

And that´s how much power they need. Those flying lasers used special generators connected to the 4 engines and capacitors, and the plane couldn´t be too heavily loaded as the generators reduced engine output.

And, smaller planes, well noone has still managed to come up with a way to get that much energy into a smaller plane. Even tanks are still extremely experimental and unlikely to go into any military soon.
You can find some vids of some laser tank stuff from Rheinmetall if you try though.

But last i heard, they put the idea back in the freezer because it´s not going to be a viable technology anytime soon.

Same with railguns. On ships, both can work, but its still not an easy matter.

Smoke, GPS jamming and other C-PGM technologies are possible (the race is always between offense and defense after all), but we need to remember that loading up on these capacities will mean something else will have to be reduced. Even the biggest and best funded militaries run into resource limits (an amusing example is the Russian Army has finally issued socks vs "foot wraps" to their soldiers this century, and the PLA is currently in the process of introducing underwear with elastic waistbands).

And of course there are techniques to get around jamming/spoofing and other techniques as well(the most effective would be to have each weapon and drone carry an inertial navigation system, so it does not need any outside references. These are now available on a chip). OTOH, if you can successfully spoof high tech weapons with smoke, etc., why would you not be able to spoof the MK-1 eyeball of a pilot busy trying to line up his airplane against a difficult, defended target (obscured by smoke and with his airplane's GPS disabled)?

I'm pretty sure the Ukrainian Frogfoot pilots might also have a few things to contribute to this discussion, since they have been effectively grounded with only a minimum effort on the part of the Russians.