They were definitely designed not to break the bank, though. A plane can absolutely be both cheap enough for expected losses to be acceptable while still being durable.
The predicted loss rate of A-10s in the event of Fulda Gap filling with tanks was terrifyingly high. The whole fleet wasn't expected to last more than weeks, which under most definitions would qualify as being expended. But what that survivability gets you is more expected lifetime per aircraft, and more valuable pilots able to make it home even if their planes are still write-offs.
The durability of the A-10 was due to the afore mentioned Skyraider experiences.
Essentially, Vietnam showed that it didn't take much to create a defensive screen. CAS aircraft routinely couldn't fulfill their missions due to AA fire. The hilarious being the machine guns and strafe upward method. Effective against helicopters,a potential threat to aircraft because so many MGs from infantry could hit you.
The 50s and 60s era layered air defence was essentially use Long range radars, which were less accurate to give you warning of an approach. SA-2 would then be fired. They have low probability of hit at long range, but they force you to break formation/waste fuel. Mid range would be more SAMs, this time intended to kill you. The effective way then to counter this was to go low, where the missiles had problem following you. This also led to long range/mid range radars having problems detecting you.... But that's where close range weapons come in. Without the advent of terrain following radar and etc, pilots were forced to go low and slow. (B52 avoided this problem because nukes is an AOE weapon. )
At such heights, any damage was fatal, a lesson learnt in Vietnam with the Skyraiders and later A4 Skyhawk. The USAF developed two means to counteract this. One was Wild Weasel missions where A6 Intruders, errr I think F4 Phantoms????? Were trained to detect or lure these sites to fire on them and then destroy them.
The other was to make the A-10 more survivable so they could survive the damage and HIT the target before limping home.
Hence the various tricks. They essentially went pilots and engines were what downed the aircraft before they could kill the enemy, so, let's armor these areas so they could kill them before limping home.
Technology such as the MANpad meant these became increasingly obsolete as time went by. Surviving a few bullet holes from a 7.62 or 50 cal machine gun is one thing, surviving an autocannon hit with the ZSU or a SAM is another.
Yeah. Infantry still learn some of these tactics because they remain semi effective against helicopters. But the era of combining MMG and HMG into AA zones don't work against jets no more.
www.thedrive.com
