Why Would Tanks be Vulnerable to Aircraft Today?

[Raminator]

I do agree that tanks during WW2 and even vietnam/korean war are pretty vulnerable to aircraft. We have seen many T72s taken out by A-10s during gulf war as well.

Fast forward to 2017. We seen super long range Russian S400, Buk Missile and all the way to small infantry held SAMs. We still have automatic flak cannons mounted on tracked vehicles but no longer that common. SAMs does most of the work now.

Lets assume Russia invaded Ukraine and NATO send their planes to take out the Russian tanks. What are the chances of A-10 taking out the pesky T90s? Wouldn't S400 or Buk spotted the A-10s long before they reach their targets? Even if they do, do you think some soldier could have fired their IGLA at the A-10 as well? Or even some SPAAG like Tunguska?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile

There's an entire arm of air warfare called suppression of enemy air defences, which specifically targets enemy AA missiles, radars, SPAAGs, MANPADs and installations. It's like anything else in warfare, as soon as you create a defence against something, somebody else will be able to defeat it. The escalation of tanks' gun penetration and armour thickness during WW2 is a good example.

[philipat]

Generically speaking, all weapons platforms and systems have weaknesses and vulnerabilities as well as strengths. Long range anti-aircraft missiles aren't concerned with short-range, low-flying helicopters. Radar systems have "dead" zones where they can't "see" aircraft. Terrain limits weapons engagement options. Slow-moving aircraft don't lead faster aircraft that also have smaller radar cross-sections. A combined arms approach in SEAD as well as ground combat is always necessary. Tanks and aircraft won't operate independently.

Also, a tank's anti-aircraft weapon isn't its primary defense from aircraft; it's a last resort. But, a last resort is better than "no option".

[Estnische]

I don't pretend to know jack about current systems and technology, but having just read a few books on the Falklands War, it appears that anti-aircraft systems that work in theory and exercises come up against operational and human factors in wartime.

In short, the multi-layered systems used by the Royal Navy were thought to be the bees-knees, but came unstuck because of the non-ideal conditions of deployment close to terrain and clashes with other radar/radio equipment. The only think that prevented the disastrous loss of an aircraft carrier was defence in depth, where smaller ships in the outer circle would be adequate targets to Argentinian pilots under fire.