On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:15:34 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:


It was the
product of a well designed competition between A-9 and A-10 to build
an updated A-1;

Which competition was rammed down the Air Force's throat! Crikey, Ed,
have you looked at Campbell's The Warthog and the Combat Air Support
Debate ?

all the best -- Dan Ford

I'm always reluctant to base an interpretation of a complex issue on a
single revisionist author, particularly one that writes more than 20
years after the events. I recently mentioned to BUFDRVR that
Clodfelter on Linebacker II is not the only opinion as well.

I was active duty during the period of adaptation of the A-10,
including both the design competition and the operational deployment
in Europe, where I was in Hq USAFE. Later, I went through AGOS and
served as ALO to the 2nd Bde, 4th ID where we employed and integrated
the A-10. I also had the opportunity to participate in defensive A/A
training for the A-10 RTU at Davis-Monthan. And, after retirement from
active duty, I worked for Northrop Aircraft Division, where we still
had the A-9 files available for program review.

Who was doing the throat ramming? It certainly wasn't Congress, which
has little clue about operational requirements. Was it the Army? They
have been a co-equal since 1947, so they weren't in a position to ram.
AF recognized a need for a CAS aircraft, an anti-armor platform, a
long-endurance, heavy lifter for battlefield support and a replacement
SAR aircraft. It all came bundled in the A-10.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8