"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVA LIDBABY wrote in message
...
In article , Daryl Hunt
says...


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in
message
...

Tell the USAF that... for awhile they wanted to get rid rid of the A-10
and were pushing the "A-16" - picture a F-16 in green camoflage with a
30mm
gatling gun pod on its center hardpoint.

CAS simply isn't something taken seriously by the USAF.

You tell the AF that.

Oh, they already know it.

And when required, they are very good at it as is the Navy. Newsflash, the
Army can't win em' all without support from the other branches.



"Not a pound for air to ground" as the Fighter Mafia used to like to
say...
(funny how you don't hear about a "CAS Mafia," huh?)

When the A-10 reaches it's Air Frame End, F-Xs will be all that is left.
The F-18 was originally also named the A-18. That designation has been
dropped as it's a true multirole Fighter. Like the F-16 and the F-15, the
F-18 feels just as much at home supporting Ground Troops as it does as a
fighter. And when it pickles it's load, it's a Fighter capable of going
into the Air Interdiction Role. The A-10? Just anothe target for a
Fighter.



They aren't buying anymore A-10s for a good reason.

They aren't sexy enough, so the USAF just ignored it and hoped it would
die.

Guess you know more than the AF does.



I believe the A-10 has been upgraded exactly ONE time in the USAF, when
they
hung a Pave Penny on it. The F-16 has been updated numerous times
(F-16A --
F-16C) with numerous "block" upgrades. I believe the current model is a
F-16C
Block 50/52, correct?

Think about it.



The USAF has spent tons of money on the F-16 program and has come up with
numerous test beds for the Lawn Dart (like the F-16XL and "A-16" - where
the
USAF tried to convince everybody that a lizard green F-16C with a 30mm
gunpod
was an A-10...).

You put good money into good and don't put good money into bad. The F-16
can go into the Attack role just by reconfiguring the load. So can the F-18
as well. And if they get into trouble with Fighters, they pickle their load
and fight even up.





There was a two seater all weather A-10 (NAW-10?) that he Air Force looked
at
briefly and then decided that it didn't want (what a surprise...).

That gives two pilots the possibility of buying the farm to any Fighter
built since 1958.



The fact is - the USAF gets the F-16 pilots LANTRIN pods and fun stuff
like
that, while the A-10 guys are given Night Vision Goggles.

Don't spend good money on a bad idea. Sounds like a winner to me.



It's pretty obvious where the USAF is spending it's money at.

Hell, the USAF never even wanted the A-10 in the first place, or haven't
you
noticed that most of the USAF's attack birds were taken from USN designs
(yes,
the Navy takes that role more seriously than the USAF does...).

Funny, the F-16 predates the F-18. The only requirement difference is the
Navy wants two engines for obvious reasons.



USN: A-1, A-4, A-6, A-7 (not gonna include F/A-18 in that mix)

You left off the F-4. It ended life as an attack platform and a WWW. It
took the F-14, F-15, F-16 and the F-18 to replace it. The A-10 wasn't even
needed had they spent a few buck on the F-4. But the Airframes were getting
long on the tooth.



USAF: A-1 (taken from the Navy when the USAF realized they had no suitable
attack designs), A-7 (same as previous), A-10, AC-130

The BD5 was paid for. And paid for itself in 3 wars.

And you left out the F-4. Imagine that. The first successful Multirole
Fighter ever produced. That AC was the beginning to the end of pure Attack
Aircraft.



USMC: A-4, A-6, AV-8 (Brit designed, extensively modified by McD-D)(F/A-18
also)

You conveniently left off the F-4 once again.



The fact is, the USN has led the way with attack craft. The Navy even
considered
the A-12

The A-12? You mean the forerunner to the SR-71? Now there's a plane
without a mission.


, whereas the the USAF has never really considered a follow on for the
A-10 (oh yeah, the A-16 - but the Air Force brass didn't fool anyone on
that).

IT's not the Air Force attempting to fool anyone here. It was proven in
1980 that the A-10 was suseptable to any and all fighters including most
Attack Aircraft to include the A-7, A-4, SU7 and a host of other AC it was
supposed to replace. It never filled it's role completely.



Are you telling me that the USAF is foolish enough to believe that
everything
with wings has to be capable of enagaging MiGs in 1v1. Hell, the Army and
the
Marine Corps don't think that everything with treads should be able to
engage
MBTs...

Everything that has an F designator except the F-117. The old A-7 engaged
Migs almost daily before the Migs decided it was best not to screw with
those Insane Sluf Jockeys.



(I won't even get into the whole P-51 (F-51) fiasco in Korea... although
some
parellels could be made - the F-51 was "sexy" but the P-47 wasn't...)

You missed the P-38 that outlived both the P(F)-51 and the P-47 in the
enventories. I remember seeing a flight outside Denver flying over out of
Buckley in the late 50s.



It's mission died with the fall of the iron curtain.

As did the F-22's and the (especially) the B-2's yet the USAF doesn't want
to
drop them does it?

Yes, the F-22s mission is not there as long as the F-14 and the F-15 can be
modded to do the job. But sooner or later, those Airframes will get long on
the tooth and need replaced. At that time, the F-22 comes back online.

The B-2 is the B-52 replacement. Sooner or later, the Buff will fall out of
the sky and the B-2 will pick up where it left off.

You don't drop the next generation if you can help it.




The major power with the Main Battle Tanks the A-10 was designed to
combat
can't even get the fuel to drive them anymore.

So why does the USAF want the F-22 and B-2 then? The Russian Air Force is
a
joke, and it's not bloody likely that we need to nuke them anytime soon...

Easy. Check out the Air Frame dates on the F-15 (fighters have a very short
lifespan compared to a bomber) and don't forget to check the Air Frame Dates
on the Buffs. Those are much older than you are. The Pilots were born
after the Buff was produced.



And the F-16 can completely fill the role

The USAF dropped the "A-16" idea because they knew nobody was daft enough
to buy
it...

Newsflash. The F-16 fills that role nicely with just a different loadout.
The A-18 designation was dropped as well for the F-18 Designation. You
really have to do better than that.



the A-10 was supposed to do (and never did).

Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Liberation?

They were paid for. The F-16 could have easily done the same job. As for
Heavy Armor, it wasn't the A-10 that was used to do the job. The Buff was
used by carpet bombing. The A-10 had to find a mission.



Life expectancy of an A-10 against almost any Mig or SU is about 30
seconds.

The A-10 isn't a fighter, right?

Nope, it's not multirole one bit. It depends on the Fighters to keep it
alive. Drop the A-10 and let the Fighters do the job.



And why does the USAF want to keep the AC-130? It's s-l-o-w, b-i-g, can't
fight
Migs... damn that thing is WORSE than an A-10!!!

Since you have never seen one inoperation, I don't wonder why you would say
something as silly. Hide in your bunker and the Bunker goes boom. Hide in
the Trees and the trees go boom. Drive your truck in an irratic manner to
avoid faster AC, your Truck goes boom. And so do you and all your buddies.
You may hike up your head and take shots at a fighter or an A-10 but NO ONE
puts their head up when Spectre is operating. Well, at least, more than
once. The AC-130 has the same firepower as a WWII Destroyer. And it
pinpoint accuracy.




This is typical fighter mafia mentality - look downwards, because man
lives on
the ground and not up in the clouds. It's the ground battle that's
paramount.

Tell that to the Elite Guard outside Bagdad. Oh, you can't. They are dead.
Things kept falling on them and going booooommmmmm.



Life expectancy of a F-16 all depends on the Pilots.


Yeah, control the air but place no emphasis on what goes on in the
ground...

Then reload most of your F-16s and F-18s for Ground attack role.



You are reading your Armies PR again.


No, just taking note of what the USAF has historically done.

BS.



http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html

-Tom

"For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs ressistance/For
the
Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus
Banks,
"What I Live for"

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)