Replacement_Tommel wrote:
In article ,
Daryl Hunt
says...


"Replacement_Tommel"

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


"Replacement_Tommel"

'SINVA LIDBABY
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.

I've read that grunts on the ground preffered asking the
Navy and
Marines for CAS over the USAF.

IMHO, based upon experience, I'd call in Army Aviation if it
didn't require heavy ordnance loads or wasn't at too high an
elevation, then Marine Air, then Navy air and if I have a
very good fix on the target, it is a stationary target and
it is at a range in excess of 500 M away from any US
personnel and can be easily identified by someone flying too
high, too fast to be really useful in CAS, (in other words,
not an A-10) then I'd call in the USAF.

Newsflash, the Army can't win em' all without support
from the other
branches.


No **** - why do you think I'm bitching about the USAF
neglecting
such things?

(snip)



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
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.


Well, Daryl... I'm going to correct myself, but at the
same time
embarrass you. The USAF has recently adopted the "Hog Up"
program,
and will be keeping the A-10 around until 2028.


http://www.hilltoptimes.com/story.as...79&storyid=210
9

(That's a year old article - hopefully the USAF hasn't
changed its
mind on this)


There are a lot of US Army aviation types who want the A-10
in Army service. I doubt that the Air Force is too keen on
that as about the only missions they've had recently are in
support of ground operations.

There haven't been any fighter to fighter duels in a long
time.


(snip)


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.


No. I mean the stealth attack plane that the Navy wanted.

http://www.aerofiles.com/gendym-a12.jpg


Looks interesting and quite possibly a good ground attack
platform (much better than the F/A-18 which isn't much for F
and less for A according to some of the older USMC pilots I
knew.


, 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.


It's role is CAS. It has done that well. 80% of the tanks
destroyed
in Desert Storm were done by A-10s.

(snip)


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.

By your standards, since it is low and slow and vulnerable
to MIGs,
it's not worth a damn.



I've seen them in operation, I've also called for AC-130
strikes. It is a good point and area weapon system but very
vulnerable to AAA and to hand held weapons like the SAM 7
and similar missiles. The only countermeasures they have
that work against the missiles are flares and they usually
don't carry a lot of them. If the "bad guys" have a lot
of 12.7 or bigger stuff going up along with missiles the
AC-130 has to get out and wait for the AA to be neutralized
before they can be effective. That generally means the
enemy can seek cover and disperse while the F-15s or F-16s
come in to try to neutralize the AA.

Snark