Replacement_Tommel wrote:
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.

"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?)

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.

Even the USAF A-10 pilots say that the USAF is ignoring the
A-10 and hoping it'll go away.

snip


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?

No, the A-10s mission really began in Desert Storm when we
found out that it could do so much more than bust tanks.
The A-10 and AH-64 make a credible team for dealing with
hardened targets like bunkers and other defense works. It
is also an outstanding weapon in Close (and I mean close)
air support of ground operations providing covering fire as
effective (maybe more effective) as artillery and is more
versatile in "Danger Close" support missions because of its
ability to fly slow enough for the pilot to properly
identify ground targets. The A-10 can fly at altitudes
where the AH-64 is not effective such as the Hindu Kush
where they could be called against caves, stone works and
other defensive positions.


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...

The A-10 has a current mission and is more capable of
performing it than any other aircraft whether fixed or
rotary winged.

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...

It can't fly slow enough and it can't direct gunfire
accurately enough. The numbers of "blue on blue" incidents
with F-16s should be enough to tell anyone that.

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

Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Liberation?

Add Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Just Cause.
All of which have proven (at least to the US Army, US Navy
(hence A-12) and USMC that the A-10 is an excellent aircraft
with a continuing mission in Close Air Support.

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

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

Do we expect that we will be unable to provide CAP and air
superiority anytime soon?

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!!!

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.

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

Life expectancy of an A-10 depends on the skill of the
Pilots as well. Or didn't you read about how they were
employed as "deep strike" aircraft in Desert Storm?

Snark