A-4 / A-7 Question

In article , Daryl Hunt says...


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY 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.

I've read that grunts on the ground preffered asking the Navy and Marines for
CAS over 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...9&storyid=2109

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

(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


, 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.

-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)