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)

"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVA LIDBABY wrote in message
...
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.

Ohm My, guess you need to ask the Elite Guard right outside Bagdad. Oh,
that's right. You can't. They are dead. A bunch of idiots in US Air Force
Jets mistakenly missed you and hit them instead. Oh what a huge miss
considering you were sitting safely driving your armchair Army game
stateside.




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?

You are just trolling. Get it right.



(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)

Due to cost, a lot of things will be kept around for a very long time. 2028
is the time that that AF runs out of time. Now, if something comes up that
can pop off the 10 like a flash bulb then it may be quite shorter. And I
read this as doing mods that needed to be done anyway. As I said, the F-16
costs more when you have to buy it. The A-10 is paid for and 12 years past
it's out of service date. Let a shoulder fired missile come out that can
knock it out of the air consistently, look for it to head for DM, Afb real
fast.



(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

Rave on. Nice mockup.




, 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.

After you got there. Most were already gone before the Army even set foot
on the sand. You honestly think the Air Force, Navy and Marines were just
flying cookies in the sky for 6 weeks before the Army showed up?



(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.

You read it the way you want. I stated it very well. That AC is justified.

I can thank the God(s) that you aren't a policy maker of any kind.

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