A-4 / A-7 Question

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


(snippum)


" wrote in message
link.net...


(snip)



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

Of course. It's the end of a way of life.

Tell the USAF that. I've been reading a few new articles and the USAF
claims
that the A-10 will be in their inventory until 2028. They are even
(finally)
updating it.

The A-10 owes much of it's life
to the Skyraider. Ever been "Had by a Spad?"


When we got involved in Vietnam, the USAF (once again) found itself
without a
suitable attack aircraft - one that could carry gobs of ordinance, was
slow and
had a long loiter time... and once again the USAF had to take a USN
aircraft,
the A-1 Skyraider, to fufill a role that they neglected...

You really need to get a new schtic. This one is stail and quite uniformed.
The AF didn't get it from the Navy, they got it from the boneyard where the
Navy put them in the first place. Then again, quite a few AC were retired
to the Boneyard only to find themselves back on duty. Like the C-124
Globemaster.



(snip)


And so can the F-16 in ground loadout.


If the USAF lets them. The USAF has a tendency to keep their sexy jets
away from
CAS because it doesn't want to get their pretty jets hurt.

Again, ask the Elite Guard that was outside Bagdad. Oh, that's right. They
are all dead from things falling on their heads and going boom.




From what I saw, the A-10, although slower than a F-16, can do two attack
runs
in the same time a F-16 can do one. The A-10 can loiter better than the
F-16.

Then you need to see better. Both can do more than 2, I assure you. The
difference is, the F-16 has a higher survivalbility rate due to it being
able to slow down to 200 kts and then speed up to Mach if need be to exit.
The 10 doesn't have to slow down. It's already slow.


(snip)

What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.

Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by A-10s -
even
the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that he took back
everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his ass.")

I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course) but the
Buffs were nailing the Republican Guard Armor with Carpet Bombing long
before you characters set foot in even Saudiland.




Everything else, the F-16 and the F-18 can do with a normal load for
ground
support.


F-16s pilots do not practice CAS enough.

I suggest you voice you concerns to the Head of the Air Force. He could use
a nice bit of humor. And since when does anyone in the Military get enough
Battle Practice anyway? I suggest you learn to read roadmaps.





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.

You seem to forget the number of A-10s as well. The 16 and the 18 can
slow
down to 200 kts like the A-10 can and still deliver the load.


The A-10 can go down to about 110 knots. It's got some big ass boards on
its
wings so that it can slow down effectively - the F-16 doesn't have that.
The
A-10 is also more maneveurable than a F-16 at these speeds.

At 110 kts, you can knock it down with a handgun. At 200 KTs it's a bit
harder to hit it and no pilot in their right mind slows down much below
that. Those that are not in their right mind and slow it down to stall
speed are dead.



And unlike the F-16, the A-10 is a relatively "quiet" aircraft and is more
adept
at sneaking up to mobile ground targets than a F-16 is (I know this cause
one
snuck up on me at one time...).

Yup. Except when the 16 closes, it's usually running at a speed where the
sound is reaching the ground just behind the AC passing. The Doppler affect
makes it appear to be dead quiet. If you heard it, you weren't the target.







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.

You are using ground pounder PR. It's not going to save the A-10.

2028?

Is that a REg or your hat size?



(snip)

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 if we go against a Military with a decent AF, what then?

What are those F-22s and F-15s for?

Newsflash, we don't have enough F-15s and just how many F-22s do you think
are in the active duty inventory? We could have used the F-14 during
Vietnam but didn't.



Do we just leave you ground pounders to fend for yourselves until AS can
be
established?

F-22s and F-15s can't fly escort for A-10s?

Why would they need to. The 16 doesn't need the cover nearly as much. The
A-7s often flew with no Topcap. And the Mig Pilots learned to leave the
Sluf alone due to a high deathrate of their own.




Do we leave the A-10 home until then? What happens if there
is no forward Air Fields?

Odd thing about the A-10... it can fly off relatively unimproved
airfields... if
we did go up against some country with a **** Hot Air Force, it'll be the
F-22s,
F-16s, and F-15s that'll be grounded because their air bases and runways
have
been shot up.

Rave on. Name one place on the earth that the F-15 with Conformal Packs,
the F-16 with external tanks and the Tankers can't get to. There isn't one
place on earth.




The A-10, OTOH, will be flying from makeshift runways...

Without the F-15s, 16s and such, the A-10 will be parked on a very
comfortable Airfield well behind the lines. Completely out of range where
the Junk 1950s Fighters from a 3rd rate AF can't get to them and blow them
all to hell and gone.



The Forward AFs become the Carriers (F-18) and
the AF F-16s with external tanks. The A-10 sits out of range. North
Korea
is a prime example.


See above.

See above.



There were USAF A-10s at Bagram Air Field in the Sandbox, but there sure
as hell
weren't any USAF F-16s there...

Newsflash, there also was no opposing Air Force either. It had already been
plowed away to nothing or thought better of taking off. Attack that A-10
and you get a frontline Fighter on your way in. You won't make it.

Daryl Hunt wrote:

(snipage occurs, fore and aft)

Newsflash, we don't have enough F-15s and just how many F-22s do you think
are in the active duty inventory? We could have used the F-14 during
Vietnam but didn't.

really? that appears to be news to most folks:

Three early F-14As were delivered in the autumn of 1972 to VX-4 at NAS
Point Mugu, California for operational evaluation. The replacement
squadron VF-124 at NAS Miramar received its first Tomcats in June of
1972.
The job of VF-124 was to train Tomcat crews for duty with operational
carrier-based squadrons. The first two operational Tomcat squadrons
were VF-1 Wolfpack and VF-2 Bounty Hunters, both based at NAS Miramar.
These units deployed aboard the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) in mid-1974.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevo...r_us/f014.html

redc1c4,
do you enjoy getting caught lying, or are you just stupid?
--
A Troop - 1st Squadron
404th Lemming Armored Cavalry

"Velox et Capillatus!"

DM howler (was A-4 / A-7
From: redc1c4
Date: 10/12/2003 10:38 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Daryl Hunt wrote:

(snipage occurs, fore and aft)

Newsflash, we don't have enough F-15s and just how many F-22s do you think
are in the active duty inventory? We could have used the F-14 during
Vietnam but didn't.

really? that appears to be news to most folks:

You didn't know we also had AH-64s and M-1 tanks in Viet Nam? Egad, friend,
have you not read war novels and watched movies?

I have seen such memorable lines as "didn't you fly Apaches in Viet Nam" and
stuff like that there.

Then again FOX's War Stories with Oliver North has had such memorable
statements as "most never came back" when referring to the 8th AF bombing
missions.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

(B2431) wrote:
DM howler (was A-4 / A-7
From: redc1c4

Date: 10/12/2003 10:38 PM Central Daylight
Time
Message-id:

Daryl Hunt wrote:

(snipage occurs, fore and aft)

Newsflash, we don't have enough F-15s and
just how many F-22s do you think
are in the active duty inventory? We could
have used the F-14 during
Vietnam but didn't.
FYI the F-14 was not considered ready until 1974. VF-1 and VF-2 made the
first cruise on USS Enterprise (CVAN-65) in 1975. They did participate in
Operation FREQUENT WIND on 28-29 Apr 1975 covering the evacuation. Several
were fired on by NVA triple-A but no damage or loss of aircraft. And no MiGs
came to disrupt the evac.
The ship had moved on to the IO when USS Coral Sea (CVA-43) covered the Mayaguez
rescue in May.


Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

In article , Daryl Hunt says...


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message
...
In article , Daryl Hunt
says...



From what I saw, the A-10, although slower than a F-16, can do two attack
runs
in the same time a F-16 can do one. The A-10 can loiter better than the
F-16.

Then you need to see better.

You need to read better.

"In the same time..." means in the same amount of time, an A-10 can do two
attack runs whereas the F-16 will only do one.


What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.

Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by A-10s -
even
the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that he took back
everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his ass.")

I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)

Tell the USAF that:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the armored vehicles destroyed by
coalition air forces.32 During the latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles
A. Horner, the joint force air component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I
take back all of the bad things that I said about the A-10. I love them! They
saved our ass."33 Furthermore, a captured Iraqi officer reported that the
"single most recognizable and feared aircraft at low level was the A-10.
Although the actual bomb run was terrifying, the aircraft's loitering around the
target area caused as much, if not more, anxiety since the Iraqi soldiers were
unsure of the chosen target."34 Another source reported that A-10s killed over
50 percent of all enemy tanks, more than 50 percent of all field artillery
pieces, and 31 percent of all armored personnel carriers. Interestingly enough,
they also accounted for more air-to-air combat kills than the multirole F-16
Fighting Falcon.35 Clearly, the A-10s were decisive combat multipliers on the
battlefield and were instrumental in minimizing US ground losses in the ground
campaign that liberated Kuwait. And, once again, the Air Force used B-52s in the
BAI role to bomb Republican Guard positions as well as troop or equipment
concentrations.36"

32. "`The Air Campaign' Videotape Script," in Air Command and Staff College
Seminar/Lesson Book, vol. 9 (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air University, 1993), 37-51.

33. Smallwood, 96.

34. Ibid., 203.

35. "Letters," Air Force Magazine, September 1991, 9-10.

36. Hallion, 221.

It's also in "White Paper - Air Force Performance in Desert Storm, Department of
the Air Force, April 1991."

Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that the Russians have a three stage
SAM...

-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...



From what I saw, the A-10, although slower than a F-16, can do two
attack
runs
in the same time a F-16 can do one. The A-10 can loiter better than the
F-16.

Then you need to see better.

You need to read better.

"In the same time..." means in the same amount of time, an A-10 can do two
attack runs whereas the F-16 will only do one.

And the A-10 Pilot is more than twice as vulnerable to everything. You sure
put a low price on a Pilots Life.




What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.

Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by
A-10s -
even
the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that he took
back
everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his ass.")

I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)

Tell the USAF that:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html

mercy snip

You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles". If the A-10 had done the bulk
of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim.
Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else. And ANY type of
A or F could do this. Bring back the OV-10 or the armed version of the O-2
and they could do it as well. The A-10 was primarily used AFTER the
Fighters and Bombers killed the Armor and made everyone put their heads
down.

End of discussion, Troll Boy.

In article , Daryl Hunt says...


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message
...
In article , Daryl Hunt
says...


(sbip)


What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.

Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by
A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that
he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his
ass.")

I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)

Tell the USAF that:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html

mercy snip

You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles".

Huh?

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------) ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During the
latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint force air
component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the bad things
that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 "

If the A-10 had done the bulk
of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim.

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------) ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces."

Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else.

The article says "ARMORED" vehicles.

Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs.

Your reading skills are pitiful.

-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...


(sbip)


What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.

Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by
A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked
that
he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it
"saved his
ass.")

I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)

Tell the USAF that:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html

mercy snip

You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles".

Huh?

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air
assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------)
ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During the
latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint force
air
component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the bad
things
that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 "

If the A-10 had done the bulk
of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim.

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air
assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------)
ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces."

Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else.

The article says "ARMORED" vehicles.

Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs.

Your reading skills are pitiful.

Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10 arrived.
The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80% of the
Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his
statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it? This
was NOT an official Air Force Statement.

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message
...
In article , Daryl Hunt
says...


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in
message
...
In article , Daryl Hunt
says...


(sbip)


What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.

Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by
A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked
that
he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it
"saved his
ass.")

I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)

Tell the USAF that:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html

mercy snip

You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles".

Huh?

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air
assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------)
ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During the
latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint force
air
component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the bad
things
that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 "

If the A-10 had done the bulk
of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim.

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air
assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------)
ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces."

Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else.

The article says "ARMORED" vehicles.

Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs.

Your reading skills are pitiful.

Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10 arrived.
The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80% of the
Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his
statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it? This
was NOT an official Air Force Statement.



So to summarize, he provided a link to a document on an official Air
Force site which in turn cited the Air Command and Staff College
Seminar/Lesson Book for the specific information you disagree with.
You, on the other hand, have nothing but the famous "because Daryl
said so" argument to back up your claim. At least you're consistent.

"dvick" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in
message
...
In article , Daryl Hunt
says...


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in
message
...
In article , Daryl
Hunt
says...


(sbip)


What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by
Bombers.

Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by
A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner
remarked
that
he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it
"saved his
ass.")

I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)

Tell the USAF that:


http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html

mercy snip

You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles".

Huh?

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air
assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------)
ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During
the
latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint
force
air
component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the
bad
things
that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 "

If the A-10 had done the bulk
of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that
claim.

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air
assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------)
ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces."

Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else.

The article says "ARMORED" vehicles.

Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs.

Your reading skills are pitiful.

Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10 arrived.
The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80% of
the
Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his
statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it? This
was NOT an official Air Force Statement.



So to summarize, he provided a link to a document on an official Air
Force site which in turn cited the Air Command and Staff College
Seminar/Lesson Book for the specific information you disagree with.
You, on the other hand, have nothing but the famous "because Daryl
said so" argument to back up your claim. At least you're consistent.

I know PR when I see it. You people have no idea how much of this goes on.
Too bad. Things do blindside you when they come. When the PR is no longer
necessary, the changes they wanted to do all along happens.

But don't let that bit of fact get in your way.