The term "Fighter"

With the system used "U.S. Joint Aircraft Designation System of 1962",
faults aside, how does the USAF have this choice?

By not adopting the aircraft, or by redesigning and redesignating it.

Has the USAF adopted an attack aircraft since the A-10 was rammed down
its throat?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 05:25:11 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:

Has the USAF adopted an attack aircraft since the A-10 was rammed down
its throat?

all the best -- Dan Ford

Difficult to let that urban legend prevail without comment. The A-10
was definitely not rammed down any metaphorical AF throat. It was the
product of a well designed competition between A-9 and A-10 to build
an updated A-1; an airplane with high survivability, close-in
accuracy, heavy payload, and good anti-armor capability. The value of
such an aircraft had been conclusively demonstrated in SEA and the
application for such a type in European NATO Fulda Gap scenarios was
obvious. (The initial deployment to Ben****ers/Woodbridge with six
FOLs in Germany is illustrative.)

Repeat again after me:

1. The USAF recognizes CAS as a mission.
2. The A-10 is a valued aircraft (despite the fact that lots of
fighter pilots think Vipers or Eagles are more glamorous.)
3. Folks who fly or have flown the A-10 like and respect it.
4. It has been very successful over the years.
5. The USAF recognizes CAS as a mission.

Lather, rinse, repeat.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

It was the
product of a well designed competition between A-9 and A-10 to build
an updated A-1;

Which competition was rammed down the Air Force's throat! Crikey, Ed,
have you looked at Campbell's The Warthog and the Combat Air Support
Debate ?

www.warbirdforum.com/warthog.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:15:34 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:


It was the
product of a well designed competition between A-9 and A-10 to build
an updated A-1;

Which competition was rammed down the Air Force's throat! Crikey, Ed,
have you looked at Campbell's The Warthog and the Combat Air Support
Debate ?

all the best -- Dan Ford

I'm always reluctant to base an interpretation of a complex issue on a
single revisionist author, particularly one that writes more than 20
years after the events. I recently mentioned to BUFDRVR that
Clodfelter on Linebacker II is not the only opinion as well.

I was active duty during the period of adaptation of the A-10,
including both the design competition and the operational deployment
in Europe, where I was in Hq USAFE. Later, I went through AGOS and
served as ALO to the 2nd Bde, 4th ID where we employed and integrated
the A-10. I also had the opportunity to participate in defensive A/A
training for the A-10 RTU at Davis-Monthan. And, after retirement from
active duty, I worked for Northrop Aircraft Division, where we still
had the A-9 files available for program review.

Who was doing the throat ramming? It certainly wasn't Congress, which
has little clue about operational requirements. Was it the Army? They
have been a co-equal since 1947, so they weren't in a position to ram.
AF recognized a need for a CAS aircraft, an anti-armor platform, a
long-endurance, heavy lifter for battlefield support and a replacement
SAR aircraft. It all came bundled in the A-10.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:47:17 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:

And, after retirement from
active duty, I worked for Northrop Aircraft Division, where we still
had the A-9 files available for program review.


Having has access to the paperwork for the A9, how did it rate IYHO ?
Interesting that the otherside went for a similar planform for the Su-25.

greg
--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:27:09 +0000, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:47:17 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:

And, after retirement from
active duty, I worked for Northrop Aircraft Division, where we still
had the A-9 files available for program review.


Having has access to the paperwork for the A9, how did it rate IYHO ?
Interesting that the otherside went for a similar planform for the Su-25.

I didn't have an opportunity to review the fly-off comparisons. I was
primarily involved with training system development as part of the
YF-23 proposal (the RFP required a total package of not only aircraft
but aircrew and maintenance training as well.). I also did PATS
proposal work (Primary Aircrew Training System)--a follow-on to the
T-37. Lots of interactive simulator flying as well. (Hope these
disclosures don't force Dudley to have to initiate action to silence
me with prejudice. ;-) ))

My very humble opinion was that while the company was very innovative
and certainly had the production infrastructure in place for either
A-9, F-17, F-20 or F-23 production, the management was not as tight as
I think was necessary to meet program goals. Did I say that tactfully
enough?? It may have been an impression that only occurred at the
angle that I was viewing the big picture from.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:47:03 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:


My very humble opinion was that while the company was very innovative
and certainly had the production infrastructure in place for either
A-9, F-17, F-20 or F-23 production, the management was not as tight as
I think was necessary to meet program goals. Did I say that tactfully
enough??

say no more ;-)


greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

I'm always reluctant to base an interpretation of a complex issue on a
single revisionist author, particularly one that writes more than 20
years after the events

Hardly a revisionist. He was an A-10 driver

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:15:34 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:


It was the
product of a well designed competition between A-9 and A-10 to build
an updated A-1;

Which competition was rammed down the Air Force's throat! Crikey, Ed,
have you looked at Campbell's The Warthog and the Combat Air Support
Debate ?

I was around at the time and I don't remember this at all. It sure
didn't seem to show up in AvWeek or Flight, at any rate. Nor did I
hear anything from Contractor's Row, which is a hotbed of gossip and
inside news, sometimes inextricably mixed.

I do remember discussion about whether the USAF had enough support
from the Army, as well as comparisons with the USMC, but the USAF
seemed really hot for the new airplane, whichever it was.

For what it's worth, Dryden got the YA-9s after the fly-off. The four
engines went to Ames to power the QSRA eventually and, much later, the
airframes went to be gate guards.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer