A-4 / A-7 Question

"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVA LIDBABY 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. Newsflash, the
Army can't win em' all without support from the other branches.



"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?)

When the A-10 reaches it's Air Frame End, F-Xs will be all that is left.
The F-18 was originally also named the A-18. That designation has been
dropped as it's a true multirole Fighter. Like the F-16 and the F-15, the
F-18 feels just as much at home supporting Ground Troops as it does as a
fighter. And when it pickles it's load, it's a Fighter capable of going
into the Air Interdiction Role. The A-10? Just anothe target for a
Fighter.



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.

Guess you know more than the AF does.



I believe the A-10 has been upgraded exactly ONE time in the USAF, when
they
hung a Pave Penny on it. The F-16 has been updated numerous times
(F-16A --
F-16C) with numerous "block" upgrades. I believe the current model is a
F-16C
Block 50/52, correct?

Think about it.



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
like
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.



It's pretty obvious where the USAF is spending it's money at.

Hell, the USAF never even wanted the A-10 in the first place, or haven't
you
noticed that most of the USAF's attack birds were taken from USN designs
(yes,
the Navy takes that role more seriously than the USAF does...).

Funny, the F-16 predates the F-18. The only requirement difference is the
Navy wants two engines for obvious reasons.



USN: A-1, A-4, A-6, A-7 (not gonna include F/A-18 in that mix)

You left off the F-4. It ended life as an attack platform and a WWW. It
took the F-14, F-15, F-16 and the F-18 to replace it. The A-10 wasn't even
needed had they spent a few buck on the F-4. But the Airframes were getting
long on the tooth.



USAF: A-1 (taken from the Navy when the USAF realized they had no suitable
attack designs), A-7 (same as previous), A-10, AC-130

The BD5 was paid for. And paid for itself in 3 wars.

And you left out the F-4. Imagine that. The first successful Multirole
Fighter ever produced. That AC was the beginning to the end of pure Attack
Aircraft.



USMC: A-4, A-6, AV-8 (Brit designed, extensively modified by McD-D)(F/A-18
also)

You conveniently left off the F-4 once again.



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.


, 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.



Are you telling me that the USAF is foolish enough to believe that
everything
with wings has to be capable of enagaging MiGs in 1v1. Hell, the Army and
the
Marine Corps don't think that everything with treads should be able to
engage
MBTs...

Everything that has an F designator except the F-117. The old A-7 engaged
Migs almost daily before the Migs decided it was best not to screw with
those Insane Sluf Jockeys.



(I won't even get into the whole P-51 (F-51) fiasco in Korea... although
some
parellels could be made - the F-51 was "sexy" but the P-47 wasn't...)

You missed the P-38 that outlived both the P(F)-51 and the P-47 in the
enventories. I remember seeing a flight outside Denver flying over out of
Buckley in the late 50s.



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?

Yes, the F-22s mission is not there as long as the F-14 and the F-15 can be
modded to do the job. But sooner or later, those Airframes will get long on
the tooth and need replaced. At that time, the F-22 comes back online.

The B-2 is the B-52 replacement. Sooner or later, the Buff will fall out of
the sky and the B-2 will pick up where it left off.

You don't drop the next generation if you can help it.




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...

Easy. Check out the Air Frame dates on the F-15 (fighters have a very short
lifespan compared to a bomber) and don't forget to check the Air Frame Dates
on the Buffs. Those are much older than you are. The Pilots were born
after the Buff was produced.



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...

Newsflash. The F-16 fills that role nicely with just a different loadout.
The A-18 designation was dropped as well for the F-18 Designation. You
really have to do better than that.



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

Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Liberation?

They were paid for. The F-16 could have easily done the same job. As for
Heavy Armor, it wasn't the A-10 that was used to do the job. The Buff was
used by carpet bombing. The A-10 had to find a mission.



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

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

Nope, it's not multirole one bit. It depends on the Fighters to keep it
alive. Drop the A-10 and let the Fighters do the job.



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. Hide in your bunker and the Bunker goes boom. Hide in
the Trees and the trees go boom. Drive your truck in an irratic manner to
avoid faster AC, your Truck goes boom. And so do you and all your buddies.
You may hike up your head and take shots at a fighter or an A-10 but NO ONE
puts their head up when Spectre is operating. Well, at least, more than
once. The AC-130 has the same firepower as a WWII Destroyer. And it
pinpoint accuracy.




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.

Tell that to the Elite Guard outside Bagdad. Oh, you can't. They are dead.
Things kept falling on them and going booooommmmmm.



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


Yeah, control the air but place no emphasis on what goes on in the
ground...

Then reload most of your F-16s and F-18s for Ground attack role.



You are reading your Armies PR again.


No, just taking note of what the USAF has historically done.

BS.



http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html

-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)

" wrote in message
ink.net...
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.

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



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.

And so can the F-16 in ground loadout.



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.

What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.
Everything else, the F-16 and the F-18 can do with a normal load for ground
support.



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 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. The only
reason they use it is that it's paid for. It saves a tremendous amount of
money than buying the support equipment for the F-16. When each 10 comes
offline, a 16 more than steps up to the plate.



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? Do we just
leave you ground pounders to fend for yourselves until AS can be
established? Do we leave the A-10 home until then? What happens if there
is no forward Air Fields? 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.



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?

Yes, that skill was used by the Skyraiders as well. Evade or Die.

" wrote in message
ink.net...
Replacement_Tommel wrote:
In article
. net,
says...


(snip)


I heard a rumor that as part of transformation the US
Army
wants to take over the A-10 and put it under Army
Aviation
and even build a few more. It might be a viscious rumor
but, I hope its true.



It almost happened in the early nineties... the USAF was
going to
drop the A-10 and said that they didn't want them. THe
Army said that
they would gladly take them off of the USAF's hands and
argued that
part of the old Key West agreement could be modified so
that fixed
wing CAS would become an Army mission again. IIRC, some
congress
critter got the defense appropriations bill tagged with a
requirement
that for every A-10 the USAF wanted to retire, it would be
"transferred" to the Army with its support crew... the
USAF quickly
dropped the idea of retiring the A-10.

About 144 A-10s were deployed to Saudi Arabia in Operation
Desert
Storm. They did not have built in night-vision capability,
GPS
support or laser-targeting, and yet they flew more than
8,900 sorties
- nearly 30 percent of all Allied missions - and accounted
for 50
percent of confirmed Iraqi equipment losses, including
nearly 1,100
of Iraq's 1,500 tanks, 1,500+ armored vehicles and 51 SCUD
missiles
and launchers. Even with only a 'marginal' precision
capability, the
A-10s fired 90 percent of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles
used in the
Gulf War, employing them with great success. Since they
were easy to
service in the field, A-10s maintained a 96 percent
mission
availability rate - the highest of any aircraft type
during the first
Gulf War - and proved to be quite durable repeatedly
returning home
with large holes in the wings and fuselage...

Yet somehow guys like DM and the rest of the "faster,
higher and
sexier" crowd believe that the A-10 can't get the job
done - which is
in contrast to what USAF General Horner said about them
(-i.e. "I
take back all the bad things I have ever said about the
A-10. I love
them! They're saving our asses!").

-Tom
(Stats are from "The A-10 Warthog and Close Air Support:
The Warthog
and the Combat Air Support Debate" by Douglas Campell,
former A-7 and
A-10 pilot)

I've heard the same stats on "Wings". Too bad it didn't
happen. The Army could use some additional CAS assets since
unlike the Navy or the Marines the USAF (other than the A-10
Squadrons) doesn't like to fly CAS missions the way they
should be in order to put the payload on target, on time.
While having a BOne or Buff dropping LGBUs may be
spectacular and more accurate than not these days. They
can't quite get the same effect as a 30mm GAU on a pack
train or moving troops. Using the BOne or Buff is a bit of
overkill and you risk your own troops going down to collect
intelligence afterwards from the UXEs that invariably occur.

Snark

Not going to happen.

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
says...
piggybacking due to tinkerbell leaving out the real ng.
"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article et,
lid says...
"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net
In article ,
says...

It almost sounds like the 30mm Caseless Pods that can be mounted
under Fighters making even an A-4 into a tank killer. That
died
when the A-7 did. Too bad. The A-7E was a superior AC to the
A-10
when armed with the 30mm caseless chain gun. To upgrade the A-7
to
an AC with the F/A-18 perfomance would have cost appr. 3.5
million
per copy. versus how much for an A-10 that requires constant
TopCap? Another Congressional Boondoggle.



Anyone know what he is talking about ?
I've not heard of any system like this before.

I'm guessing he's takling about a couple two things.

First is the GPU-5 (aka Pave Claw) gun pod, which holds a
four-barrel
version of the GAU-8 called GAU-13. (Definitely neither caseless
nor a
chain gun, though). It was supposed to give conventional fighters
almost
the
same gun power as the A-10. But it really didn't work very well.
The
New
York Air Natioanl Guard had one F-16 unit that went to the Gulf with
the
GPU-5 in 1991 (the "Boys from Syracuse"/174th Fighter Wing). They
took
the
pods off the planes early in the proceedings and never flew them
again.

This was a new gun that never went into production. It was supposed to
be
for the A-7D for the Air Force. But the acceptance of the A-10 stopped
all
research into it. It was caseless. Good idea that never reached
production.


You're statement implied they existed and were used.

Still trolling and misinterpreting any way that makes you look good. They
never went into production as the mission for the A-7 was never realized.
The same reasoning was used as to why no money is being spent on upgrading
the A-10. Don't dump good money into bad.








http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html

Second, for a time, there was discussion of using a modified A-7
with
afterbrning engnie as a CAS bird instead of the A-10. But that was
Air
Force, not Navy. And as much a I like the A-7, I have to admit that
this
was probably a dead end idea. Even with extensive mods, the A-7 was
never
going to be a turning fighter or radar missile shooter like the
Hornet.

http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/ya-7f.html

The Air Force didn't want to give up the A-7 anymore than the Navy did.
The
A-10 was helpless unless you had air superiority. The A-10 was a
sitting
duck for even the Soviet SU7 Attack. This made the AF look at
alternatives.
But the F-16A was the answer to that question when it was affordable.

I'm not talking down the A-7. It did a good job during it service time.

And I do not believe the A-10 would be helpless. Many an F4 pilot rued
the day they decided to get low and slow with Mig-17's in Vietnam.

The F-4 was a miltirole and would do standoff with the Mig-17. Or use it's
superior thrust. The Mig-17 could only win if the F-4 didn't know he was
there. But, then again, a Piper Cub with a Missile would work just as well
in that situtation against any Fighter in our Present inventory. It took
Red Flag and the Navy Equiv to teach the pilots new techniques. After that,
the Migs didn't even break cloud cover when any of the Fs were in operation.
Ever hear about the Triple Nickel ruse?





And of course, the coming of the FA-18 filled the need for the Navy. At
the
time, the FA-18 was still on the drawing board. But at 3.4 mil, the
Super
Corsair was tempting. Things just happened before the need for the
Super
A-7 was finished. Nothing lost in the end.





Looks like those in RAM know a bit more about the subject than you do
daryl....

Hey Tinkerbell, keep trolling.

Sorry you feel that way. I asked those in RAM and they disagreed with you,
again.

You reading fiction once again? Most backed me up. But you go ahead with
your story. But start it with, "And there I was........" or "Once upon a
time".

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...
Tank Fixer wrote:

In article ,

(RAM snipped out of courtesy)

Looks like those in RAM know a bit more about the subject than you
do
daryl....

Hey Tinkerbell, keep trolling.

Sorry you feel that way. I asked those in RAM and they disagreed with
you,
again.

funny how that happens, isn't it? %-)

You ground pounders can't read either.

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...

(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.

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.

(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.")

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.


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.

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...).




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?

(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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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

-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)

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...


(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.

"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.

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)