x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT) (03/18/91)
From: x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT)
The reason there are no A-10s on carriers is simple. The Aircraft is not
needed in the Naval Service. The Marines have the AV-8B and F/A-18 for Close
Air Support. These aircraft perform the mission very well. The AV-8B is far
better then the A-10 for CAS. It was a good thing that the Iraqis had no Air
Force because the A-10 can not survive when threat aircraft are present. The
Harrier II is very survival and can hang in Air-to air combat.
The other reason is that you would need to heavily modify the A-10 for carrier
duty!
Also the A-10 is extremely underpowered and very slow.
The Marines wanted the Marine Machine, the AV-8B and they got it and it works
great! It can hold everything the A-10 can, deliver ordnance on target, and
defend itself. The Marines don't want the A-10, there is no need for it.
Charles K. Bergman
CDT USMA '93
x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu ***************************************
* There is no substitute for victory! *fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (03/19/91)
From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) >From: x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT) > >The reason there are no A-10s on carriers is simple. The Aircraft is not >needed in the Naval Service. The Marines have the AV-8B and F/A-18 for Close >Air Support. These aircraft perform the mission very well. The AV-8B is far >better then the A-10 for CAS. Some Warthog drivers might contest that statement. >It was a good thing that the Iraqis had no Air >Force because the A-10 can not survive when threat aircraft are present. Low and slow, yes, but also hard to hit. In Red Flag exercises, A-10s have been known to outmaneuver much faster aircraft...I'd be nervous with a 30mm cannon pointed at me. Even if hit, an A-10 can absorb a *lot* of damage before it can no longer stay aloft. Probably more than just about any other aircraft currently in use that might take over its role. >TheHarrier II is very survival and can hang in Air-to air combat. Properly flown, a Harrier can make good account of itself...but air-to-air is only a small part of a good CAS machine's repertoir. They should be expecting their tender forms to be covered by the Air Superiority aircraft, like the F-15 and F-16s who have the job of watching out for them. >Also the A-10 is extremely underpowered and very slow. I'm not sure that that characterization is correct. Just because it isn't supersonic, doesn't necessarliy mean that the A-10 is underpowered. (Even the Harrier is subsonic...) The A-10 is pretty heavy, but it carries a big payload, and to get good accuracy, even the Harrier has to slow down a bit itself. (Which is one thing that bothers me about the proposed A-16) >The Marines wanted the Marine Machine, the AV-8B and they got it and it works >great! It can hold everything the A-10 can, deliver ordnance on target, and >defend itself. The Harrier doesn't carry the A-10's 30mm cannon, does it? Also lacks the A-10s loiter ability. Doesn't matter how fast you are, if you're going or coming to/from a refueling, you're overhead doing me much good. Different tools, different advantages, different disadvantages. -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (03/22/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) > [Harrier] > lacks the A-10s loiter ability. Doesn't matter how fast you are, if you're >going or coming to/from a refueling, you're overhead doing me much good. You don't see too many A-10s dropping down into a clearing just behind the lines to wait for a call to action. Harriers do this all the time; it's called "ground loiter". -- "[Some people] positively *wish* to | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology believe ill of the modern world."-R.Peto| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (03/23/91)
From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) In article <1991Mar22.042105.20198@cbnews.att.com> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >>From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) >> [Harrier] >> lacks the A-10s loiter ability. Doesn't matter how fast you are, if you're >>going or coming to/from a refueling, you're overhead doing me much good. > >You don't see too many A-10s dropping down into a clearing just behind the >lines to wait for a call to action. Harriers do this all the time; it's >called "ground loiter". Forgot about that... :} (But the A-16 still wouldn't get this one.) On the other hand, how much is the Harrier's payload reduced by having to be able to go VTOL to do this? Moving right along, what came of the recent meeting to see if the Army could start using fixed-wing *Army* assets for CAS.
stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) (04/05/91)
From: stevenp@kodak.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT) writes: > The reason there are no A-10s on carriers is simple. The Aircraft is not > needed in the Naval Service. There are no A-10's on carriers because they were not intended for carrier use, were not designed for carrier use, and cannot operate from them. > [...] It was a good thing that the Iraqis had no Air > Force because the A-10 can not survive when threat aircraft are present. There is no proof for this assertion. The Air Force claims that their "slow speed" makes them incapable of dogfighting, which is somewhat curious since they decided to equip them with air-to-air missiles (Sidewinder) anyway. > Also the A-10 is extremely underpowered and very slow. The A-10 has a higher thrust to weight ratio than both the A-6 and A-7 (the latter of which is a carrier-based close-air-support aircraft) and is comparable to both the F-111 and F-5. For sure it doesn't have the thrust to weight of an air-superiority fighter, but then again, that's not its mission. The main threat to CAS aircraft is ground fire, including AAA and heat seeking missles like the SAM-7. The A-10 was designed to survive in that environment. I find the "slow" argument amusing -- the A-10 is considerably faster than any attack helicopter, which is the other type of aircraft that performs the same role. A legitimate argument might be that the A-10 isn't slow enough as it can't hover, but the Air Force hasn't been saying that. > The Marines wanted the Marine Machine, the AV-8B and they got it and it works > great! It can hold everything the A-10 can, deliver ordnance on target, and > defend itself. The Marines don't want the A-10, there is no need for it. I agree that the Harrier is an excellent aircraft. However, the Marines claim that they don't need it either -- it is being removed from budget requests in favor of the F-18. The real reason for all these changes in heart is politics. It is unfortunate, but aircraft capability and potential are secondary concerns. -- Steve (the certified flying fanatic) stevenp@decwrl.dec.com
madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) (04/06/91)
From: madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) In <1991Apr5.092442.8906@amd.com> stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) writes: > I find the "slow" argument amusing -- the A-10 is considerably faster >than any attack helicopter, which is the other type of aircraft that >performs the same role. A legitimate argument might be that the A-10 >isn't slow enough as it can't hover, but the Air Force hasn't been >saying that. Ahhh, but one must remember (deja vu?) that the army operates the attack copters and the air force the A-10 (or at least they did until very recently), and the the two branches of the armed forces have slightly ;-) different needs and agendas. max abramowitz madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu