jrb@idx.com (03/22/91)
From: jrb@idx.com I have a question regarding the A-10. I have heard that the plan is to use a modified F16 for the close air support role in the future. One of the reasons given for this is that the A10 is too slow for modern combat. Ok, I guess I buy that, but if that's true.. what's the rationale for the Apache helicopter? If speed is the determining factor in close air support, it would seem that the first choice would be the F16, with the Apache being close to useless. Also, does anybody have any info on the effectiveness of the A10 versus the Apache? Thanks, Jim Bresee jrb@idx.com
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (03/23/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: jrb@idx.com >I have a question regarding the A-10. I have heard that the plan is to use a >modified F16 for the close air support role in the future. One of the reasons >given for this is that the A10 is too slow for modern combat. Ok, I guess I buy >that, but if that's true.. what's the rationale for the Apache helicopter? You have to understand that the real rationales are political, not technical. The USAF wants more F-16s, and is trying to get them by pretending that they will fly CAS missions. For CAS, the F-16 is inferior to the A-10 in almost every way except speed, so naturally the official rationale is that the A-10 is too slow. The US Army, on the other hand, would really like to operate its own CAS force, but isn't allowed to fly fixed-wing aircraft. So naturally the Apache is the superior solution to the technical problems. It has to be; the Army isn't allowed to pursue any other solution. I'd give long odds that if the Army was told to do its own CAS in the most cost-effective way, without artificial restrictions, it would end up with neither Apaches nor F-16s. The Marines had exactly that situation, and fought long and hard to get Harriers. -- "[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
Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com (03/25/91)
From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com
"The US Army, on the other hand, would really like to
operate its own CAS force, but isn't allowed to fly
fixed-wing aircraft."
In December 1990, the US Army was given permission to fly
fixed-wing aircraft.
Eric Klienfiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (03/26/91)
From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) >From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com >"The US Army, on the other hand, would really like to >operate its own CAS force, but isn't allowed to fly >fixed-wing aircraft." > >In December 1990, the US Army was given permission to fly >fixed-wing aircraft. Oh, dear. They've been very bad for quite a while then: They've been flying OV-1 Mohawks for several years. (OV-10 Broncos, too, at least for a while.) Wasn't the 1990 agreement one that let them operate jet aircraft? Maybe the Air Force will give them its A-10s.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (03/27/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com >In December 1990, the US Army was given permission to fly >fixed-wing aircraft. I would appreciate seeing an authoritative reference for this. Although I've seen secondhand reports of it, there has been no word of it in sources like Aviation Week and Flight International, where I would have expected it to be headline news. -- "[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
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (03/27/91)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt)
The Army has flown a few fixed wing aircraft for a long, long time.
1. OV-1D Mohawk Surveillance Aircraft (Grumman)
A crew of 2, twin turbo-prop, with SLAR, IR, and Photo capabilities.
The Army has been flying the Mohawk since 1970.
2. RC-12 (Beechcraft) Improved Guardrail V system (Elecronic Warfare)
A crew of 2, twin engine. The Army has been flying Guardrail RC-12s
since 1978.
The big 'to-do' about Army fixed-wing vs Air Force came during Vietnam
when the Army tried to buy the C-7 Caribou cargo plane.
mike schmittnrc@cbema.att.com (Neal R Caldwell, Ii) (03/27/91)
From: nrc@cbema.att.com (Neal R Caldwell, Ii)
[15 lines of unnecessary quoting deleted. -- CDR]
Does anyone know if we've learned anything about the CAS effectiveness
of Apaches, F-16s, A-10s and Harriers from the Gulf War? It would be
interesting to know something like kills per CAS sortie for each aircraft
type.
Early in the air war one analyst claimed that the A-10 had thus far
been the only aircraft effective for locating and destroying mobile
scud launchers but then he seemed to be pretty biased against the more
expensive weapons systems.
"Don't drive too slowly." Richard Caldwell
AT&T Network Systems
att!cbnews!nrc
nrc@cbnews.att.comv059l49z@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu (03/27/91)
From: v059l49z@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu In article <1991Mar26.031544.2486@amd.com>, fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes... >Oh, dear. They've been very bad for quite a while then: They've been >flying OV-1 Mohawks for several years. (OV-10 Broncos, too, at least for As I understand it, the ban on fixed-wing aircraft was for planes over a certain weight (I believe 10,000lbs.) Paul "Joe Friday" Stacy
Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com (03/28/91)
From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Whoops! I meant that the Army was given permission to fly big fixed wing aircraft, aircraft over 10,000 lbs to be precise. I repeat an old sci.military posting: /Gateways/Usenet/sci/military/ARMY to get A-10s From: x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT) It's official. The U.S. Congress passed a Defense Authorizations Bill in November which directs the Air Force to slowly turn the A-10s over to the Army. It was said in ARMY TIMES 3 Dec that the A-10s will initially replace the aging OV-1 Mohawk aircraft and will maintain Air Force logistical support. The article also said that the A-10s would go to the Marines to replace the OV-10 Bronco aircraft, but I highly doubt this. The A-10 is not very expeditionary and can't operate off of ships. The OV-10s could at least take off of LHAs. The Bill was very significant because it allows the Army to opearte fixed wing aircraft over 10,000 lbs. The A-10 weighs over 25,000 lbs. It opens the door for Army aviation and for the Army to maintain its own planes in the CAS role. Now the boys who need the CAS will get what they want, not what the fighter pilots want! BEAT NAVY 8 December 1990 Charles K. Bergman x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu *********************** CDT CPL, USMA'93 * Charlie don't surf! * P.O. Box 54, U.S.C.C. *********************** West Point, NY 10997
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (03/31/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com >... I repeat an old sci.military posting: >The U.S. Congress passed a Defense Authorizations Bill in November which >directs the Air Force to slowly turn the A-10s over to the Army... I would really like to see confirmation of this from a source other than Army Times. Flight International and Aviation Week haven't mentioned it at all, although both have covered the CAS debate in depth and would be unlikely to pass up something this major. -- "The stories one hears about putting up | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology SunOS 4.1.1 are all true." -D. Harrison| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass personal account) (04/01/91)
From: edat!brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass personal account) Yes, I heard to that the Army take over control of its own CAS with the AF servicing the aircraft. What I wonder is does this clear the way for Burt Rutan's Mud Fighter? It is a single engine canard like (sort of a delta wing with canards) plane with air intake on one side and cannon on the other. He claims he can make these for about $2 Million each fully equipped. Scuttle was the Army really liked these because of their unimproved runway capability, while the Air Force just yawned saying "what, no afterburner?" Hence the Army lobbied hard for fixed wing, jet aircraft CAS ability. Now that they have will might we soon see Mud Fighters flitting about? Can anyone add some facts to this rumor? -- Brian Douglass brian@edat.uucp