as4y+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alfred Todd Symonds) (03/13/91)
From: Alfred Todd Symonds <as4y+@andrew.cmu.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes.... >The reason it's not the A-111 (well, maybe A-8 or thereabouts) is that >the USAF never voluntarily uses A; that letter is for inferior Navy >aircraft, not glamorous USAF aircraft. (The A-10 was built only because >the alternative -- giving the close-air-support mission to the Army -- >was unquestionably worse.) Just out of sheer curiousity, what would prevent the use of A10s in the role of Marine CAS missions?? Obviously there are the problems of saltwater and the other vagaries of carrier launchers, but is it totally out of the question for some other reason? After all, it would rid the USAF of an obviously useless "A" type of aircraft. Todd Apologies if this question seems insane.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (03/15/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Alfred Todd Symonds <as4y+@andrew.cmu.edu> >Just out of sheer curiousity, what would prevent the use of A10s in the >role of Marine CAS missions?? ... I'm unsure how carrier-compatible the A-10 is, but otherwise, there would be nothing much wrong with the idea on the face of it. The Marines almost certainly prefer their Harriers for the job, however... especially since they, unlike most other fixed-wing aircraft, can operate from the USMC minicarriers instead of having to use the USN's supercarriers. >After all, it would rid the USAF of an obviously useless "A" type of aircraft. Apart from the fact that the Army would scream -- they like the USAF having the A-10, because it forces the USAF to fly CAS missions properly -- the very suggestion of giving USAF aircraft to the Navy (Marine aircraft procurement and operations being via the Navy) would be enough to kill your career in the USAF stone cold dead. :-) -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
operator@desire.wright.edu (03/15/91)
From: operator@desire.wright.edu >>The reason it's not the A-111 (well, maybe A-8 or thereabouts) is that >>the USAF never voluntarily uses A; that letter is for inferior Navy >>aircraft, not glamorous USAF aircraft. (The A-10 was built only because >>the alternative -- giving the close-air-support mission to the Army -- >>was unquestionably worse.) > > Just out of sheer curiousity, what would prevent the use of A10s in the > role of Marine CAS missions?? Obviously there are the problems of > saltwater and the other vagaries of carrier launchers, but is it totally > out of the question for some other reason? I think that A-10's would be entirely too heavy for carrier operations. I may be wrong about their weight but a carrier couldn't carry too many to say the least. By their nature as close support and attack aircraft they are very heavily armored. I have heard some refer to them as tanks with wings, but they have to be because they come under so much fire. Compared to A-6's or A-7's I don't know how much more they might weigh, but they are very heavy. The Air Force may be snobbish about their planes and no one knows the answer to the numbering question (100 series v. 15,16,etc.) but I don't think that they have many A (attack) aircraft because their role is not generally considered to be close ground support. At least they like to think of strategic bombers and tactical fighters. Anyone on this Net from Fairchild Republic who lnows more about A-10 weight or possible carrier use? Robert Mack, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (03/18/91)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> > I think that A-10's would be entirely too heavy for carrier operations. >I may be wrong about their weight but a carrier couldn't carry too many to say >the least. By their nature as close support and attack aircraft they are very >heavily armored. I have heard some refer to them as tanks with wings, but they >have to be because they come under so much fire. Compared to A-6's or A-7's I >don't know how much more they might weigh, but they are very heavy. Comparative Weights of the A-10 and USN/USMC carrier based aircraft: A-10: 50,000 lbs max A-6E: 60,400 lbs max EA-6B: 58,500 lbs max F-14A+/D: 74,348 lbs max E-2C: 51,817 lbs max S-3B: 47,000 lbs max F-18A/D: 50,064 lbs max Except for the S-3B, the A-10 would be a relative lightweight. The A-10 would take up *lots* of storage space because its wings do not fold. An A-10 on the hangar deck would use up a space about 60 feet long by 55 feet wide. For comparison, a F-14 uses a space about 64 feet long by 40 feet wide. An A-6 uses a space about 60 feet long by 25 feet wide. CAS *is not* a mission of Naval Air Forces and therefore the A-10 is an unnecessary aircraft on a CV or CVN. The USMC's F-18's and AV-8B's superbly fill the CAS role for grunts on the beach. Adding yet another aircraft would just create problems. Allan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Allan Bourdius [MIDN 3/C (Marine Option)/Brother, Phi Kappa Theta Fraternity] ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu or Box 4719, 5125 Margaret Morrison St., Pgh., PA 15213 "Give, expecting nothing thereof." "Phi Kappa Theta, just the best."
dragoo@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen P. Dragoo) (03/18/91)
From: dragoo@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen P. Dragoo) In article <1991Mar15.033854.6212@cbnews.att.com> operator@desire.wright.edu writes: >> Just out of sheer curiousity, what would prevent the use of A10s in the >> role of Marine CAS missions?? Obviously there are the problems of >> saltwater and the other vagaries of carrier launchers, but is it totally >> out of the question for some other reason? > I think that A-10's would be entirely too heavy for carrier operations. >I may be wrong about their weight but a carrier couldn't carry too many to say >the least. By their nature as close support and attack aircraft they are very >heavily armored. I have heard some refer to them as tanks with wings, but they >have to be because they come under so much fire. Compared to A-6's or A-7's I >don't know how much more they might weigh, but they are very heavy. > > The Air Force may be snobbish about their planes and no one knows the I'm not from Fairchild-Rep., but I do know a lot about A-10's. Personally, weight shouldn't be a problem. Consider this: the "never-exceed" weight of an A-10(which is never reached, normally) is 50000lbs--roughly 25 tons. A fully-loaded Tomcat maxes out around 70000lbs--35 tons. Even with the normal Air-to-Air load, it's still about 56000lbs--28 tons. If they can carry and launch Tomcats, there should be no problem. Granted, the USMC is hooked on the Harrier. The Harrier is a nasty little devil in and of itself, especially the II. The bad thing about the A-10 is that it doesn't have any real air-to-air capability, like the Harrier. On the other hand, instead of making a new plane to replace the A-6, how about navalizing the A-10? The Navy could use it on their decks and from bases, since they do that anyway, and the USMC could also use it, since THEIR A-6's need a supercarrier or a base also. What do you guys think? -- =============================================================================== The Golden Dragon dragoo@hpuxa.acs.ohio-state.edu Taking his flames like a man...er...dragon! "I know this ship like th' back o' my hand....*Klonk!*" Montgomery Scott, STV "Kroger, your pledge name is..Pinto. Why Pinto? *body function*Why not!?" Bluto(future Senator Blutowsky) and Kroger, Animal House
nak%archie@att.att.com (Neil A Kirby) (03/19/91)
From: nak%archie@att.att.com (Neil A Kirby) In article <1991Mar18.134123.17745@cbnews.att.com> dragoo@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen P. Dragoo) writes: [stuff deleted] >On the other hand, instead of making a new plane to replace the A-6, how about >navalizing the A-10? The Navy could use it on their decks and from bases, >since they do that anyway, and the USMC could also use it, since THEIR A-6's >need a supercarrier or a base also. The BIG question would be: What added capability would be gained? >From what was posted 2 articles or so ago, you would get less capability in a larger package. Look at Payload: I don't have the payload numbers handy, but the takeoff weight for the A6 is on the order of 14 thousand pounds heavier. Speed: THe A10 is SLOW. That's not bad for CAS, but it creates other problems. Avionics: The A10 has simple avionics. It's not all weather. The A6 does better, and any new plane is likely to do very well in this regard if the procurement folks do it right. Mulit-roles: The A6 comes in E6 and other varieties, including tankers. Shipboard Stowage Space Required: The A6 has folding wings. How does the A10 do better than the EXISTING A-6? Rather than make naval A-10's, it would be better to make more A-6's. For a new aircraft, the specs should improve, not get worse. Neil Kirby