Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> (10/18/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> The following data is taken from _The Modern US War Machine_ (Crown, 1987) Speed (clean, @sea level) A-10 420 mph A-16 915 mph AV-8B 688 mph Maximum Ordance Load A-10 16,000 lbs A-16 14,700 lbs AV-8B 7,000 lbs (VTO)/17,000 lbs (STO) Combat Radius (Nominal load) A-10 288 miles A-16 340 miles AV-8B 748 miles (STO) This data shows that perhaps the best platform in our inventory for CAS is the USMC's AV-8B. The Harrier can take off from an unimproved short field (750 feet or less) with a full ordnance load greater than that (by weight) of the A-10, and fly farther faster. Since Harriers can be sortied from areas very close to the front, this equates to a greater loiter time over the combat area. I think that any comments referring to the AV-8B's unsuitabillity for CAS due to lack of armament capability or performance over the battlefield are unjustified. As soon as I can get some information on the Harrier's survivability and maneuverability, I'll be sure to post them. I've always been curious why the USAF didn't seriously consider the AV-8B as the A-10's successor (not that the A-10 needs one). Any ideas? Allan ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIDN 3/C (PLCJR) Allan Bourdius, Carnegie Mellon University NROTC "Retreat hell! We just got here!" ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu The opinons expressed in this letter/posting do not, nor are in any way intended to, represent the official policies and positions of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, the United States Marine Corps or the United States Navy; so there!
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/19/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >I've always been curious why the USAF didn't seriously consider the >AV-8B as the A-10's successor (not that the A-10 needs one). Any ideas? The main reason is that the USAF does not want to replace the A-10 with another dedicated CAS aircraft. It wants to replace it with something that can also fly "real" USAF missions, with suitability for CAS a secondary issue. Contributing factors probably include the general bias in most of the US services (the USMC seems to be an exception) against foreign-designed equipment, and the USAF's long-standing official opinion that V/STOL is not a worthwhile approach to combat aircraft. -- "...the i860 is a wonderful source | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology of thesis topics." --Preston Briggs | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
v059l49z@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) (10/19/90)
From: v059l49z@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) In article <1990Oct18.021042.6352@cbnews.att.com>, ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes... >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> > >I've always been curious why the USAF didn't seriously consider the >AV-8B as the A-10's successor (not that the A-10 needs one). Any ideas? I think that as far as getting Navy planes is concerned, gettting F-4's met their "Be nice to the Navy" quota for the century. The services like to have their own toys. I think that possibly the thought of a plane that didn't make a long roll into a graceful take-off might not be very glamorous. Just my opinion. Paul
anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) (10/19/90)
From: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: >Maximum Ordance Load >A-10 16,000 lbs ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I presume this 16,000 lbs exclude the 30mm gun ? >A-16 14,700 lbs >AV-8B 7,000 lbs (VTO)/17,000 lbs (STO) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I also presume that this 17,000 lbs include the gun pods ? Therefore the A-10 has probably greater hitting power then what the AV-8B can carry. -- Anthony Lee (Michaelangelo teenage mutant ninja turtle) (Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au +(61)-7-377-4139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia