gh21@prism.gatech.edu (HICKMAN,GLEN R) (07/25/90)
From: gh21@prism.gatech.edu (HICKMAN,GLEN R)
I read in AIRFORCE magazine (about a year ago) that the Airforce was
looking to replace the aging (yet affective) A-10 Thunderbolt II. The
article indicted a number of options:
1. The A-16 - Attack version of the F-16 w/ 30mm cannon pod
UHF ant. (to talk to ground troops), Ironbombs,
Mavericks, etc. . .
2. The A-7 - Older than the A-10 (or close). I guess new avionics
engines, etc. . . can do wonders.
3. The F-15E - Strike Eagle ----> $$$$ but excellent payload.
I figured the Army would rather stick with the AH-64 and support
themselves???? The A-16 would (I feel) be too fast to be an effective
ground support aircraft (The A-10 is rather slow, which is deliberate).
Are there any other options that anyone else has heard of???? I feel
that there is NO subsitute for a good fixed wing ground attack craft.
Also (unrelated): I read somewhere that the Navy / Marines are looking
at using the AH-64 (Naval version SH-64) on Tawarra-class Amphibious
Assault Ships. They would carry harpoon missles on outer pylons (Nasty!).
I suppose they could also carry Hellfires or Mavericks??? I know the
Marines already use the AH-1 (S and T versions I believe) but the have
no long-range anti-ship capabilities.
Any info / help / comments on the above would be appreciated.
***********************************************************************
Glen R. Hickman
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Ga.
gh21@prism.gatech.edu
************************************************************************clallen@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Charles L Allen) (07/28/90)
From: clallen@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Charles L Allen) In article <1990Jul25.004555.6637@cbnews.att.com> gh21@prism.gatech.edu (HICKMAN,GLEN R) writes: >From: gh21@prism.gatech.edu (HICKMAN,GLEN R) >I read in AIRFORCE magazine (about a year ago) that the Airforce was >looking to replace the aging (yet affective) A-10 Thunderbolt II. The >article indicted a number of options: > > 1. The A-16 - Attack version of the F-16 w/ 30mm cannon pod > UHF ant. (to talk to ground troops), Ironbombs, > Mavericks, etc. . . > >Any info / help / comments on the above would be appreciated. > >Glen R. Hickman THere is a good article in the June 18th Aviation Week(pg36) about the "The Boys from Syracuse", the 174th TFW (NYANG). They are the first wing to have the "A-16". They are infact F-16As, but have ben modified to concentrate on CAS. They carry the GPU-5 30mm gon pod along the centerline, and are scheduled to start training with the Mavericks this summer. Go to the library and read it. Good article. CHAz ==== Charles L. Allen | "Who would have thought that Academic Computing Services | the fatal flaw of communism is Syracuse University | is that there is no money in it?" clallen@rodan.acs.syr.edu | -A. Whitney Brown
geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) (07/30/90)
From: geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) In article <1990Jul25.004555.6637@cbnews.att.com> gh21@prism.gatech.edu (HICKMAN,GLEN R) writes: >I figured the Army would rather stick with the AH-64 and support >themselves???? The A-16 would (I feel) be too fast to be an effective >ground support aircraft (The A-10 is rather slow, which is deliberate). >Are there any other options that anyone else has heard of???? I feel >that there is NO subsitute for a good fixed wing ground attack craft. However rugged it may be, the A-10's slow speed makes it vulnerable. The A-16 would need much less time over target, considerably reducing its exposure to ground fire. >Also (unrelated): I read somewhere that the Navy / Marines are looking >at using the AH-64 (Naval version SH-64) on Tawarra-class Amphibious >Assault Ships. That's the Tarawa class. ^^^^^^ Geoff -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems geoffm@purplehaze.sun.com + + + + + + + + Milpitas, California -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (07/31/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: gh21@prism.gatech.edu (HICKMAN,GLEN R) >I read in AIRFORCE magazine (about a year ago) that the Airforce was >looking to replace the aging (yet affective) A-10 Thunderbolt II. The >article indicted a number of options... [A-16, A-7, F-15E] >I figured the Army would rather stick with the AH-64 and support >themselves???? "Indicted" is about the right word. :-) The USAF is not interested in options, they want the A-16. The Army basically considers this a scam to get the USAF more F-16s, and is quite sure that when the chips are down, the "A-16s" will be F-16s off shooting at MiGs, leaving the PBI (Poor Bloody Infantry) without air support. A good many people in Congress and elsewhere tend to agree with the Army, which is why the A-16 idea has been getting an unfriendly reception so far. The Army has long wanted to do its own support -- the Marines do it that way, and like it -- but fixed-wing aircraft are better than helicopters for hauling heavy loads, and the Army basically isn't allowed to operate fixed-wing anything. >The A-16 would (I feel) be too fast to be an effective >ground support aircraft (The A-10 is rather slow, which is deliberate). Unfortunately, there are some arguments favoring the higher speed, for the sake of survivability in a very hostile environment. It's not that clear-cut. The A-10 is fairly well protected against small-arms fire and small AA artillery, but missile fire is now a bigger threat. >Are there any other options that anyone else has heard of???? ... The USMC's approach to it is to use Harriers, mostly. If one assumes that the A-10 is too vulnerable (there are people who would dispute this) and the A-16 is a transparent fraud :-), the debate is mostly improved A-7s vs AV-8B (or similar) Harriers. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (07/31/90)
From: uw-beaver!mcgp1!flak (Dan Flak) In article <1990Jul25.004555.6637@cbnews.att.com> gh21@prism.gatech.edu (HICKMAN,GLEN R) writes: >I figured the Army would rather stick with the AH-64 and support >themselves???? The A-16 would (I feel) be too fast to be an effective >ground support aircraft (The A-10 is rather slow, which is deliberate). >Are there any other options that anyone else has heard of???? I feel >that there is NO subsitute for a good fixed wing ground attack craft. As an ex-FAC, I just have to speak up! Back in '06 (actually the early 70's) my preferences were: F-4: "Make one pass, jettison everything, and go home". They couldn't hit the target, and were always out of gas anyway. A-7: "OK, I'll work you now". If the computer assisted bomb sight worked, they were accurate. A-37: "Climb to 25,000 feet, shut down an engine and hold". A-1E: "Go work another target, and come back in about 45 minutes". They stayed aloft for days, and carried everything but the perverbial kitchen sink. They worked low and slow and "in tight" and could take a lot of punishment. The could stay in the fight for a long time, both fuel wise and ordinance wise. I imagine the F-16 would be a lot like the F-4, always low on fuel, and moving too fast to see someone in the trees. A good platform for areas where there's too much ground fire for slower aircraft and your target is in the open, but not good for troops in contact situations in spite of a hefty payload (in the F-4's case). I imagine the A-10 is a lot like the A-1E. Neither of them are very pretty sights, but they are good in a low threat environment. (Now, if they'd just put the 30mm in a pod, suspend it from an A-1 ... Well, it's a *lot* cheaper than operating a jet). -- Dan Flak - McCaw Cellular Communications Inc., 201 Elliot Ave W., Suite 105, Seattle, Wa 98119, 206-286-4355, (usenet: thebes!mcgp1!flak)
Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson) (08/02/90)
From: Scott.Johnson@p0.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org (Scott Johnson)
GM> However rugged it may be, the A-10's slow speed makes it
GM> vulnerable. The A-16 would need much less time over target,
GM> considerably reducing its exposure to ground fire.
Yes, but it also considerably decreases its exposure to the target,
making accurate strikes much less likely.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N.W. Arkansas' UUCP to FidoNet Connection. If you are interested in connecting
up Contact Kenneth Whelan. Addresses postmaster@palace or at 1:391/9(Fido)
97.6 % of All Statistics are Made UP
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------tobin@ncar.ucar.edu (Mike Tobin) (08/02/90)
From: raven!tobin@ncar.ucar.edu (Mike Tobin) This discussion is interesting, but the modifier "New" is ironic. Back around '75 or '76 I was at the USAF's Squadron Officers' School (where they try to turn line officers into staff wienies) and two things have stuck in my mind. First, was the presentation we got from the F-16 program office. the airplane was still in development and they gave us a real good pitch on how the AF brought an aircraft into the field. There were several presenters and each made a big deal about how they would "defend to the death" against any attempts to do anything to the F-16 that would detract from it's "real" mission of air-to-air. Several assignments later I was one of those staff wieneies at USAF HQ in germany and what was the office I was assigned to responsible for? Developing the plans for bringing the F-16 into Europe as a, you guessed it, ground attack aircraft (interrdiction, not CAS). Second, one of our assignments was to present an advocacy briefing on one side or the other of this question (a hot one at the time): should the AF buy the A-10 or an improved A-7 as the next CAS aircraft? I chose the A-7 and I quess that briefing is still good! Mike Tobin