henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (07/10/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >...new incarnation I have read about will be the A-16, with full >ground attack capabilities. The ground attack radar and >target designator will almost double the cost of the plane. The A-16 is still very controversial. An awful lot of people think the USAF should upgrade the A-10 and A-7, instead of buying more F-16s and trying to pretend that it will use them for supporting the ground forces. The USAF has a long history of giving close air support a dead-last priority, meaning that it gets done by fighters or long-range interdictors in their spare time instead of by purpose-built support aircraft. The A-10 was rammed down their throats by people who were fed up with this attitude and wanted to see the PBI (Poor Bloody Infantry) get some help. So now that the situation has finally improved some, the USAF wants to go back to doing things the old way: modify a fighter a bit for long-range interdiction, and label it "close air support" to try to sneak it past Congress. The only time it will ever get close to the infantry is if it crashes on top of them on the way back from an interdiction mission. The USMC has the right idea: if you want it done right, do it yourself. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
gwh%tornado.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (06/06/90)
From: gwh%tornado.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) In article <16132@cbnews.ATT.COM> jeff@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (JEFF NANIS ) writes: >>From: gwh%bigbang.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) >>There has been a change in the long-term assesment of threat types to CAS >>aircraft. An F-16 variant has been decided on as the >>baseline next-generation plane, as it's high speed and agility are superlative. > > Unfortunately, I have heard (in professional journals as well as from >USAF pilots) that when you try and put all the ordnance and LANTIRN pods and >cannon pod and other good stuff required to do CAS, the F-16 is slower and >less maneuverable than the A-10. The zoomie brass has a strong inclination >against "air-to-mud" missions of any sort. If they were really dedicated to >the CAS mission, they'd still be the Army Air Corps and they might be flying >Harriers, IMIO (In My Informed Opinion). > Not an official opinion which might get me put in jail. I don't know of any equal loading of an F-16 and a A-10 that will slow the F-16 to below the top speed of a A-10. In fact, the -16 can exceed 550 knots loaded just about anyhow. The A-10 will never see the hot side of 450. Also, the F-16 can carry 20,000 lbs max to the A-10's 16,000. That's a not inconsiderable atvantage. Besides, the cannon and pods are going internal on the A-16. You're comparing the wrong bird anyway. 8-) The air force is not against ground attack missions. They've been doing them since they flew their first planes. It's too easy to look at this 'commonly known bias' and conclude the wrong thing about the real situation. Attack and CAS may not be the number-one priority, but they're not ignored either. Just wait five years 'till israeli pilots start singing the praises of supersonic attack aircraft in evading SA-10's. That's about how long it probably will take them to get to somewhere where they'll get combat tested. Speed=Life : you're going to hear attack pilots talking this a lot in the future. ******************************************************************************* George William Herbert JOAT For Hire: Anything, Anywhere: My Price UCB Naval Architecture undergrad: Engineering with a Bouyant Attitude :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Who?" the man managed. Whip me, Beat Me, Make me learn C... "The Rastafarian Navy," Case said, ++++++++++ gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu OR "...and all we want is a jack into your ========== gwh@soda.berkeley.edu OR custodial system." -neuromancer """""""" maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu