jsaker@zeus.unl.edu ( Jamie Saker -- Student, UNO) (10/09/89)
From: jsaker@zeus.unl.edu ( Jamie Saker -- Student, UNO) This summer when I was at ROTC Basic at Ft. Knox, we had the opportunity to see several A-10 Thunderbolts fly over us when we were out at the firing ranges. After inquiring with a few people, I was told that there were several Army pilots flying those A-10s, but I was under the impression that the Air Force flys (against their will:-) ) the A-10. Since the A-10 is a ground-attack aircraft and in league with many of the army's stratagies, DOES the army have pilots flying them? Is it only the Air Force that flys them? Is the rumor true that the Air Force is trying to get rid of them to the Army? (since they are a little too close to the ground for the Air Force:-) ) Thanks in advance. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> Jamie Saker Bitnet: JSAKER@UNOMA1 or ACMEDIT@UNOMA1 <> <> Editor in Chief Internet:JSAKER@zeus.unl.edu or acmedit@zeus.unl.edu<> <> Monitor Magazine USMail: PO Box 218 UNO <> <> Univ. Ne Omaha Omaha, NE 68132 <> <> ROTC Cadet, MAVERICK BATTALION. and Cadet/Officer, 135th Signal (NNG)<> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
gwh%volcano.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (10/11/89)
From: gwh%volcano.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) In article <10017@cbnews.ATT.COM> jsaker@zeus.unl.edu ( Jamie Saker -- Student, UNO) writes: >This summer when I was at ROTC Basic at Ft. Knox, we had the >opportunity to see several A-10 Thunderbolts fly over us >when we were out at the firing ranges. > >After inquiring with a few people, I was told that there were >several Army pilots flying those A-10s, but I was under the >impression that the Air Force flys (against their will:-) ) the >A-10. > >Since the A-10 is a ground-attack aircraft and in league with >many of the army's stratagies, DOES the army have pilots flying >them? Is it only the Air Force that flys them? Is the rumor true >that the Air Force is trying to get rid of them to the Army? >(since they are a little too close to the ground for the >Air Force:-) ) Much to the disgust of both the Air Force and the Army, the Army is not allowed by law (the law that created the Air Force) to fly combat aircraft excepting helos. They were working on changing that, but not getting anywhere. **************************************** George William Herbert UCB Naval Architecture Dpt. (my god, even on schedule!) maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ----------------------------------------
phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (10/11/89)
From: phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) In article <10017@cbnews.ATT.COM> jsaker@zeus.unl.edu ( Jamie Saker -- Student, UNO) writes: |After inquiring with a few people, I was told that there were |several Army pilots flying those A-10s, but I was under the |impression that the Air Force flys (against their will:-) ) the |A-10. The Air Force has claimed ownership of all fixed-wing aircraft, leaving helicoptors as the only aircraft available to the army. (I don't know where things like ballons and V-22s fit in.) The Air Force is supposed to provide Close Air Support to the Army, which is why the A-10 exists. However, the AF hates getting down into the mud, as they describe CAS. They've been pushing for the A-16 to replace the A-10. The A-16 is a modification of the F-16. The AF claims it's better than the A-10 because it's faster and thus less likely to be hit. Some people feel the AF likes it because when the time came, they could modify the A-16 back into F-16s, something not possible with A-10s. I think the A-10 is a pretty good tool for the job and they should be given to the Army. Not that it matters what I think. -- Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Just say NO to the "War on Drugs".
shafer@drynix (Mary Shafer) (10/11/89)
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@drynix> Jamie Saker (jsaker@zeus.unl.edu) writes: >After inquiring with a few people, I was told that there were >several Army pilots flying those A-10s, but I was under the >impression that the Air Force flys (against their will:-) ) the >A-10. >Since the A-10 is a ground-attack aircraft and in league with >many of the army's stratagies, DOES the army have pilots flying >them? Is it only the Air Force that flys them? Is the rumor true >that the Air Force is trying to get rid of them to the Army? >(since they are a little too close to the ground for the >Air Force:-) ) The A-10s belong to the Air Force and to the Air National Guard (which is sort of the Air Force). The Air Force, having destroyed the tooling, shut down the line, and put Republic out of business, is now attempting to convince the world that a light-weight fighter (the F-16) can be made into an attack aircraft, the A-16. The AFTI/F-16 has been flying in support of demonstrating the attack capabilities of the A-16. I think that it's OK in the CAS (Close Air Support) role, in that it can carry a decent load of bombs and transit the area rapidly. However, it doesn't carry the 30-mm cannon which is so effective against armored vehicles. The attack pilot community is also _very_ fond of the Kevlar bathtub that they sit in in the A-10. The A-16 will be very lightly armored, on the theory that they'll be in and out so quick that no one will shoot at them. (Yeah, right. :-) ) If the Air Force gets the A-16, they'll turn all the A-10s over to the ANG, not the Army. Considering how the Air Force seems to feel about the Army, I've never understood how the Army could count on the Air Force to show up and do CAS. Then, when I was down working on the AFTI/F-16, I found out that they don't. They'll ask for CAS, but they don't plan on it appearing and, if it does appear, don't count on it being very effective. (This is what a former FAC (Forward Air Controller) told me.) -- Mary Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA
gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) (10/12/89)
From: gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) In article <10085@cbnews.ATT.COM> shafer@drynix (Mary Shafer) writes: > > >From: Mary Shafer <shafer@drynix> >The attack pilot community is also _very_ fond of the Kevlar bathtub ^^^^^^ >that they sit in in the A-10. The A-16 will be very lightly armored, >on the theory that they'll be in and out so quick that no one will >shoot at them. (Yeah, right. :-) ) I was under the impression that the bathtub was not kevlar, but titanium. This creates a very impressive defense, but is undermined somewhat by the approved tactics of the mission. Though many are pop up firing runs, I have been told that many runs are flow from behind a hill, and as they emerge from behind the hill, the plane rolls inverted to pull negative g's into the firing run. This is "better" than pulling positive g's that pull you out of the seat as you come over the hill and drop. But, it expses the canopy to fire rather than the tub, and if a round penetrates the canopy, it will stay inside the tub until it is spent. Could make swiss cheese. > >-- >Mary Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer Greg Hooten
dela@ee.rochester.edu (Del Armstrong) (10/12/89)
From: dela@ee.rochester.edu (Del Armstrong) In article <10085@cbnews.ATT.COM> shafer@drynix (Mary Shafer) writes: > > >From: Mary Shafer <shafer@drynix> >The A-10s belong to the Air Force and to the Air National Guard >(which is sort of the Air Force). The Air Force, having destroyed >the tooling, shut down the line, and put Republic out of business, >is now attempting to convince the world that a light-weight fighter >(the F-16) can be made into an attack aircraft, the A-16. > >The AFTI/F-16 has been flying in support of demonstrating the attack >capabilities of the A-16. I think that it's OK in the CAS (Close Air >Support) role, in that it can carry a decent load of bombs and transit >the area rapidly. However, it doesn't carry the 30-mm cannon which is >so effective against armored vehicles. > >The attack pilot community is also _very_ fond of the Kevlar bathtub >that they sit in in the A-10. The A-16 will be very lightly armored, >on the theory that they'll be in and out so quick that no one will >shoot at them. (Yeah, right. :-) ) > >If the Air Force gets the A-16, they'll turn all the A-10s over to the >ANG, not the Army. At the NY State Fair, this summer "The Boys From Syracus", an ANG group based in Syracus had a display set up. The interesting part of the display was a 30-mm cannon in a HUGE pod, which they claim to use on their new (to them) F-16's. Until recently, they had been flying A-10's but now they're doing ground attack in F-16's. Being a fan of the A-10, I tried to pin down the ANG guy down on how much he missed the A-10's. But he claimed to feel safer in the F-16. The only argument he really had was that in a world infested with zillions of shoulder-launced SAMs, the A-10 was just too slow. He claimed that in the F-16, he could drop his load and be gone before anybody had a chance to shoot at him. He kept talking about lessons learned in Afganistan. I'll just observe here, that I've never gotten a military pilot to do anything other then swear that his plane is the only plane that can accomplish a given mission well. According to the guy I talked to, the cannon pod uses the same round as the A-10 cannon, although he mumbled something about a slower muzzle velocity (or was it firing rate?) and he mentioned that it carries less rounds then the A-10 could. For what it's worth, I think they traded one liability (slow speed) for a bunch of liabilites (poor survivability, poor loiter capability, poor accuracy?, need for long runways). With luck, we'll never know for sure whether it was a good trade or not. It seems to me that the Air Force is trying to replace some of it's single mission aircraft with variants of it's current fighter fleet. The F-111 is going to be replaced with the F-15E, and the A-10 with the F-16. I can only imagine that this is a response to the current budget crisis. A question: I've read that the fly by wire fighters have turned out to be unusually accurate ground attack aircraft, because they're such stable platforms. Is this really true, and how accurate is the F-16 compared to the A-10, especially when the F-16 is really taking advantage of it's speed (trying to stay alive). Del Armstrong Internet : dela@ee.rochester.edu UUCP : ...allegra!rochester!ur-valhalla!dela Twisted pair: (716) 275-5342 Last resort : Hopeman 407 Electrical Engineering University of Rochester Rochester, N.Y. 14627 +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism. | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) (10/12/89)
From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) In article <10017@cbnews.ATT.COM>, jsaker@zeus.unl.edu ( Jamie Saker -- Student, UNO) writes: > From: jsaker@zeus.unl.edu ( Jamie Saker -- Student, UNO) Re: A-10s: 1. DOES the army have pilots flying them? Is it only the Air Force that flys them? No the Army does not pilot A-10s. Yes, only the Air Force flys them. And having had A-10s fly 'close air support' missions for me in Europe, it appears that only USAF unmarried lieutenants fly them :-). (I've watched them have to "pull up" to miss low hilltops - and fly "under" my OH-58 Scout Helo). 2. Is the rumor true that the Air Force is trying to get rid of them to the Army? The rumor is true that the Air Force and the Army are discussing the role of Close Air Support Aircraft and who should own them and employ them. While the Air Force traditionally does not want anything with wings in the hands of the Army - the Army is not satisfied with CAS as a third place priority in the USAF tactical approach to air operations. First is OCA (offensive counterair - engage the enemy over their own territory), second is DCA (defensive counterair - engage the enemy over our area, third is CAS. The Air Force justifies this priority by saying that if we don't gain air superiority through the first two types of employment, there will be no chance to conduct CAS. (probably an oversimplification). According to the 'Hog Drivers', we need not worry about enemy armor 'cause the A-10s will destroy all the enemy tanks before they reach the front line troops. (I like their attitude) IMHO: I don't think the Army can manage the training base needed nor the logistics required for 'fighter-type' aircraft in their inventory. I think the Air Force will retain the CAS mission. "Where's my air support?" "Sorry, crew rest." major
seningen@cs.utexas.edu (Michael Seningen) (10/13/89)
From: oakhill!serval!seningen@cs.utexas.edu (Michael Seningen)
cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) (10/13/89)
From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) In article <10139@cbnews.ATT.COM> dela@ee.rochester.edu (Del Armstrong) writes: > >For what it's worth, I think they traded one liability (slow speed) for >a bunch of liabilites (poor survivability, poor loiter capability, poor >accuracy?, need for long runways). With luck, we'll never know for sure >whether it was a good trade or not. I agree whole-heartedly. I think the USAF just figured that a sub-sonic aircraft that could only move mud wasn't "neat" enough. Wouldn't wow 'em at air shows. And anyway, the F-15 Strike Eagle was going to destroy all the bridges and POL depots, so the Army wasn't going to need ground support anyway. >It seems to me that the Air Force is trying to replace some of it's >single mission aircraft with variants of it's current fighter fleet. >The F-111 is going to be replaced with the F-15E, and the A-10 with the >F-16. I can only imagine that this is a response to the current budget crisis. > Could be, but on the other hand the A-10 costs less than an F-16 (and would have cost a lot less today if they had kept producing 'em). And remember, the whole point of the A-10 was to destroy tanks cheaply. If you keep slinging $500,000 Maverick missiles to knock out $300,000 tanks (or worse, $30,000 trucks), you're losing the war. --------------------------------------------------------- Chris Perleberg cperlebe@encad.wichita.ncr.com
gwh%typhoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (10/13/89)
From: gwh%typhoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) In article <10138@cbnews.ATT.COM> gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) writes: >In article <10085@cbnews.ATT.COM> shafer@drynix (Mary Shafer) writes: > >>The attack pilot community is also _very_ fond of the Kevlar bathtub > ^^^^^^ >>that they sit in in the A-10. The A-16 will be very lightly armored, >>on the theory that they'll be in and out so quick that no one will >>shoot at them. (Yeah, right. :-) ) > >I was under the impression that the bathtub was not kevlar, >but titanium. This creates a very impressive defense, but is >undermined somewhat by the approved tactics of the mission. >Though many are pop up firing runs, I have been told that many >runs are flow from behind a hill, and as they emerge from >behind the hill, the plane rolls inverted to pull negative g's >into the firing run. This is "better" than pulling positive >g's that pull you out of the seat as you come over the hill >and drop. But, it expses the canopy to fire rather than the >tub, and if a round penetrates the canopy, it will stay inside >the tub until it is spent. Could make swiss cheese. The Bathtub is Titanium, ranging from 0.5" to (3"?) in thickness. The popup maneuvers are flown inverted only for high popups, and in any case the initial appearance is not when a plane is likely to be hit. There are many more worrysome things that being pinged while coming in. Such as being hit on the way out... BTW: Rounds will not 'bounce' around the inside. Most antiaircraft rounds will detonate (they're usually explosive) and the KE ones will hit it and stop, usually. There are some pictures available of a sample Bathtub which had been shot with 23mm and 37mm Russian Antiaircraft rounds. Neat scratch marks and a 2-4" diameter dimple on the inside. **************************************** George William Herbert UCB Naval Architecture Dpt. (my god, even on schedule!) maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ----------------------------------------
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/13/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
A sidelight on this is that the A-10 came about partly because the USAF
had been catching a lot of flak about air support and there was talk of
letting the Army do its own. Supporting the Army has never been high on
the USAF's list of priorities, but faced with a choice of doing something
about it or losing the mission...
Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edubudden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) (10/14/89)
From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) Probably at least partly because the Army can't fly their own close air support with manned planes, they found a better way. Development is on the road for the Fiber Optic Guided Missile. Which in Pentagonese is called...FOG-M (singularly appropriate -- there's enough of it around here). Consider this a rough cross between a video game and an A-10 kamikaze. As the missile flies, it unrolls a bobbin of fiber which is hitched up to a TV-set/joystick affair with a human who remotely flies the missile around until he finds a target. Then he simply flies it into the tank (or whatever). All the while, the human is in a hole or behind some hill. There were some concerns about the fiber breaking as it spools out across the countryside and there is an engineering tradeoff between that concern and loiter time. But the reports I've seen (sketchy) indicate that there is no remaining technological risk, the program is sexy enough to get Congress' attention, and they are off. Can't jam this. Missile is small enough that it'd be very hard to intercept. And the guidance system is simple enough that it's tough to deceive in a mobile environment where camoflage isn't practical. Bring your own air support. Rex Buddenberg
jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu (Jeffrey W Percival) (10/14/89)
From: jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu (Jeffrey W Percival) In article <10174@cbnews.ATT.COM> cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) writes: >If you keep slinging $500,000 Maverick missiles to knock out >$300,000 tanks (or worse, $30,000 trucks), you're losing the war. Clearly this is not true (although I appreciate the general sense of the comment). If I have ten such missiles, and you have but one truck, then the exchange might be entirely satisfactory to me. The interesting part of this question is how to know when more such exchanges will be required than one is able to support. -- Jeff Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu)
cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) (10/14/89)
From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) It's not often you get a chance to flame yourself, so here goes: In article <10174@cbnews.ATT.COM> cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) writes: > > >Could be, but on the other hand the A-10 costs less than an F-16 (and would >have cost a lot less today if they had kept producing 'em). And remember, >the whole point of the A-10 was to destroy tanks cheaply. If you keep >slinging $500,000 Maverick missiles to knock out $300,000 tanks (or worse, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Alright, dork-brain, where'd ya get the $500,000 figure? The book ya got all this outa sez $50,000 per missile, which you shoulda remembered. It also gave a cost of $1800 per tank kill with the GAU30, which does make your original point -- a net savings of $48,200 per tank killed. Those dollar values have probably gone up with time, but probably not 10 fold. You trying to get a job in military procurement, bozo? Next time get yer facts straight. We won't even mention where ya gonna get a decent tank nowadays for $300,000. A T-55? Why bother? (Gee I hope I'm being to hard on myself ;-). Anyway, I got those numbers from that oversized volume _The Great Book of Modern Warplanes__, which is very good, although it does contain the usual amount of coffee-table typos (publishers always cut costs by skipping over things like proofreading). The book has an excellent section on the A-10, including a discussion of the advantages the A-10 has over a faster aircraft like the A-16. Specifically, because it is slower, it can fire from farther away (no matter what your speed, you will still spot the target at the same range. Assuming n seconds to fire after spotting, a faster aircraft will move closer to the target in those n seconds than a slower aircraft). The A-10 can also turn faster, and in a tighter radius, than a faster aircraft, allowing it to stay farther away from the target and get away faster. The book also details how an A-10 can take out a ZSU-23, because its bullets travel faster and it can fire and duck out of the way before the 23mm shells get there. (Yeah, sure. I'll bet a lotta pilots are just dying to test that theory :-). One more thing about the A-16/A-10. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the A-16 made by General Dynamics? In Fort Worth, Texas? The home district of the former Speaker of the House, Jim Wright? Do you suppose that had something to do with it? Tune in tomorrow for the story of the Naval Air Station in Oklahoma. --------------------------------------------------- Chris Perleberg cperlebe@encad.wichita.ncr.com
bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) (10/14/89)
From: bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) In article <10140@cbnews.ATT.COM> ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) writes: | | While the Air Force traditionally does not want anything with wings | in the hands of the Army - the Army is not satisfied with CAS as | a third place priority in the USAF tactical approach to air operations. Hmmm... how about a swap? The Army gets fixed-wing for CAS and the Air Force gets the SAMs (Hawk, Patriot, etc.). Doesn't the IAF man the Israeli SAM units? Regards, -- Will Bralick | ... when princes think more of bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu | luxury than of arms, they lose bralick@gondor.cs.psu.edu | their state. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Niccolo Machiavelli
adrian%cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK (Adrian Hurt) (10/19/89)
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian%cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK> In article <10176@cbnews.ATT.COM> munnari!csc.anu.oz.au!bxr307@uunet.uu.net writes: > > >From: munnari!csc.anu.oz.au!bxr307@uunet.uu.net >The US Air Force ... tested the GAU8 against the English ADEN 30mm >and the French DEFA ... The result was that the GAU8 while firing a slightly >heavier round at a slightly higher muzzle velocity was NOT as accurate as >either of the other weapons. Slightly heavier, and slightly higher muzzle velocity? I don't have any figures for those (can someone oblige, if it's not classified?) but everything I've read about the A-10A really lays it on thick when emphasizing the hitting power of the GAU-8. The info supplied with a model I have calls it a "30mm Gatling gun which can scrap a tank at one blow". The kit is Japanese in origin, so that may be an error on the part of the translator, but it sums up the GAU-8 rather well. For one thing, the shells have depleted uranium cores. They aren't nuclear weapons, but they're the next best thing. For another, being a Gatling means that the GAU-8 has rather a high rate of fire - switchable between 2100 and 4200 rounds per minute. I don't think two DEFA's would match that. >The A10 would have carried two, slightly smaller guns which were more accurate. Which, IMHO, is like saying that Dirty Harry could carry two Walther PPK's instead of one .44 magnum. In article <10139@cbnews.ATT.COM> dela@ee.rochester.edu (Del Armstrong) writes: > >For what it's worth, I think they traded one liability (slow speed) for >a bunch of liabilites (poor survivability, poor loiter capability, poor >accuracy?, need for long runways). Me too. The A-10A was designed specifically for ground attack, and being a specialist, it's unbeatable (so far) at that job. The F-15E's main defence against ground fire is to get in and out before the baddies can shoot back, which means the pilot won't (obviously) take much time making his own attack, therefore he'll be less sure of a kill. By contrast, the A-10A's defence against ground fire is that it's tough - it didn't get the nickname "Warthog" just on the basis of its looks. Control surfaces - who needs them? Well, even the A-10A needs them, but it'll still fly with big holes in its wings and half its tail missing. Even when retracted, the wheels stick out of their nacelles a bit, so the A-10A can land with its wheels up and still have a good chance of surviving with little damage. The titanium bathtub in the cockpit has already been mentioned in other articles. In short, the A-10A is built to take what's thrown at it and survive. I'd guess a lot of Eastern tank crews will sleep easier when they know they don't have to worry about A-10A's. "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk