Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: A-16
Message-ID: <8089@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 10 Jul 89 04:20:08 GMT
References: <7740@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 26
Approved: military@att.att.com



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