Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: phil@diablo.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: A-10 Thunderbolt -- Who /really/ flys them?
Message-ID: <10084@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 11 Oct 89 02:44:03 GMT
References: <10017@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 30
Approved: military@att.att.com



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".