Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bellcore!att!cbnews!military From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: A-10 Thunderbolt -- Who /really/ flys them? Message-ID: <10229@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 14 Oct 89 01:56:15 GMT References: <10085@cbnews.ATT.COM> <10139@cbnews.ATT.COM> <10174@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS Lines: 55 Approved: military@att.att.com 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