Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: New Ground Attack Aircraft
Message-ID: <1990Jul31.022848.19605@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 31 Jul 90 02:28:48 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 40
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>From: gh21@prism.gatech.edu (HICKMAN,GLEN R)
>I read in AIRFORCE magazine (about a year ago) that the Airforce was
>looking to replace the aging (yet affective) A-10 Thunderbolt II.  The
>article indicted a number of options...  [A-16, A-7, F-15E]
>I figured the Army would rather stick with the AH-64 and support 
>themselves????

"Indicted" is about the right word. :-)  The USAF is not interested in
options, they want the A-16.  The Army basically considers this a scam
to get the USAF more F-16s, and is quite sure that when the chips are
down, the "A-16s" will be F-16s off shooting at MiGs, leaving the PBI
(Poor Bloody Infantry) without air support.  A good many people in
Congress and elsewhere tend to agree with the Army, which is why the
A-16 idea has been getting an unfriendly reception so far.

The Army has long wanted to do its own support -- the Marines do it
that way, and like it -- but fixed-wing aircraft are better than
helicopters for hauling heavy loads, and the Army basically isn't allowed
to operate fixed-wing anything.

>The A-16 would (I feel) be too fast to be an effective
>ground support aircraft (The A-10 is rather slow, which is deliberate).

Unfortunately, there are some arguments favoring the higher speed, for
the sake of survivability in a very hostile environment.  It's not that
clear-cut.  The A-10 is fairly well protected against small-arms fire
and small AA artillery, but missile fire is now a bigger threat.

>Are there any other options that anyone else has heard of????  ...

The USMC's approach to it is to use Harriers, mostly.  If one assumes
that the A-10 is too vulnerable (there are people who would dispute this)
and the A-16 is a transparent fraud :-), the debate is mostly improved
A-7s vs AV-8B (or similar) Harriers.

                                         Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                          henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry