Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: New Ground Attack Aircraft Message-ID: <1990Jul31.022906.19672@cbnews.att.com> Date: 31 Jul 90 02:29:06 GMT References: <1990Jul25.004555.6637@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc, Seattle, Wa Lines: 45 Approved: military@att.att.com From: uw-beaver!mcgp1!flak (Dan Flak) In article <1990Jul25.004555.6637@cbnews.att.com> gh21@prism.gatech.edu (HICKMAN,GLEN R) writes: >I figured the Army would rather stick with the AH-64 and support >themselves???? 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). >Are there any other options that anyone else has heard of???? I feel >that there is NO subsitute for a good fixed wing ground attack craft. As an ex-FAC, I just have to speak up! Back in '06 (actually the early 70's) my preferences were: F-4: "Make one pass, jettison everything, and go home". They couldn't hit the target, and were always out of gas anyway. A-7: "OK, I'll work you now". If the computer assisted bomb sight worked, they were accurate. A-37: "Climb to 25,000 feet, shut down an engine and hold". A-1E: "Go work another target, and come back in about 45 minutes". They stayed aloft for days, and carried everything but the perverbial kitchen sink. They worked low and slow and "in tight" and could take a lot of punishment. The could stay in the fight for a long time, both fuel wise and ordinance wise. I imagine the F-16 would be a lot like the F-4, always low on fuel, and moving too fast to see someone in the trees. A good platform for areas where there's too much ground fire for slower aircraft and your target is in the open, but not good for troops in contact situations in spite of a hefty payload (in the F-4's case). I imagine the A-10 is a lot like the A-1E. Neither of them are very pretty sights, but they are good in a low threat environment. (Now, if they'd just put the 30mm in a pod, suspend it from an A-1 ... Well, it's a *lot* cheaper than operating a jet). -- Dan Flak - McCaw Cellular Communications Inc., 201 Elliot Ave W., Suite 105, Seattle, Wa 98119, 206-286-4355, (usenet: thebes!mcgp1!flak)