Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: raven!tobin@ncar.ucar.edu (Mike Tobin)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: New Ground Attack Aircraft
Message-ID: <1990Aug2.042218.2783@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 2 Aug 90 04:22:18 GMT
References: <1990Jul25.004555.6637@cbnews.att.com> <1990Jul31.022906.19672@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Calspan Corporation ATC  Buffalo, NY
Lines: 25
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: raven!tobin@ncar.ucar.edu (Mike Tobin)
This discussion is interesting, but the modifier "New" is ironic.

Back around '75 or '76 I was at the USAF's Squadron Officers' School
(where they try to turn line officers into staff wienies) and two things
have stuck in my mind.

First, was the presentation we got from the F-16 program office.  the
airplane was still in development and they gave us a real good pitch on
how the AF brought an aircraft into the field.  There were several
presenters and each made a big deal about how they would "defend to the
death" against any attempts to do anything to the F-16 that would
detract from it's "real" mission of air-to-air.  Several assignments
later I was one of those staff wieneies at USAF HQ in germany and what
was the office I was assigned to responsible for?  Developing the plans
for bringing the F-16 into Europe as a, you guessed it, ground attack
aircraft (interrdiction, not CAS).

Second, one of our assignments was to present an advocacy briefing on
one side or the other of this question (a hot one at the time): should the 
AF buy the A-10 or an improved A-7 as the next CAS aircraft?  
I chose the A-7 and I quess that briefing is still good!
Mike Tobin