Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: yamauchi@lime.cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Infantry vs. Air Support -- Any problems?
Message-ID: <1990Sep14.042521.1038@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 14 Sep 90 04:25:21 GMT
References: <1990Sep10.053550.5189@cbnews.att.com> <1990Sep12.014534.28254@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Department
Lines: 24
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: yamauchi@lime.cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
In article <1990Sep12.014534.28254@cbnews.att.com>, ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Allan Bourdius) writes:
>
> Since the USAF is planning to junk the A-10 in favor of a modified F-16,
> the A-16, it's clear that they don't take the CAS mission very seriously.

Well, the A-10 does have that impressive cannon, but I would assume that
the A-16 would be much faster and much more maneuverable -- of course,
that may be less important for an attack aircraft than for a fighter. 
The F-16 also seems like a much "sexier" aircraft from the Air Force's
POV (supersonic, highly maneuverable, fly-by-wire, etc.) while the A-10
seems decidedly low-tech (albeit effective).  Perhaps, that had
something to do with it.

What are the other advantages/disadvantages of the A-16 relative to the A-10?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi				University of Rochester
yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu		Computer Science Department
_______________________________________________________________________________