Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: F vs A again
Message-ID: <1990Sep18.024459.20594@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 18 Sep 90 02:44:59 GMT
References: <1990Sep12.014806.28818@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 21
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>From: edat!brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass personal account)
>The F-117A is not designed as a ground support aircraft, that is 
>supporting the Army (I always thought it should mean Army instead of
>Attack).  Bombers belong to SAC, the F-117 belongs to TAC.  It is
>truly a Tacitical Bomber, versus Strategic or Attack.  Therefore
>F is the only designation available.  

Nope, sorry, A would be perfectly valid for this.  It is a USAF myth
that "A" means ground support.  The Navy's A aircraft include both
tactical and strategic (!) bombers.  (Before anyone jumps on me for
this, the A-3 Skywarrior was a strategic bomber by deliberate design.
The only reason it is A rather than B is that the USAF has exclusive
rights to B. :-)  Indeed, the B-66 is a USAF-mutated A-3.)  The A-12
now under development is essentially the F-117 done bigger and better,
for the Navy.
-- 
TCP/IP: handling tomorrow's loads today| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
OSI: handling yesterday's loads someday|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry