Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military From: adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Infantry vs. Air Support -- Any problems? Message-ID: <1990Sep24.001022.21924@cbnews.att.com> Date: 24 Sep 90 00:10:22 GMT References: <1990Sep10.053550.5189@cbnews.att.com> <1990Sep12.014534.28254@cbnews.att.com> <1990Sep14.042521.1038@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military-request@att.att.com Organization: Computer Science, Heriot-Watt U., Scotland Lines: 28 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Adrian Hurt In article <1990Sep14.042521.1038@cbnews.att.com> yamauchi@lime.cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: > > >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? The main advantage of the A-10 is that it can get hit hard and survive. All this speed and manoeuvrability doesn't help much when you're making your attack run and someone fires a 23mm cannon at you, especially as you probably have to slow down during the attack anyway. Having lots of armour, and being able to fly home with half your control surfaces missing, does help. "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk