Newsgroups: sci.military Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military From: Allan Bourdius Subject: A-10 vs. A-16 vs. AV-8B for CAS Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 02:10:42 GMT Approved: military@att.att.com Message-ID: <1990Oct18.021042.6352@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military-request@att.att.com Lines: 44 From: Allan Bourdius The following data is taken from _The Modern US War Machine_ (Crown, 1987) Speed (clean, @sea level) A-10 420 mph A-16 915 mph AV-8B 688 mph Maximum Ordance Load A-10 16,000 lbs A-16 14,700 lbs AV-8B 7,000 lbs (VTO)/17,000 lbs (STO) Combat Radius (Nominal load) A-10 288 miles A-16 340 miles AV-8B 748 miles (STO) This data shows that perhaps the best platform in our inventory for CAS is the USMC's AV-8B. The Harrier can take off from an unimproved short field (750 feet or less) with a full ordnance load greater than that (by weight) of the A-10, and fly farther faster. Since Harriers can be sortied from areas very close to the front, this equates to a greater loiter time over the combat area. I think that any comments referring to the AV-8B's unsuitabillity for CAS due to lack of armament capability or performance over the battlefield are unjustified. As soon as I can get some information on the Harrier's survivability and maneuverability, I'll be sure to post them. I've always been curious why the USAF didn't seriously consider the AV-8B as the A-10's successor (not that the A-10 needs one). Any ideas? Allan ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIDN 3/C (PLCJR) Allan Bourdius, Carnegie Mellon University NROTC "Retreat hell! We just got here!" ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu The opinons expressed in this letter/posting do not, nor are in any way intended to, represent the official policies and positions of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, the United States Marine Corps or the United States Navy; so there!