Newsgroups: sci.military
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!cbnews!military
From: v059l49z@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy)
Subject: Re: A-10 vs. A-16 vs. AV-8B for CAS
Organization: University at Buffalo
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 90 03:23:10 GMT
Approved: military@att.att.com
Message-ID: <1990Oct19.032310.12028@cbnews.att.com>
References: <1990Oct18.021042.6352@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military-request@att.att.com
Lines: 26



From: v059l49z@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy)

In article <1990Oct18.021042.6352@cbnews.att.com>, ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes...
>From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
>
>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?


I think that as far as getting Navy planes is concerned, gettting F-4's met
their "Be nice to the Navy" quota for the century.  The services like to have
their own toys.

I think that possibly the thought of a plane that didn't make a long roll into
a graceful take-off might not be very glamorous. 

Just my opinion.




				Paul