Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Persian Gulf Combat Aircraft--The A-4 Skyhawk
Summary: A-10s growing old
Message-ID: <1990Oct29.025307.6365@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 29 Oct 90 02:53:07 GMT
References: <1990Oct8.030359.11680@cbnews.att.com> <1990Oct10.000344.29709@cbnews.att.com> <1990Oct11.051241.412@cbnews.att.com> <1990Oct26.020053.25883@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Lines: 22
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <1990Oct26.020053.25883@cbnews.att.com> na0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nicholas G. Alexander) writes:
>
>The A-10 while great at its job, is old.  The warthog could probably
>hold its own for a couple more years, but eventually age and maintanence
>costs would pull them out of the air before ground fire ever got a
>chance.
>
>    So the DoD decided to do research on what kind of aircraft they
>wanted to replace the A-10. Slow and well armored, or quick but
>vulnerable?  

The DoD ignores the most logical action which is to continue the A-10
production line. Ten penny nails are an old design, but as long as we
continue to make new ones, they do the job they were designed for well.
I've seen nothing that is significantly better at CAS than the A-10
so the logical course is to continue to produce the A-10.

Gary