Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!emory!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: emery@linus.mitre.org (David Emery)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Command of Close Air Support
Message-ID: <1990Nov30.021411.7913@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 30 Nov 90 02:14:11 GMT
References: <1990Nov29.002224.18476@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: The Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA
Lines: 19
Approved: military@att.att.com
Full-Name: Linus's Usenet



From: emery@linus.mitre.org (David Emery)

The explanation I've heard from the USAF folks is slightly different.
True, multi-purpose aircraft do help you win the air campaign, but
the A-16 is supposed to be an attack plane primarily, and not a
air-superiority fighter. 

The reasons I've heard for the A-16 have to do with survivability.
The argument is that A-10's are just too slow, and as a result they'll
be easier to acquire and shoot down.  The Air Force wants a fast-mover
for CAS.

I'm still not convinced.  If I had my druthers, I'd go for the Harrier
rather than A-16.  But I still like Warthogs, mostly because of how
easy it is to control them, and their effects on target.  

				dave emery