Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!emory!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: khearn@uts.amdahl.com (Bug Hunter)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Command of Close Air Support
Message-ID: <1990Nov30.021757.8375@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 30 Nov 90 02:17:57 GMT
References: <1990Nov29.002224.18476@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 32
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: khearn@uts.amdahl.com (Bug Hunter)

In article <1990Nov29.002224.18476@cbnews.att.com> crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) writes:
}
}Do you buy my argument?  What are other arguments for and against air force
}control of close air support?

Don't forget that "cost-effective" means more than just cost. If a
  dual-role plane can't deliver weapons on target, or provide a
  sufficient loiter time, it isn't cost-effective, no matter how
  little it costs. An F16 to clear the air, then an A10 to clear the
  ground works. An A16 which will probably clear the air, but misses
  the ground targets because it can't go slow enough, or stick around
  long enough is only doing half the job. Air-superiority, and Close
  Air Support are to very different jobs, and I doubt that one plane
  will be very good at both. 
  
If I have to drive the Indy 500, then the Baja 500, I'm not going to 
  run the same car in both of them. I'll get an Indy car and a 4WD 
  truck. Sure it costs more than one Jeep Cherokee, but at least 
  I'll have a chance in each race.

Keith "the right tool for the right job" Hearn


-- 
Keith Hearn               \    
khearn@amdahl.com          \    If you can't remember,
Amdahl Corporation          \           the claymore is pointed at you
(408)737-5691(work) (408)984-6937(home)\