Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: eeyore@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Mark Anthony Brown) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: A10 armor Message-ID: <1991Feb8.011918.14696@cbnews.att.com> Date: 8 Feb 91 01:19:18 GMT References: <1991Feb6.024038.16048@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb7.011818.28660@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK. Lines: 26 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Mark Anthony Brown Yeah, A10s are tough buggers, and are supposedly designed to soak up ground fire like a sponge. Also, I suppose, they are easily repairable in the event of damage. The last time I got a close look at one, the skin panels were fastened by what looked like pop rivets. So I assume that damage repair procedures simply involve fixing any internal damage, pop-riveting on a patch and away you go. They are also slow -- some say that they're the only aircraft to get birdstrikes on the trailing edge! It seems to me that the designers at Fairchild knew what they were doing with reference to making the plane less susceptable to "the golden bb", especially in the CAS/BAI role where there's going to be a lot of ground fire. Are these considereations taken into account with the proposed F-16 or A-12 CAS/BAI replacements? -- Mark A. Brown | Research Student | land line: +44 71 975 5220 Department of Computer Science | JANET: eeyore@uk.ac.qmw.cs Queen Mary & Westfield College | UUCP: eeyore@qmc-cs.UUCP