Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: as4y+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alfred Todd Symonds) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Carrier based A10s???!?! Message-ID: <1991Mar12.224255.24531@cbnews.att.com> Date: 12 Mar 91 22:42:55 GMT References: <1991Feb26.011655.5357@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb28.050855.8085@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar4.204930.4811@cbnews.att.com>, Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 21 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Alfred Todd Symonds henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes.... >The reason it's not the A-111 (well, maybe A-8 or thereabouts) is that >the USAF never voluntarily uses A; that letter is for inferior Navy >aircraft, not glamorous USAF aircraft. (The A-10 was built only because >the alternative -- giving the close-air-support mission to the Army -- >was unquestionably worse.) Just out of sheer curiousity, what would prevent the use of A10s in the role of Marine CAS missions?? Obviously there are the problems of saltwater and the other vagaries of carrier launchers, but is it totally out of the question for some other reason? After all, it would rid the USAF of an obviously useless "A" type of aircraft. Todd Apologies if this question seems insane.