Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac,att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: nak%archie@att.att.com (Neil A Kirby)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier based A10s???!?!
Message-ID: <1991Mar19.044631.9175@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 19 Mar 91 04:46:31 GMT
References: <1991Feb28.050855.8085@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar15.033854.6212@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar18.134123.17745@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 35
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: nak%archie@att.att.com (Neil A Kirby)
In article <1991Mar18.134123.17745@cbnews.att.com> dragoo@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen P. Dragoo) writes:
[stuff deleted]

>On the other hand, instead of making a new plane to replace the A-6, how about
>navalizing the A-10?  The Navy could use it on their decks and from bases,
>since they do that anyway, and the USMC could also use it, since THEIR A-6's
>need a supercarrier or a base also.

The BIG question would be: What added capability would be gained?
>From what was posted 2 articles or so ago, you would get less capability in
a larger package.  Look at 

    Payload:
	I don't have the payload numbers handy, but the takeoff weight for
	the A6 is on the order of 14 thousand pounds heavier.
    Speed:
	THe A10 is SLOW.  That's not bad for CAS, but it creates other
	problems.
    Avionics:
	The A10 has simple avionics.  It's not all weather.  The A6 does
	better, and any new plane is likely to do very well in this regard
	if the procurement folks do it right.
    Mulit-roles:
	The A6 comes in E6 and other varieties, including tankers.
    Shipboard Stowage Space Required:
	The A6 has folding wings.

How does the A10 do better than the EXISTING A-6?  Rather than make naval
A-10's, it would be better to make more A-6's.  For a new aircraft, the
specs should improve, not get worse.

Neil Kirby