Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac,att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier based A-10s?
Message-ID: <1991Mar19.044752.9397@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 19 Mar 91 04:47:52 GMT
References: <1991Mar18.133756.16913@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 54
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)

>From: x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT)
>
>The reason there are no A-10s on carriers is simple.  The Aircraft is not
>needed in the Naval Service.  The Marines have the AV-8B and F/A-18 for Close
>Air Support.  These aircraft perform the mission very well.  The AV-8B is far
>better then the A-10 for CAS.  

Some Warthog drivers might contest that statement.

>It was a good thing that the Iraqis had no Air
>Force because the A-10 can not survive when threat aircraft are present.  

Low and slow, yes, but also hard to hit.  In Red Flag exercises, A-10s have been
known to outmaneuver much faster aircraft...I'd be nervous with a 30mm cannon
pointed at me.  Even if hit, an A-10 can absorb a *lot* of damage before it can
no longer stay aloft.  Probably more than just about any other aircraft currently
in use that might take over its role.

>TheHarrier II is very survival and can hang in Air-to air combat.

Properly flown, a Harrier can make good account of itself...but air-to-air is
only a small part of a good CAS machine's repertoir.  They should be expecting
their tender forms to be covered by the Air Superiority aircraft, like the
F-15 and F-16s who have the job of watching out for them.

>Also the A-10 is extremely underpowered and very slow.

I'm not sure that that characterization is correct.  Just because it isn't
supersonic, doesn't necessarliy mean that the A-10 is underpowered.  (Even the
Harrier is subsonic...)  The A-10 is pretty heavy, but it carries a big payload,
and to get good accuracy, even the Harrier has to slow down a bit itself.  (Which
is one thing that bothers me about the proposed A-16)

>The Marines wanted the Marine Machine, the AV-8B and they got it and it works
>great!  It can hold everything the A-10 can, deliver ordnance on target, and
>defend itself. 

The Harrier doesn't carry the A-10's 30mm cannon, does it?

Also lacks the A-10s loiter ability.  Doesn't matter how fast you are, if you're
going or coming to/from a refueling, you're overhead doing me much good.

Different tools, different advantages, different disadvantages. 


--
------------
  The only drawback with morning is that it comes 
    at such an inconvenient time of day.
------------