Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: A10 vs Apache?
Message-ID: <1991Mar23.061722.5050@amd.com>
Date: 23 Mar 91 06:17:22 GMT
References: <1991Mar22.041818.19720@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: cdr@amd.com (Carl Rigney)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 28
Approved: military@amd.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>From: jrb@idx.com
>I have a question regarding the A-10.  I have heard that the plan is to use a
>modified F16 for the close air support role in the future.  One of the reasons
>given for this is that the A10 is too slow for modern combat.  Ok, I guess I buy
>that, but if that's true.. what's the rationale for the Apache helicopter?

You have to understand that the real rationales are political, not technical.

The USAF wants more F-16s, and is trying to get them by pretending that
they will fly CAS missions.  For CAS, the F-16 is inferior to the A-10 in
almost every way except speed, so naturally the official rationale is that
the A-10 is too slow.

The US Army, on the other hand, would really like to operate its own CAS
force, but isn't allowed to fly fixed-wing aircraft.  So naturally the
Apache is the superior solution to the technical problems.  It has to be;
the Army isn't allowed to pursue any other solution.

I'd give long odds that if the Army was told to do its own CAS in the most
cost-effective way, without artificial restrictions, it would end up with
neither Apaches nor F-16s.  The Marines had exactly that situation, and
fought long and hard to get Harriers.
-- 
"[Some people] positively *wish* to     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
believe ill of the modern world."-R.Peto|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry