Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier based A-10s?
Message-ID: <1991Mar23.061752.5269@amd.com>
Date: 23 Mar 91 06:17:52 GMT
References: <1991Mar18.133756.16913@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar19.044752.9397@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar22.042105.20198@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: cdr@amd.com (Carl Rigney)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 22
Approved: military@amd.com



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

In article <1991Mar22.042105.20198@cbnews.att.com> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>>From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
>> [Harrier]
>> 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.
>
>You don't see too many A-10s dropping down into a clearing just behind the
>lines to wait for a call to action.  Harriers do this all the time; it's
>called "ground loiter".

Forgot about that...  :}  (But the A-16 still wouldn't get this one.)

On the other hand, how much is the Harrier's payload reduced by having to
be able to go VTOL to do this?

Moving right along, what came of the recent meeting to see if the Army could
start using fixed-wing *Army* assets for CAS.