Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Naval use of A-10's
Message-ID: <1991Mar27.051508.23046@amd.com>
Date: 27 Mar 91 05:15:08 GMT
References: <1991Mar20.034011.1839@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar25.064817.29163@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 25
Approved: military@amd.com



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

>From: norton@manta.nosc.mil (Scott Norton)
>One more consideration is that the A-10 doesn't have the avionics
>to find ships at sea.

Ooh! Ooh! (Hand waving frantically over head)  Let me!

Get the most current possible positioning reports from satellites or
whatever, download the position report to the A-10s, let them use
GPSS or whatever to amble (they can't very well zip, can they?) on
over to make loud noises.  Voila!  *Off-board* avionics!

Doesn't solve the other problems, though.  (Might be useful against
troop carriers...but then, who else goes in big for amphibious
landings?  The Army doesn't dislike the Marines *that* much!)

	[ I suspect you just handwaved the hard parts,
	  but I'll let the readers suggest why.  I'd suggest
	  a ship can go a *long* way between satellite overflights.
	  I don't think anyone's ever suggested that amphibious
	  landings are thinkable without complete air superiority.
	  -- CDR]