Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier based A-10s?
Message-ID: <1991Apr5.092442.8906@amd.com>
Date: 4 Apr 91 17:35:00 GMT
References: <1991Mar18.133756.16913@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Lines: 51
Approved: military@amd.com



From: stevenp@kodak.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson)


x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT) writes:
> The reason there are no A-10s on carriers is simple.  The Aircraft is not
> needed in the Naval Service.

   There are no A-10's on carriers because they were not intended for
carrier use, were not designed for carrier use, and cannot operate from
them.

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

   There is no proof for this assertion.  The Air Force claims that
their "slow speed" makes them incapable of dogfighting, which is
somewhat curious since they decided to equip them with air-to-air
missiles (Sidewinder) anyway.

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

   The A-10 has a higher thrust to weight ratio than both the A-6 and
A-7 (the latter of which is a carrier-based close-air-support aircraft)
and is comparable to both the F-111 and F-5.  For sure it doesn't have
the thrust to weight of an air-superiority fighter, but then again,
that's not its mission.  The main threat to CAS aircraft is ground
fire, including AAA and heat seeking missles like the SAM-7.  The A-10
was designed to survive in that environment.

   I find the "slow" argument amusing -- the A-10 is considerably faster
than any attack helicopter, which is the other type of aircraft that
performs the same role.  A legitimate argument might be that the A-10
isn't slow enough as it can't hover, but the Air Force hasn't been
saying that.

> 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 Marines don't want the A-10, there is no need for it.

   I agree that the Harrier is an excellent aircraft.  However, the
Marines claim that they don't need it either -- it is being removed from
budget requests in favor of the F-18.  The real reason for all these
changes in heart is politics.  It is unfortunate, but aircraft capability
and potential are secondary concerns.

--
Steve
(the certified flying fanatic)
stevenp@decwrl.dec.com