In article , Daryl Hunt says...


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message
...

Tell the USAF that... for awhile they wanted to get rid rid of the A-10
and were pushing the "A-16" - picture a F-16 in green camoflage with a 30mm
gatling gun pod on its center hardpoint.

CAS simply isn't something taken seriously by the USAF.

You tell the AF that.

Oh, they already know it.

"Not a pound for air to ground" as the Fighter Mafia used to like to say...
(funny how you don't hear about a "CAS Mafia," huh?)

They aren't buying anymore A-10s for a good reason.

They aren't sexy enough, so the USAF just ignored it and hoped it would die.

I believe the A-10 has been upgraded exactly ONE time in the USAF, when they
hung a Pave Penny on it. The F-16 has been updated numerous times (F-16A --
F-16C) with numerous "block" upgrades. I believe the current model is a F-16C
Block 50/52, correct?

The USAF has spent tons of money on the F-16 program and has come up with
numerous test beds for the Lawn Dart (like the F-16XL and "A-16" - where the
USAF tried to convince everybody that a lizard green F-16C with a 30mm gunpod
was an A-10...).

There was a two seater all weather A-10 (NAW-10?) that he Air Force looked at
briefly and then decided that it didn't want (what a surprise...).

The fact is - the USAF gets the F-16 pilots LANTRIN pods and fun stuff like
that, while the A-10 guys are given Night Vision Goggles.

It's pretty obvious where the USAF is spending it's money at.

Hell, the USAF never even wanted the A-10 in the first place, or haven't you
noticed that most of the USAF's attack birds were taken from USN designs (yes,
the Navy takes that role more seriously than the USAF does...).

USN: A-1, A-4, A-6, A-7 (not gonna include F/A-18 in that mix)

USAF: A-1 (taken from the Navy when the USAF realized they had no suitable
attack designs), A-7 (same as previous), A-10, AC-130

USMC: A-4, A-6, AV-8 (Brit designed, extensively modified by McD-D)(F/A-18 also)

The fact is, the USN has led the way with attack craft. The Navy even considered
the A-12, whereas the the USAF has never really considered a follow on for the
A-10 (oh yeah, the A-16 - but the Air Force brass didn't fool anyone on that).

Are you telling me that the USAF is foolish enough to believe that everything
with wings has to be capable of enagaging MiGs in 1v1. Hell, the Army and the
Marine Corps don't think that everything with treads should be able to engage
MBTs...

(I won't even get into the whole P-51 (F-51) fiasco in Korea... although some
parellels could be made - the F-51 was "sexy" but the P-47 wasn't...)

It's mission died with the fall of the iron curtain.

As did the F-22's and the (especially) the B-2's yet the USAF doesn't want to
drop them does it?

The major power with the Main Battle Tanks the A-10 was designed to combat
can't even get the fuel to drive them anymore.

So why does the USAF want the F-22 and B-2 then? The Russian Air Force is a
joke, and it's not bloody likely that we need to nuke them anytime soon...

And the F-16 can completely fill the role

The USAF dropped the "A-16" idea because they knew nobody was daft enough to buy
it...

the A-10 was supposed to do (and never did).

Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Liberation?

Life expectancy of an A-10 against almost any Mig or SU is about 30 seconds.

The A-10 isn't a fighter, right?

And why does the USAF want to keep the AC-130? It's s-l-o-w, b-i-g, can't fight
Migs... damn that thing is WORSE than an A-10!!!

This is typical fighter mafia mentality - look downwards, because man lives on
the ground and not up in the clouds. It's the ground battle that's paramount.

Life expectancy of a F-16 all depends on the Pilots.


Yeah, control the air but place no emphasis on what goes on in the ground...

You are reading your Armies PR again.


No, just taking note of what the USAF has historically done.

http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html

-Tom

"For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs ressistance/For the
Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus Banks,
"What I Live for"

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)