"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVA LIDBABY wrote in message
...
In article , Daryl Hunt
says...


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

And when required, they are very good at it as is the Navy.

I've read that grunts on the ground preffered asking the Navy and Marines
for
CAS over the USAF.

Ohm My, guess you need to ask the Elite Guard right outside Bagdad. Oh,
that's right. You can't. They are dead. A bunch of idiots in US Air Force
Jets mistakenly missed you and hit them instead. Oh what a huge miss
considering you were sitting safely driving your armchair Army game
stateside.




Newsflash, the Army can't win em' all without support from the other
branches.


No **** - why do you think I'm bitching about the USAF neglecting such
things?

You are just trolling. Get it right.



(snip)



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...).

You put good money into good and don't put good money into bad. The F-16
can go into the Attack role just by reconfiguring the load. So can the
F-18
as well. And if they get into trouble with Fighters, they pickle their
load
and fight even up.


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...).

That gives two pilots the possibility of buying the farm to any Fighter
built since 1958.



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

Don't spend good money on a bad idea. Sounds like a winner to me.


Well, Daryl... I'm going to correct myself, but at the same time embarrass
you.
The USAF has recently adopted the "Hog Up" program, and will be keeping
the A-10
around until 2028.

http://www.hilltoptimes.com/story.as...9&storyid=2109

(That's a year old article - hopefully the USAF hasn't changed its mind on
this)

Due to cost, a lot of things will be kept around for a very long time. 2028
is the time that that AF runs out of time. Now, if something comes up that
can pop off the 10 like a flash bulb then it may be quite shorter. And I
read this as doing mods that needed to be done anyway. As I said, the F-16
costs more when you have to buy it. The A-10 is paid for and 12 years past
it's out of service date. Let a shoulder fired missile come out that can
knock it out of the air consistently, look for it to head for DM, Afb real
fast.



(snip)


The fact is, the USN has led the way with attack craft. The Navy even
considered
the A-12

The A-12? You mean the forerunner to the SR-71? Now there's a plane
without a mission.


No. I mean the stealth attack plane that the Navy wanted.

http://www.aerofiles.com/gendym-a12.jpg

Rave on. Nice mockup.




, 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).

IT's not the Air Force attempting to fool anyone here. It was proven in
1980 that the A-10 was suseptable to any and all fighters including most
Attack Aircraft to include the A-7, A-4, SU7 and a host of other AC it
was
supposed to replace. It never filled it's role completely.


It's role is CAS. It has done that well. 80% of the tanks destroyed in
Desert
Storm were done by A-10s.

After you got there. Most were already gone before the Army even set foot
on the sand. You honestly think the Air Force, Navy and Marines were just
flying cookies in the sky for 6 weeks before the Army showed up?



(snip)


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!!!

Since you have never seen one inoperation, I don't wonder why you would
say
something as silly.

By your standards, since it is low and slow and vulnerable to MIGs, it's
not
worth a damn.

You read it the way you want. I stated it very well. That AC is justified.

I can thank the God(s) that you aren't a policy maker of any kind.