From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:19:08 GMT

thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:

> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>>	Somehow, it sounds like the best CAS weapon we could field would be
>>a P-47 Thunderbolt, and maybe an few P-38's with chain guns under the
>>nose for those pesky armored targets.
>>	Considering how cheap an old piston fighter would be to produce and
>>maintain compared to the jets of today, this might be worth kicking
>>around as a CAS idea.
>>	It also has the side benefit of giving us great Army surplus!

>Are you interested in an honest discussion of the issue and the opinions of
>those who have an intimate familiarity with close air support, or would you
>rather just engage in a smartass contest to see who can post the cleverest
>put-down?

	Not had your coffee yet, or did the cat whiz in your corn flakes?
Get that first cup of coffee in you, check your ego at the door, and read
my article again.  I've included it for your reference.  There was 
absolutely nothing in there that could be remotely construed as a put-down,
and furthermore the only joking comment was about surplus.

	The F4U, P-51, and others were used as CAS aircraft as late as 
Korea, and I believe a few P-51's were even to be found in the skies 
over Vietnam.  The idea is not new.  These planes were hopelessly 
out-classed by the more advanced jets in the skies at that time, just as
the A-10 is hopelessly outclassed by most fighters today.  The A-10
requires air superiority fighters to keep it protected from air attack,
and good ground-force suppression to keep the SAMs in their launchers.
The same will be true of any slow, stable CAS platform.  Since we are
facing cuts in defense budgets, a low-cost alternative to the A-10 needs
to be found, and there is no reason to use the latest in nifty-go-fast
technology when old, slow, and reliable will work just as well for less.
Hence, I thought the idea of WWII-era warbirds in a CAS role had some
merit as a topic of discussion.
 
>In a permissive ground-to-air environment, the P-47 would be excellent for
>the job.  As an ex-air force type who flew 200 combat missions in VN in the
>F-4, many of them in the close air support role, I will freely admit that the
>A-1 was a better choice for the mission.  That's because it was slower, more
>stable, and more accurate. The problem with the A-1 was its vulnerability.
>The purpose of the design of the A-10 was to try to solve the vulnerability
>problems while retaining the accuracy that is inherent to low and slow.

	Precisely.  The P-47 was indeed a flying tank, and a very stable
gun platform.  The P-38 would have an advantage of centerline guns and
twin engines, making it somewhat more likely to survive groundfire and
return to base.  The P-47 should also be quite capable of carrying a
fair amount of under-wing ordinance, and the P-38 design should allow
for different guns to be adapted easily as their need becomes apparent.
These are merely two aircraft that could fill the narrow but specific
role of CAS for ground troops.  Let the F-16's protect the skies and
the AH-64's find the tanks.  The CAS role doesn't need to extend to
these areas when other tools are available and can do a better job.

>You may post all the cute little replies that your nubile mind can come up
>with, but that won't change the laws of ordnance delivery as they now stand.

	I didn't propose changing any laws, and as for my cute little
reply you just made my point for me a paragraph ago, and do so again below.

>The faster and higher the delivery pass, the less accurate it becomes.
[...] >But if I were a grunt in a close-
>in firefight, and had a choice, I'd want the A-10 overhead.

	It doesn't appear you'll get what you want.  So, what is an
alternative that meets the needs outlined?  If we could still have those
A-10's overhead we wouldn't be talking about its replacement, would we?

	Now then, perhaps we can get back to the discussion at hand,
namely why a piston-engined fighter wouldn't make a decent CAS plane,
and what improvements might be necessary over the original designs.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military