From: wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com
Subject: Re: CAS: Fixed vs Rotary (was: The A-10)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 00:36:08 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

In <XVR2VB1w164w@n5abi.hou.tx.us> gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy) writes:
> Getting home to the wife and kids is what it's all about when you 
>sit back and think about it later. 

Or before? Given the choice of completing my mission with a 
succesful R.T.B., and completing my mission as an M.I.A, I'll take
the former. I will take advantage of anything that will increase 
my odds of meeting my objectives and getting home safe and sound. 
Such as pedal-to-the-metal, balls-to-the-wall, hair-on-fire speeeeeeed!
I mean, I'm talking "quickness" here. Get in, get out, and leave 'em
guessing.

>What's hard for me, Toby, or 
>any other Nam vet to explain is that *during* the mission, the 
>mission becomes more important. Not because of some macho desire 
>to be a hero, or anything like that, but because those are your 
>guys on the ground (or, in my case, in the "slicks" and on the 
>ground) who are relying on YOU for THEIR survival. When it's your 
>guys getting killed down there, the wife and kiddies are the last 
>thing you think about. 

I did not fly in S.E. Asia, but have done "interesting" things with
airplanes in other equally exotic vacation spots, and recognize
the dedication and concentration to which you refer as the mark of 
a true professional. The point I was trying to make, I guess, is that 
regardless of one's professionalism, skills, and willingness to put 
one's self in harms way to protect others, technology has come a long 
way in the last 20 years. Not only is it now easier to destroy low,
slow-moving aircracft, it may no longer be necessary to hang your butt 
as far over the edge to get the job done as it was in the past.

I have seen a fast-mover drop onto the back of
a moving vehicle while simultaneously guiding the weapon and bugging out
at high mach (if there had been a "grunt" on the ground with an 
illuminator lasing the target, said fast-mover would have beat an even 
hastier retreat, trust me on this one point).  As you can imagine, the 
occupants of the vehicle wouldn't have had much reaction time. I'm sure 
the first indication you would have of such an attack would be the 
sudden and complete loss of cognitive abilities induced by the 
weapon's detonation (unless you were knocked unconcious by the weapon 
hitting you in the head before it exploded). Such accuracy is not 
anecdotal, it's common. From very fast delivery platforms. 

At transonic speeds, you can't even hear the attacking jet 'till it's 
gone by. Hell, you don't even need the jet. Launch the weapon from a 
howitzer and guide it with some poor grunt's illuminator. After all, 
the guy on the ground knows what needs to get blown up better than 
you do (and he no doubt has a better view of it, too).

We've all seen the footage from the KTO showing various
"magic" weapons knocking on doors and hiding under bed sheets (well, 
maybe a little exageration there). My point is, why risk an attack from 
a 100 knot platform, when you can attack from a 700 knot platform. Or,
better yet, attack from over the horizon and risk nobody. 

Helicopters are great for getting down in the weeds along the line of 
contact. But unless you actually need to stop and drop something off or
pick something up, or need to hang around and check things out, why 
not just whizz on by, leaving the proper amount of destruction in the 
proper place behind you.

--------
Bill Collum
wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com