From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:26:18 GMT

In article <viking.724469708@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
>
>>In all this talk about armor vs speed, etc, the focus is on the survivability
>>of the airplane and crew.  Important, especially if you are the crew, but NOT
>>the primary consideration in CAS.  Close Air Support is exactly that. Close.
>>You have to be calm, cool, and good.  And you have to have a delivery platform
>>that ensures the utmost accuracy.
>>Speed is life for the pilot, but it detracts from accuracy, and inaccurate CAS
>>is worse than no CAS at all.
>>Right now, if I'm the guy
>>on the ground, and understand what's going on, I'd rather have a Hog overhead
>>every time.
>
>	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!



Dan,

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?

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.
Of 5 Air Force friends that I knew who went to VN in the A-1, 3 died there.
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.

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.
The faster and higher the delivery pass, the less accurate it becomes. The
F-16 is a fine weapons platform.  I would hate to face one in an air-to-air
engagement, and I would hate to be a steel mill worker or a bicycler crossing
a bridge if the Lawn Dart was bearing down.  But if I were a grunt in a close-
in firefight, and had a choice, I'd want the A-10 overhead.  If YOU were the
grunt, and had the same choice, take a look at the realities and all the
options, then make (and hopefully live with) your own choice.


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
            |              | Issue 11 (FAC): "Put your next nape 20 meters
           /O\             |                  east of the last one."
 \_______|[(.)]|_______/   | Boxer 02: "That's inside the camp!"
   o   ++   O   ++   o     | Issue 11: "That's where the sons of bitches are!"
thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu  |  - Radio transmission, Bo Tuc,RVN, 20 Dec 67
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*