From: steven@unipalm.co.uk (Steven Vincent)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Organization: Unipalm Ltd., 216 Cambridge Science Park, Cambridge CB4 4WA, UK
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:22:03 GMT

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>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!

> 
>>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.

Far better than any of these US fighter aircraft would be the immediate
post war developments of the Mosquito and Beaufighter that the RAF used
very successfully in Malaya and Korea. i.e. The Brigand and Hornet. Both 
have as standard a gun armament of 4 20 mm cannon + 4 or more mgs and a 
very useful bomb or rocket load. Twin engines and a fair amount of armour 
to resist ground fire. Twin Piston engines also have the advantage of a 
much lower IR signature than jets or Turbo-props.

I am sure that you can think of some equivalent US aircraft, the fighters
that you named would have the disadvantage of to small a pay load to be
usefull in todays Armoured front line. (I just don't see .5" opening up
a T-55 yet alone a more modern tank, top armour on an M60 is actually thicker
than the front amour of a Pz III).

>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.

The P-47 had a much better capacity to absorb battle damage than the P-38,
which had very little duplication of systems. I had heard that the P-38s
single engine performance was hopless and that either electric or hydraulic 
power would be lost when an engine went down. Still this may of only applied
to the early models.  
>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.

>>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.

I think I'd take a Marine Corps Harrier, at least I am sure that somebody
will have spent time teaching him to tell freind from foe on the ground. 
Sure his life expectancy might be less but then rather his ass than mine!
(The British Army suffered more casualties at the hands of the USAF than
the entire Iraqi armed forces during the Gulf war, the Marines also suffered
from the attentions of USAF A-10's hence there long standing policy of Marines
being supported by Marine Air first, second and Navy third.)

Steven Vincent				steven@unipalm.co.uk



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military