Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mbynack
The problem with the A-10 is that it’s a single mission aircraft. It does a limited mission very well.

And supersonic fighter/attack aircraft aren't especialy useful at close air support of ground troops.

What a dilemma.


29 posted on 03/10/2016 7:11:36 AM PST by Iron Munro (Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth -- Mike Tyson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: Iron Munro
And supersonic fighter/attack aircraft aren't especialy useful at close air support of ground troops.

What a dilemma.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I was assigned to England AFB in 1981 and helped transition from A-7s to A-10s. I have the utmost respect for the A-10, its capabilities, and it's pilots. I've flown simulators and can personally vouch for the fact that it's a lot easier to do close air at 180 knots than it is at 350 knots IAS. The A-10 can fly lower, slower, and maneuver better than most other aircraft. The issue isn't whether the A-10 is better at CAS. The issue is, should the AF take money and pilots from other programs to support a single-mission plane? Having a great CAS platform doesn't mean much if you can't maintain air superiority and the planes aren't free to fly where they're needed. The bottom line is that in order to keep 50% of the population on food stamps and supplied with free Obamaphones, you need to cut the military.

38 posted on 03/10/2016 7:35:12 AM PST by mbynack (Retired USAF SMSgt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson