“...Speed is the opposite of loiter time...” [Hieronymus, post 29]
“...best attack plane ever...” [Steve Van Doorn, post 31]
Actual results in Afghanistan do not support Steve’s assertion.
The A-10 performed the smallest percentage of close support sorties, of all US combat aircraft in theater. It was also the slowest, the least responsive, and the least effective all-weather platform. This transpired in part because there were not that many sent into action, compared to F-18, F-15, and F-16.
The B-52H was second-best, and the B-1B came out best. Their loiter times outdid all the smaller machines by several multiples. Same for their weapons loadouts, in terms of weight & numbers of individual munitions.
The B-1B negated Hieronymus’ assertion, because of its variable-geometry wings. With wings swept full forward, it could loiter at relatively low airspeeds well away from immediate engagement spots, but when called on, the wings could be swept all the way aft and the machine would dash to the vicinity of the ground unit requesting support, in a very short time.
Both the B-52 and the B-1 outmatched the A-10 in flexibility, in part because of their crew size. Sufficient warm bodies to reprogram target data as needed, navigate, dodge threats, and put more munitions down on target.
The A-10 was severely limited because the pilot had to do it all. And its engagement capabilities were severely limited at night and in bad weather. The latter might be improved a little by adding enhanced vision systems, but nothing can be done to add crewmembers.
Thank you—I am learning form both and I really enjoy FR threads where several knowledgeable people bring forth the best in eachother.