"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:10:27 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 07:14:16 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:31:42 -0700 (PDT), Rex

wrote:

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 10:26:50 PM UTC-5, John B.
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:23:14 -0500, Tim Wescott
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:54:53 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

This is an interesting article that may explain why the Air
Force
decided to drop the A-10 Warthog:

http://arstechnica.com/information-t.../09/air-force-
fighters-will-carry-laser-cannons-cyber-weapons-by-2020/

To my knowledge, with few exceptions the air force -- even when
it
was part of the army -- has had little enthusiasm for ground
support.

Current doctrine is that the army gets to play with rotary wing
craft
but doesn't get to fly fixed-wing. So, by that doctrine the
Air
Force gets the A-10. But by their own leanings, they don't
want to
do what it does,
so they've been trying to rid themselves of it for years.

But -- I'm a life-long civilian, so what do I know?

I'm not sure that is correct as the A.F. has been engaged in
ground
support for it's whole existence. The entire purpose of the
armed
C-47's (Puff the Magic Dragon) was ground support and I was even
bought several beers by Army guys when they found out that I was
in
the organization. Our big brag was that if we got there before
They
got through the fence that we never lost a camp.

But I might add that the Army was very jealous of their
helicopter
rights and privileges. We built two Hueys with twin mini guns
and
rocket pods at Nha Tang and had to go to the Army for help in
adding
the rocket pods and the fact that the Air Force was "building
armed
helicopters" went all the way to headquarters MAAGV.

( We got to keep our armed Hueys because the were labeled "for
"Air
Base Defense" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

The Marines flew Harriers, presumably for CAS. I think the
Harriers are
being phased out. Maybe they should transition to the A-10

As they said in that article, and as I pointed out here six months
ago
or more, the A-10 was conceived before terrorists had MANPADS.
Imagine
trapshooting with loads that seek the clay pigeons electronically.

This is kinda OT from the thread or the group, but --

It seems like we've been getting really good at precision guided
munitions against technologically unsophisticated enemies (who
respond by
finding ways to engage us in technologically unsophisticated, yet
effective, ways).

Are we ready for a war with China or Russia? Somehow I don't think
we're
going to scrape all the way through the 21st century without a war
with
one of them.

Well, if we're betting, I'm betting not. A little skirmish here or
there, but not a war.

The leaders of all three countries are not nuts. They've lived under
the threat of nuclear holocaust for over a half-century and they
don't
want it. I see no indication that any of them is like the loons of
N.
Korea or Iran.

Again, if we're betting, my guess is that the country most likely to
face a real nuclear threat is N. Korea -- which could happen if they
get trigger-happy with our navy or our defense forces in S. Korea.

--
Ed Huntress

We might become involved in a war with their neighbors or a proxy war
elsewhere but neither of them has the ability to conquer defended
territory beyond driving distance. No one else has a fraction of our
power to engage a powerful army like Iraq's half way around the world
on short notice. In the Falklands war Britain was barely more than a
match for Argentina, and only because they had nuclear submarines.

The tragicomical misadventures of the Russian aircraft carrier
"Admiral Kuznetsov" show how far they are from acquiring that power.
http://forum.worldofwarships.com/ind...raft-carriers/
"Anticipating breakdowns, large ocean-going tugs accompany Admiral
Kuznetsov whenever she deploys."

http://www.oldsaltblog.com/2014/10/r...nese-liaoning/

-jsw