Those Warthogs are really cool planes. Incredibly durable and tough. I saw
a program on the planes in the gulf, some of them brought the pilots back
safe and sound and didn't even look like they could roll down a runway let
alone fly home and land safely.
And don't they use depleted uranium rounds in that nose-mounted cannon? I
think because the rounds are so dense they can penetrate the tank armour
correct?
Frank WJ
Dak Content: Would love to taxi a Warthog behind my Dak. :)
>
>You must be talking about the Hawker Harrier... To do the F-16 the whole
>airframe would have to be redesigned to support the engine with vectored
>thrust. I don't really care too much for the Air Farce's idea of dumping
>the
>A-10 and using the F-16 for close air support.. You cannot effectively
>drive
>a F-16 low and slow, plus a couple of well placed 20mm rounds would put
>that
>plane out of commission if it was low and slow. They would also have to
>replace the GAU-20 with the 30 to be an effective tankbuster. The 20mm
>rounds just bounce off of tank armor. Then again a well placed Maverick
>would spoil a tankers day(at a million or two a pop). I saw a couple of
>TBOLT's that came back from the Gulf with some holes from some hits from
>"golden BB's", the F-16 would not have been airworthy in comparison. Being
>a
>former grunt myself, if given the choice I would take a lone A-10 over a
>flight of F-16's when I needed some CAS.
>
>Greg
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:48:30 EDT