Warthog, Falcon Vie for Tank Killer Role : Planes: The debate grows over a specialized craft or a Jack-of-all-trades war jet to provide air support for foot soldiers in the desert.

Beneath the clear, blue skies above the Saudi Arabian desert, there is a bureaucratic skirmish being waged, and it has pitted one of the Air Force’s sleekest war birds, the F-16 Falcon, against an ungainly beast called “the Warthog” by the pilots who fly it.

Their role is to destroy any tanks bearing down on U.S. forces, and the debate is over how it should be done and who should do it.

The Iraqi military threat to Saudi Arabia, which would set one of the world’s largest tank armies against U.S. and Arab forces, already is reviving a long-running debate over whether and how the U.S. Air Force should provide aerial protection for the nation’s ground forces, say military officials here.

Since 1948, when the Air Force and Army first divided up their roles, the Air Force has performed the aerial tank-killing mission. Some on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, suggesting virtual bureaucratic heresy, have urged that the planes and the mission--and the substantial funding that goes with them--be shifted to the Army.

At the same time, many analysts believe that the Army, unwilling to rely solely on the Air Force for air cover, has already effectively taken on the mission.

But the Air Force’s and Army’s staunch opposition to any formal change in their charters makes that an unlikely prospect.

So congressional critics and service brass have directed their energy toward arguing about what kind of Air Force craft should fulfill the so-called close air-support role.

Now, with the A-10 Thunderbolt--better known as the Warthog--and the rival F-16 Falcon both poised in Saudi Arabia to do battle with Iraq’s tank army, that debate is heating up. If U.S. and Iraqi tanks come face to face, the performance of each plane could determine what kind of aircraft--a specialized tank-killer or a Jack-of-all-trades war jet--will be built to protect foot soldiers in the long run.

“This may cause some rethinking” about how quickly the Air Force can phase out the A-10, said Col. Dave Sawyer, commander of a wing of A-10s--about 72 aircraft--in Saudi Arabia. “I’m not saying it’s the salvation for the A-10, but this is the kind of thing the A-10 is designed for.”

Since the late 1970s, pilots of the A-10 have been training to perform the unsung mission of protecting the nation’s mud-soldiers. Armed with antitank missiles, cluster bombs and a 20-foot-long Gatling-gun cannon sunk deep into its armored belly, the A-10 has its passionate defenders--among them the pilots who fly the “hog” and the foot soldiers who would rely on it in a tank war.

In recent years, the Air Force’s top brass--among whom neither the A-10 nor its mission have inspired much passion--has set its sights on a very different kind of warplane to protect the ground troops. That is the F-16 Falcon, a $13-million plane that flies very fast, is on average younger and has newer technology than the $8-million A-10, and looks a lot better in Air Force recruitment ads.

That the A-10 is in Saudi Arabia at all has surprised many of its beleaguered defenders. For the Air Force, this would have been an ideal opportunity to show off the F-16 in the new role. But since only the A-10 is currently ready to perform the mission, it remains the weapon of choice for dealing with heavy tank armies.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Charles A. Horner, the commander of all Air Force planes now in the Middle East and the father of an A-10 pilot, said he has been a strong proponent of the plane here.

“I have deep respect for the A-10,” said Horner in an interview. Saying the plane “eats its lunch” on armored columns, Horner added, “I was never happier than when they got over here.”

But Horner and other senior Air Force officers would prefer the F-16 in the role. The Falcon was conceived in the 1970s as a dogfighter and strike bomber. But with some changes designed to improve its ability to attack targets on the ground, the Air Force believes the F-16 could protect mud-soldiers, not by hovering close and engaging tanks as they come into contact with U.S. forces but by striking at them in staging areas and in factory parking lots, well behind the lines where American soldiers are engaging them.

The Air Force’s top brass considers that mission, called “battlefield air interdiction” in military jargon, a more fitting, and more economically efficient, way to protect ground troops from the ravages of enemy tanks. Air Force fighter jocks, whose ranks usually produce Air Force brass, also consider the agile Falcon a more dashing conveyance for the white-scarfed set than the dowdy Warthog.

And in recent years, the Army’s senior leadership has willingly accepted the Air Force judgment, even as it has made massive investments in helicopters such as the AH-64 Apache that would help perform the “close air-support” mission.

The Air Force plans over the next five to 10 years to retire the A-10, which has been out of production since 1984, from the active and reserve forces. In recent years, the service has transferred many A-10s to the reserve forces from which they could be mobilized only with the kind of politically sensitive directive that President Bush recently signed.

Asked recently about the F-16’s proposed new role, one Falcon pilot based in Europe sniffed contemptuously, saying to a reporter, “Don’t talk to an F-16 pilot about close air support.”

But infantrymen love the A-10.

“The Warthog isn’t pretty and it’s not glamorous, but it’s an infantryman’s friend,” said one Army grunt in Saudi Arabia.

It is an equal friend to its pilot, who sits in a cockpit called the “titanium bathtub,” which protects him from groundfire. Its two sturdy engines are mounted above the wings so that they, too, are shielded from groundfire.

Next to the Warthog, the F-16 is a relatively delicate plane whose skin could be penetrated easily by groundfire, hand-held anti-aircraft missiles and larger ground-based missiles.

But the Air Force argues that such weapons won’t have time even to fire at the F-16 before it has sped well out of sight and range. Operating on the much-revered Air Force principle that “speed is life,” the F-16 would do its tank-killing at speeds almost twice that of the lumbering Warthog. And then it would be gone.

But in Saudi Arabia, where planes can be seen coming for miles over the desert, it is not clear whether speed would be enough to protect the plane from its enemies on the ground. Furthermore, infantrymen worry that as friendly Arab and U.S. forces were locked in tank battles with Iraqis, an F-16 screaming overhead at 420 m.p.h. might not have time to distinguish between the good guys and the bad.

Said Rep. Denny Smith (R-Ore.), a decorated combat pilot in Vietnam: “We’re fighting in the desert now, and we need something like a jeep. . . . We need something cheaper, lower in cost and slower (than the F-16), something like a (flying) jeep or a tank.”

As Congress begins its review of Operation Desert Shield and its lessons, Smith and others said they will argue that it may be too soon to trade the Warthog in for a Falcon.

Acknowledging that the aircraft debate has generated strong opinions from all quarters, Gen. Horner suggested recently that the Air Force plans to stand firm behind the F-16.

“I tell my Army friends, ‘I don’t tell you how to build tanks, you don’t tell me how to build airplanes,’ ” Horner said.

Times staff writer Jennifer Toth, in Washington, contributed to this story.

THE AIR FORCE’S RIVAL WARPLANES A-10 THUNDERBOLT

The lumbering “Warthog” is a heavy-duty tank-killer, armed with missiles, cluster bombs and a 20-foot-long cannon. It flies close to the ground, firing on tanks as they approach U.S. forces. The pilot sits in a cockpit called the “titanium bathtub,” which protects him from groundfire. The A-10’s maximum speed is only 423 m.p.h. But its defenders argue that slow yet sturdy air support is the best protection in desert warfare.

F-16 FALCON

The sleek Falcon attacks quickly, striking at tanks behind the lines rather than during battle. The multipurpose warplane is equipped to engage in air-to-air and air-to-ground combat. It has a relatively delicate skin that can be penetrated easily by groundfire or missiles. But with a maximum speed of 1,350 m.p.h., it is fast enough to flee before it is attacked, its defenders argue.