EA-18G "Growler"Woody,

Of course, it's academic now, but rockets would have made the A-6 a pretty decent FAC(A) platform.

Again, no argument here.

My point remains, though. Unless there's NOTHING else available, why tie up a system-centric weapon (like the A-6 was) in a mission where the only "system" needed is the MK1 eyeball and its owner's ability to successfully prosecute a rocket attack?

The "NOTHING else available" qualifier goes almost without saying. It's why we carried and trained with FFARs ad even Sidewinders occasionally, it's why the A-6 community fooled around with the SSSC mission in the mid-1970s (backup for the Hoovers in the very new and then-unproven CV airwing concept), it's why we hung buddy stores on A-7 wing parent stations, etc. It's also why the Tom became an attack platform, as you point out.

IOW, good to know that you had the capability, but not something you should do as a normal course of business.

Hey, let the SLUFs have a bit of fun, too.

--
Mike Kanze

"There's no such thing as a soul. It's just something they made up to scare kids, like the boogeyman or Michael Jackson."

- Bart Simpson



"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ...
Owl,

Of course, it's academic now, but rockets would have made the A-6 a pretty decent FAC(A) platform. It had the requirements: a strike trained crew of two, legs, and the ability to mark (e.g. rockets). I think the Intruder would have worked just fine in that role-heck, the Tomcat did it!

--Woody

On 11/12/05 11:29 AM, in article , "Mike Kanze" wrote:


Woody,

Rockets are fun, I agree, but why burden Medium Attack (which had better things to do with its system) with a day-VMC mission when the SLUFs and the Bugs could do it as well / better?

BTW, I have four evil Commie bus hulks on the B-17 range complex at Fallon to my credit, denied to the enemy by FFAR strikes.