On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:31:41 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:


I have no idea what the F100 fit would have done. I seem to recall
that the airframe was aerodynamically limited as far as max speed.

That goes with being nicknamed a 'SLUF' I suppose.


The real strength of the A-7D was the endurance. While it couldn't go
quite as fast as AF types would have preferred, it carried a
significant load for a long time. The true significance was
demonstrated during Linebacker when they A-7Ds of the 354th TFW out of
Korat would takeoff and fly unrefueled to Route Pack V or VI and
return.

Interesting, obviously something with equivalent legs which can fly 100+kts
quicker to/over/from the target is going to be more than just a minor
improvement. One is talking about serious potential in two seat variants
for wild weasel etc.


At issue (from an AF point of view, but not apparently from the USN
operator's perspective) was the ability to recover energy quickly when
placed on the defensive. A SAM break that took you down to very low
altitude, usually with high-G, would squander both kinetic and
potential energy. With AB you could regain both fairly rapidly.
Without AB you were in a precarious situation. The extra thrust of a
more efficient engine might have improved that aspect of A-7 ops.

Obviously something to consider if the balloon ever went up in europe.
europe.

Its an interesting consideration of the road not travelled. Another would
be thinking about if the AF had procured single seat F16-Es 1 for 1 instead
of 'C's during the 80s. They would have made an interesting compliment to
the attack options available during Desert storm and elsewhere.


greg





--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.