On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:38:27 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

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

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.

While the endurance and range were impressive, the energy available
was not. As I indicated below, the survivability in an intense SAM
environment was questionable. In fact, in short order during
Linebacker II, the A-7s were withheld from "downtown" targets out in
the flats of RP VI and used as bomb droppers on "diversionary" targets
in RP V and on the western edge of VI.

They did get downtown initially, but after the first couple of SAM
experiences, they didn't get back to the area. They wouldn't have made
a good Weasel.

The endurance and range, along with the ordinance carrying capability
did, however make them an excellent SAR airplane. They assumed the
Sandy mission for North Vietnam strikes very soon after arrival in
theater. That didn't take a two seat airplane when the A-1 did it and
didn't require two seats with an A-7 either.

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.

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.

You're unclear here. I assume you mean TWO seat F-16Es instead of Cs?
If, I again assume, that would mean a parallel development to the
F-15E?

Clearly without knowing something about what sort of weapons delivery
improvement an F-16E would have over a C, it's difficult to say much.
The CCIP delivery of dumb bombs by the F-16 A or C was always
exceptional--that's what was used on Isirik I believe. The LANTIRN
package for C models makes the airplane pretty good all-wx. And the
SEAD capability is acceptable for the C.

Are you maybe referring to the crank-wing F-16XL? There you would have
gotten more fuel in the big wing for more endurance and more lift
capacity. Still, there's little to have recommended going that way
rather than the considerably better performance and growth capacity of
the F-15E.

It seems as though they ran out of targets during Desert Storm long
before they ran out of attack options.




greg