A-4 / A-7 Question

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 10/9/03 9:41 AM, in article , "Mike
Kanze" wrote:


snip

6 minutes later, there are warheads on foreheads.

Would that be "WOF" or "WHOFH" or "WHSOFHS"?

Frank

Woody,

Sad - well maybe.

I can't think of a single shipmate who relished flying into combat with an
unreliable weapons system. Catshot-lovin' inertials; nonintuitive knobology
(all of us "old" B/Ns managed to cycle steering in memory point at some
embarrassing juncture); AMTI circuitry that classified freeway overpasses as
"movers" and Whack-A-Mole circuit-breaker management techniques (most often
performed in unusual attitudes) were all aspects of the A-6A that added
greatly to risk - especially when combined with a mission of dubious value.
(And there were many such missions during the VN conflict.)

But such was life in a first-generation technology.

I've always loved the idea of driving as many of the smarts as may be
feasible from the manned delivery vehicle into the unmanned weapon. Humans
shouldn't go into harm's way unless there is no better solution.

Besides - smart weapons make lousy POWs.

Owl sends.
--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"The best political metaphor from Arnold Schwarzenegger's movie career is
not his three 'Terminator' roles. Rather, it's 'Kindergarten Cop.' In the
California legislature, Ah-nold will be taking on the largest
publicly-funded day-care center west of Washington, DC."

- Mike Kanze


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 10/9/03 9:41 AM, in article , "Mike
Kanze" wrote:

All excellent discussion and very good points, but what do our
ground-pounding "customers" think of the effectiveness of current CAS
doctrine?

Owl,

The customers LOVE it. Even now, they pass coords via secure. 6 minutes
later, there are warheads on foreheads. I think there's mutual agreement
that its both safer and more effective.

In effect, your old B/N job got replaced by GPS.

--Woody

P.S. I know. It's sad for me too.

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:29:48 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:



While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
footage for some future war movie though.


I would have thought that would depend on whether one was at the recieving
end of it or not LOL.


greg

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

Just saw something on the news about a B-52 doing CAS. 100 plus GPS bombs
dropped from 30,000 feet. If you only drop 1to5 per pass would give a lot of
onstation capability. The bottom line is Bombs on TGT. the Buff can now do it
better than just about anything and with low risk to the delivery crew.
All that said CAS mission in the A-6 was like flying around with your hair on
fire. What a fun mission to practice in peace time. Having never done it in
anger I think it would be pretty scary.But than again all combat is.
Sparky

Elmshoot wrote:

Just saw something on the news about a B-52 doing CAS. 100 plus GPS bombs
dropped from 30,000 feet.

More likely they were referring to the B-2 dropping 80 Mk. 82 JDAMs; go he

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030917/cgw043_1.html

Unless the Buff has been upgraded _very_ recently, IIRR only the pylons have the
1760 interfaces that allow target coordinates to be downloaded to the JDAMs,
limiting them to a maximum of 18 (9 per pylon). Internally, the Hs not only lack
the interfaces, but the bomb bay holds a maximum of 27 Mk. 82 500-lb. or M117
750-lb. bombs (bomb weights are nominal, and actual weights are higher in both
cases). The bomb bay could be modified to hold up to 84 Mk. 82s or 42 M117s, as
was done with the 'Big Belly' mod to the 'D' models during the Vietnam war, but
it's extremely unlikely that they will do so, and even if they did it might not
be possible to install the interfaces in any case.

Guy

On 10/9/03 1:17 PM, in article
, "Guy Alcala"
wrote:

Elmshoot wrote:

Just saw something on the news about a B-52 doing CAS. 100 plus GPS bombs
dropped from 30,000 feet.

More likely they were referring to the B-2 dropping 80 Mk. 82 JDAMs; go he

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030917/cgw043_1.html

Unless the Buff has been upgraded _very_ recently, IIRR only the pylons have
the
1760 interfaces that allow target coordinates to be downloaded to the JDAMs,
limiting them to a maximum of 18 (9 per pylon). Internally, the Hs not only
lack
the interfaces, but the bomb bay holds a maximum of 27 Mk. 82 500-lb. or M117
750-lb. bombs (bomb weights are nominal, and actual weights are higher in both
cases). The bomb bay could be modified to hold up to 84 Mk. 82s or 42 M117s,
as
was done with the 'Big Belly' mod to the 'D' models during the Vietnam war,
but
it's extremely unlikely that they will do so, and even if they did it might
not
be possible to install the interfaces in any case.

Guy





Thanks, Guy. 18 JDAMs is the number. I couldn't remember it before.

--Woody

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:

snip

Thanks, Guy. 18 JDAMs is the number. I couldn't remember it before.

You're welcome. However, they were only carrying 12 rather than 18 up to now, as
they can only carry 6 x 2,000 lb. bombs on each pylon, rather than 9 smaller bombs.
AFAIK the Buffs didn't use Mk. 83 1,000 lbers (only the navy/ marines seem to use
the Mk. 83), so they were all Mk.84/BLU-109-based weapons. The champion JDAM
carrier up til now has been the B-1B, as it can (and has) carry twenty-four 2,000
lb. class JDAMs internally. the B-1 crew that bombed that building in Baghdad
trying to kill Saddam dropped a total of 21 out of 24 during the course of that
mission; only 4 were aimed at Saddam, with 9 and 8 going down on other targets
located elsewhere.

Guy

On 10/9/03 11:10 AM, in article
, "Elmshoot"
wrote:

Just saw something on the news about a B-52 doing CAS. 100 plus GPS bombs
dropped from 30,000 feet. If you only drop 1to5 per pass would give a lot of
onstation capability. The bottom line is Bombs on TGT. the Buff can now do it
better than just about anything and with low risk to the delivery crew.
All that said CAS mission in the A-6 was like flying around with your hair on
fire. What a fun mission to practice in peace time. Having never done it in
anger I think it would be pretty scary.But than again all combat is.
Sparky

Not to pick a nit, but they checked in with more like 28 JDAM per night. (I
can't remember for the life of me if that was the actual number.)

With high altitude and a rather permissive environment, they do good
work--even though they're sort of radio air-time hogs.

BUFFDRVR feel free to roll in... 'scuse me... Make a bomb run here.

--Woody

Sparky,

Just saw something on the news about a B-52 doing CAS. 100 plus GPS bombs
dropped from 30,000 feet.

Sea story. Overheard a tale during the early 1970s of B-52s hitting the
range with a one-pass mass release of as many MK-76s as one of those
critters could carry. If true, musta been a sight for the ages.

BUFFDRVR: true, or just a another good Happy Hour tale?

--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"The best political metaphor from Arnold Schwarzenegger's movie career is
not his three 'Terminator' roles. Rather, it's 'Kindergarten Cop.' In the
California legislature, Ah-nold will be taking on the largest
publicly-funded day-care center west of Washington, DC."

- Mike Kanze


"Elmshoot" wrote in message
...
[snipped]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 10:47:29 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

On 10/8/03 12:59 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" wrote:

The A-10 is nicely optimized for the hostile CAS environment with two
well-separated engines, an armor tub for the pilot, etc. It lacks the range
and speed of the A-7, but that's not the prime driver for the mission. You
could also hang a large gun on the F-15E (arguably the best strike fighter
in the business) and kill tanks. That doesn't make it the best CAS
aircraft.

R / John

I agree with John. When the need arises for a attack aircraft that can get
low relatively safely and eliminate targets, the A-10 is the most effective
choice.

Don't forget though... CAS has evolved somewhat. If the TACP has the
gadgetry/ability to get a good set of coordinates, there's no need to have
strike fighters even point their noses at the ground. Plinking targets via
level deliveries with JDAM from medium and high altitudes is the way to go
now. As electronically uplinked 9-line briefs come on line and the ability
to generate these coords from the ground proliferates, the need to point
noses at dirt will decrease even more.

Nearly gone are the old days when pilot (or B/N) skill was the most
important targeting skill. Less romanticism, more accuracy.

--Woody

Glad to see the recognition of that. I can't begin to relate the
number of crusty ol' curmudgeons who bewail the loss to the inventory
of naplam and 2.75 FFARs because "we've abandoned CAS". They fail to
recongize the new technology that provides equivalent or better
close-in accuracy from afar. Lots of ol' timers couldn't match the CEP
of JDAM when doing laydown at 100 feet.

Also part of the equation is the changing face of war in which we
aren't seeing fixed battle positions and (hopefully) not encountering
"troops in the wire."

While doing CAS from afar doesn't have the dramatic flair of the good
ol' days, it certainly is just as effective. Won't make very good
footage for some future war movie though.

That's all well and good if the technology works, but if it
fails the results can be a lot nastier than when the
ordnance was being pointed in the proper direction until the
last second with the pilot there to make the decision to
release or not. And if the enemy defeats or spoofs the
terchnology we should still have the old fashioned
capability around, especially in an expeditionary context
where troops on the ground need "flying artillery".

Joe


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----