A-4 / A-7 Question

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net
In article ,
says...

It almost sounds like the 30mm Caseless Pods that can be mounted
under Fighters making even an A-4 into a tank killer. That died
when the A-7 did. Too bad. The A-7E was a superior AC to the A-10
when armed with the 30mm caseless chain gun. To upgrade the A-7 to
an AC with the F/A-18 perfomance would have cost appr. 3.5 million
per copy. versus how much for an A-10 that requires constant
TopCap? Another Congressional Boondoggle.



Anyone know what he is talking about ?
I've not heard of any system like this before.

I'm guessing he's takling about a couple two things.

First is the GPU-5 (aka Pave Claw) gun pod, which holds a four-barrel
version of the GAU-8 called GAU-13. (Definitely neither caseless nor a
chain gun, though). It was supposed to give conventional fighters almost the
same gun power as the A-10. But it really didn't work very well. The New
York Air Natioanl Guard had one F-16 unit that went to the Gulf with the
GPU-5 in 1991 (the "Boys from Syracuse"/174th Fighter Wing). They took the
pods off the planes early in the proceedings and never flew them again.

http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html

Second, for a time, there was discussion of using a modified A-7 with
afterbrning engnie as a CAS bird instead of the A-10. But that was Air
Force, not Navy. And as much a I like the A-7, I have to admit that this
was probably a dead end idea. Even with extensive mods, the A-7 was never
going to be a turning fighter or radar missile shooter like the Hornet.

http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/ya-7f.html

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

In article et,
lid says...
"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net
In article ,
says...

It almost sounds like the 30mm Caseless Pods that can be mounted
under Fighters making even an A-4 into a tank killer. That died
when the A-7 did. Too bad. The A-7E was a superior AC to the A-10
when armed with the 30mm caseless chain gun. To upgrade the A-7 to
an AC with the F/A-18 perfomance would have cost appr. 3.5 million
per copy. versus how much for an A-10 that requires constant
TopCap? Another Congressional Boondoggle.



Anyone know what he is talking about ?
I've not heard of any system like this before.

I'm guessing he's takling about a couple two things.

First is the GPU-5 (aka Pave Claw) gun pod, which holds a four-barrel
version of the GAU-8 called GAU-13. (Definitely neither caseless nor a
chain gun, though). It was supposed to give conventional fighters almost the
same gun power as the A-10. But it really didn't work very well. The New
York Air Natioanl Guard had one F-16 unit that went to the Gulf with the
GPU-5 in 1991 (the "Boys from Syracuse"/174th Fighter Wing). They took the
pods off the planes early in the proceedings and never flew them again.

http://www.f-16.net/reference/versions/f16_fa.html

Second, for a time, there was discussion of using a modified A-7 with
afterbrning engnie as a CAS bird instead of the A-10. But that was Air
Force, not Navy. And as much a I like the A-7, I have to admit that this
was probably a dead end idea. Even with extensive mods, the A-7 was never
going to be a turning fighter or radar missile shooter like the Hornet.

http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/ya-7f.html



Thanks, I had heard of the F16 experiment but never one on the A-4 or A-7


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Where are/is the YA-7F airframes today?
Thx,
VL

At least one is at the Edwards AFB museum.
Curt

"MLenoch" wrote in message
...


Where are/is the YA-7F airframes today?
Thx,
VL

I believe one is at WPABF - USAF Museum, and the other is at the Hill
AFB museum in Utah.

GregD

(MLenoch) wrote in message ...
Where are/is the YA-7F airframes today?

On 08 Oct 2003 06:47:24 GMT, (MLenoch) wrote:



Where are/is the YA-7F airframes today?
Thx,

On that note, anyone got any idea of how much did the A7s long long legs
reduce by when fitted with the bigger blower ?

I seem to remember Mr Rasimus mentioning something about having worked
alongside A7Ds in the past, if you dont mind me asking Ed, what apart from
adding more grunt, would the F100 have made all that much a difference
given what the A7s were tasked with ?



greg


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

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:06:11 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On that note, anyone got any idea of how much did the A7s long long legs
reduce by when fitted with the bigger blower ?

I seem to remember Mr Rasimus mentioning something about having worked
alongside A7Ds in the past, if you dont mind me asking Ed, what apart from
adding more grunt, would the F100 have made all that much a difference
given what the A7s were tasked with ?


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.

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. The F-4 and supporting F-105G Weasels departed Korat
afterward, tapped an inbound tanker and arrived on target at
approximately the same time. The F-4/F-105Gs then returned to a
post-strike tanker and arrived at Korat shortly before the returning
A-7s.

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.

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.

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

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




F-4Gs ended up doing some strike missions, since they were running out of SEAD
targets to go after.

NMANG A-7s came close to being sent over there to the gulf in late 90


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter