A-4 / A-7 Question

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:02:00 GMT, Tank Fixer
wrote:


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.



Looks like those in RAM know a bit more about the subject than you do
daryl....

Personally I regarded the A7 as a boondoggle. For years the Air Force
would not request any but it would be included in the budget because
it was made in the district of a powerful politician.

The A-10 was at least 10 years in the future when the A-7 made it's debut.
In it's time, it was the replacement AC for the A1E Skyraider which had gone
through 3 wars and had a problem of being a Maintenance Pig in comparison to
a jet. The Navy didn't wish to give them up until the FA-18 hit and the Air
Force didn't want to give them up until the F-16 hit. The A-10 really
didn't have a mission except against Battle Tanks. The F-15, F-16, F-14,
FA-18 and almost any fighter in the inventory could handle anything less.
In order to use the A-10, complete Air Superiority had to be had before it
could even come into the area. Otherwise, any Subsonic Attack or Fighter
made by the Soviets, French, etc. in the last 30 years would just pick it
off. The A-10 had and still has too narrow of a mission requirement and
productions stopped a few years ago on it. The F-16 and the F-15E is
taking over the A-10s mission. And the Navy never did miss it.



And as actual combat has shown - nothing beats the A10 in the CAS
role.

How about a quote on that one. "Actual Combat"? Whose?