A-4 / A-7 Question

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
says...
piggybacking due to tinkerbell leaving out the real ng.
"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
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.

This was a new gun that never went into production. It was supposed to
be
for the A-7D for the Air Force. But the acceptance of the A-10 stopped
all
research into it. It was caseless. Good idea that never reached
production.


You're statement implied they existed and were used.

Still trolling and misinterpreting any way that makes you look good. They
never went into production as the mission for the A-7 was never realized.
The same reasoning was used as to why no money is being spent on upgrading
the A-10. Don't dump good money into bad.








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

The Air Force didn't want to give up the A-7 anymore than the Navy did.
The
A-10 was helpless unless you had air superiority. The A-10 was a
sitting
duck for even the Soviet SU7 Attack. This made the AF look at
alternatives.
But the F-16A was the answer to that question when it was affordable.

I'm not talking down the A-7. It did a good job during it service time.

And I do not believe the A-10 would be helpless. Many an F4 pilot rued
the day they decided to get low and slow with Mig-17's in Vietnam.

The F-4 was a miltirole and would do standoff with the Mig-17. Or use it's
superior thrust. The Mig-17 could only win if the F-4 didn't know he was
there. But, then again, a Piper Cub with a Missile would work just as well
in that situtation against any Fighter in our Present inventory. It took
Red Flag and the Navy Equiv to teach the pilots new techniques. After that,
the Migs didn't even break cloud cover when any of the Fs were in operation.
Ever hear about the Triple Nickel ruse?





And of course, the coming of the FA-18 filled the need for the Navy. At
the
time, the FA-18 was still on the drawing board. But at 3.4 mil, the
Super
Corsair was tempting. Things just happened before the need for the
Super
A-7 was finished. Nothing lost in the end.





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

Hey Tinkerbell, keep trolling.

Sorry you feel that way. I asked those in RAM and they disagreed with you,
again.

You reading fiction once again? Most backed me up. But you go ahead with
your story. But start it with, "And there I was........" or "Once upon a
time".

In article ,
says...

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
says...
piggybacking due to tinkerbell leaving out the real ng.
"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
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.

This was a new gun that never went into production. It was supposed to
be
for the A-7D for the Air Force. But the acceptance of the A-10 stopped
all
research into it. It was caseless. Good idea that never reached
production.


You're statement implied they existed and were used.

Still trolling and misinterpreting any way that makes you look good. They
never went into production as the mission for the A-7 was never realized.
The same reasoning was used as to why no money is being spent on upgrading
the A-10. Don't dump good money into bad.



Do you remember saying this ??

==
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
===

Seems you were saying they were built....




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