A-7D/E Question (was Why no armor for soldiers ?)

But for a 1950s type AC, it was quite handy and cheap. The alternative
was
the A-4 for you Navy types and the F-5 for the AF types. I can't speak
for
the A-4 but the F-5 made a fanstastic trainer but a really bad weapons
attack platform. Of course, there was the Spad that spanned three wars.

The A-7 was a 60's design. The first proposals were essentially an F-8 with
a modified wing optimized for lifting heavy bomb loads and more pylons.
Navy went out with an A-4 replacement requirement. An emphasis on
range/loiter with greater payload (A-4 Nam load was typically 6xMk82 and CL
tank). Out went the J-57, in went the fan (originally TF-30P6), fuselage
modified to eliminate need for wing incidence system (and its "interesting"
flying qualities).

It was quite good for the Vietnam environment, particularly shipboard where
it did not require tanker support. As DS1 turned out, where air supremacy
was achieved and the AAA threat only existed around specific hard targets,
it was a fine airframe for the theatre ... but it lacked some of the goodies
for the latest ordnance. It's system-supported dumb bombing capability was
only slightly less than the F-18 (a couple additional mils dispersion).

The TA-4 was a superb trainer. The A-4 was a superb, iron sight bomber.
The single seat A-4 was the most enjoyable airplane I've ever flown. That
includes some heavy iron that a lot of folks consider the ultimate rides of
their day.

R / John