A-4 / A-7 Question

"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?

I don't know about now, but I do recall one particular conference back in 1989
or so, when we were doing the Dem-Val of AIWS (now JSOW). The USMC rep was
adamant that they could not accept the concept of an autonomous standoff weapon
used for CAS targets in close proximity to friendly Marines. With the
possibility of mistargeting and no means of aborting the weapon, the risk was
too high. With conventional weapons, the FAC had the airplane in sight during
the roll-in and delivery, and had the opportunity to abort the run until just
prior to weapon release.

Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:46:27 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

snip

The airframe stretch was to
allow the a/c to be supersonic (Mach 1.4 level IIRR), and the extra fuel was
to keep the range/endurance in the same ballpark.

Any idea of the peformance improvement on the 'lo' part of an attack
mission with the F110/F100 ?

No. It might describe this in one of the AI articles, but I'd have to go digging
through 10 years or so of mags to find the right one, and I'm just feeling too
lazy.

For instance, here's the proposed Corsair III changes, which was designed to
use rebuilt A-7A/A-7B airframes from the Boneyard, although A-7D/Es would be
easier to convert: An F110-GE-100, 16,700 lb. mil and 27,600 lb. A/B; A
constant-section plug of 29.5" to extend the fuselage around the wing root
area; another plug of 7.5" to the aft fuselage to tailor the airframe to the
F110 and its remote accessory gearbox. Rear fuselage canted upwards 5 degrees
to provide ground clearance for the longer tailpipe. A more sharply-pointed
nose cone (see F-8); the original was made blunter to reduce length on
carriers. Internal configuration changed to increase fuel capacity.

Did the USN have any interest in looking at a turbocharged E model ?

No, they had the F-18. The stretches were mainly aimed at the ANG and (they hoped)
possible foreign customers.

Guy

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 18:02:17 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:



No. It might describe this in one of the AI articles, but I'd have to go digging
through 10 years or so of mags to find the right one, and I'm just feeling too
lazy.

No worries :-), I was just curious.


Did the USN have any interest in looking at a turbocharged E model ?

No, they had the F-18.

True, but something with 2 maybe 3 times the unrefuelled range carrying the
same a2g load.

The stretches were mainly aimed at the ANG and (they hoped)
possible foreign customers.


Neither the greeks or the portuguese took them up on that.


greg

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

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:Zmghb.528215$Oz4.404911@rwcrnsc54
I don't know about now, but I do recall one particular conference
back in 1989 or so, when we were doing the Dem-Val of AIWS (now
JSOW). The USMC rep was adamant that they could not accept the
concept of an autonomous standoff weapon used for CAS targets in
close proximity to friendly Marines.

The Marines were the primary instigators of the 500-lb JDAM, specifically
for CAS. I'd say they changed their mind sometime after 1989.

--�
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)

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 10/9/03 11:34 AM, in article , "Joe Osman"
wrote:

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.

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

No argument there. The dumb bomb capability should always be maintained,
BUT the mainstay these days is the safer, less exciting, more effective JDAM
CAS.

--Woody

On 10/9/03 11:52 AM, in article Zmghb.528215$Oz4.404911@rwcrnsc54, "John R
Weiss" wrote:

"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?

I don't know about now, but I do recall one particular conference back in 1989
or so, when we were doing the Dem-Val of AIWS (now JSOW). The USMC rep was
adamant that they could not accept the concept of an autonomous standoff
weapon
used for CAS targets in close proximity to friendly Marines. With the
possibility of mistargeting and no means of aborting the weapon, the risk was
too high. With conventional weapons, the FAC had the airplane in sight during
the roll-in and delivery, and had the opportunity to abort the run until just
prior to weapon release.


That's changed. The TACP or FAC buys the hit once the pilot reads his
coordinates back off the DDI. When both parties are in agreement, the bomb
comes off the jet.

We dropped MANY through the weather.

--Woody

"Thomas Schoene" wrote...

The Marines were the primary instigators of the 500-lb JDAM, specifically
for CAS. I'd say they changed their mind sometime after 1989.

Makes sense... Less collateral damage than the big ones. Also, can be carried
on the Harrier.

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote...

That's changed. The TACP or FAC buys the hit once the pilot reads his
coordinates back off the DDI. When both parties are in agreement, the bomb
comes off the jet.

Gotta LUV that technology! :-)

With 2-way digital 9-line briefs/readbacks, it's a lot easier.

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
nk.net...
"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.



Howdy,

When I was in the A-4 community we had a 20MM Gau pod (I forget the number)
that could be hung on a station - usually the centerline, and was good for
chewing up pretty much anything - the Navy A-7 Squadrons had them also - I
saw them hang one or two around 1982- 1983 and do some gunnery with them -
rarely though.
I was in MAG-42 Det A at Cecil Field (FLying Gators) we had VA-203 next
door. I don't believe they carried much ammo though - perhaps 500 rounds?

I do know they pretty much sucked - they jammed alot and the Red Shirts
hated them... we had three or four - and they sat in storage.

But I never saw a 30mm pod on any aircraft ever......

Helomech