A-4 / A-7 Question

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

The A-7F, Corasair III, Strikefighter, etc. all included an airframe stretch
and extra fuel in addition to an F100 or F110.

Interesting, I didnt know about the F110 being considered for it.

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 ?


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 ?





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 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

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:45:32 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:


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.

Even with a F100/F110 ? I assume given it size it would also be down to a
lack of internal space to put all the electronic gear etc ?


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.

True.

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?

I meant the XL as you refer to below.


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.

I remember you mentioning this before.

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.

It was that side of the equation I was thinking about, I believe the
advertising went something along the lines of, carry the same load twice
the distance when compared to the standard model.



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

On 10/8/03 12:59 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" wrote:

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.

The A-7 could have perhaps gotten F-18 thrust ... that's different in many
respects from F-18 performance.

The A-10 is nicely optimized for the hostile CAS environment with two
well-separated engines, an armor tub for the pilot, etc. It lacks the range
and speed of the A-7, but that's not the prime driver for the mission. You
could also hang a large gun on the F-15E (arguably the best strike fighter
in the business) and kill tanks. That doesn't make it the best CAS
aircraft.

R / John



I agree with John. When the need arises for a attack aircraft that can get
low relatively safely and eliminate targets, the A-10 is the most effective
choice.

Don't forget though... CAS has evolved somewhat. If the TACP has the
gadgetry/ability to get a good set of coordinates, there's no need to have
strike fighters even point their noses at the ground. Plinking targets via
level deliveries with JDAM from medium and high altitudes is the way to go
now. As electronically uplinked 9-line briefs come on line and the ability
to generate these coords from the ground proliferates, the need to point
noses at dirt will decrease even more.

Nearly gone are the old days when pilot (or B/N) skill was the most
important targeting skill. Less romanticism, more accuracy.

--Woody

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 10:47:29 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

On 10/8/03 12:59 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" wrote:

The A-10 is nicely optimized for the hostile CAS environment with two
well-separated engines, an armor tub for the pilot, etc. It lacks the range
and speed of the A-7, but that's not the prime driver for the mission. You
could also hang a large gun on the F-15E (arguably the best strike fighter
in the business) and kill tanks. That doesn't make it the best CAS
aircraft.

R / John

I agree with John. When the need arises for a attack aircraft that can get
low relatively safely and eliminate targets, the A-10 is the most effective
choice.

Don't forget though... CAS has evolved somewhat. If the TACP has the
gadgetry/ability to get a good set of coordinates, there's no need to have
strike fighters even point their noses at the ground. Plinking targets via
level deliveries with JDAM from medium and high altitudes is the way to go
now. As electronically uplinked 9-line briefs come on line and the ability
to generate these coords from the ground proliferates, the need to point
noses at dirt will decrease even more.

Nearly gone are the old days when pilot (or B/N) skill was the most
important targeting skill. Less romanticism, more accuracy.

--Woody

Glad to see the recognition of that. I can't begin to relate the
number of crusty ol' curmudgeons who bewail the loss to the inventory
of naplam and 2.75 FFARs because "we've abandoned CAS". They fail to
recongize the new technology that provides equivalent or better
close-in accuracy from afar. Lots of ol' timers couldn't match the CEP
of JDAM when doing laydown at 100 feet.

Also part of the equation is the changing face of war in which we
aren't seeing fixed battle positions and (hopefully) not encountering
"troops in the wire."

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.

All excellent discussion and very good points, but what do our
ground-pounding "customers" think of the effectiveness of current CAS
doctrine?

--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

"The day the telemarketers pay my phone bill, I'll be happy to give them
their right of free speech."

- Linda Seals


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 10:47:29 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

On 10/8/03 12:59 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" wrote:

The A-10 is nicely optimized for the hostile CAS environment with two
well-separated engines, an armor tub for the pilot, etc. It lacks the
range
and speed of the A-7, but that's not the prime driver for the mission.
You
could also hang a large gun on the F-15E (arguably the best strike
fighter
in the business) and kill tanks. That doesn't make it the best CAS
aircraft.

R / John

I agree with John. When the need arises for a attack aircraft that can
get
low relatively safely and eliminate targets, the A-10 is the most
effective
choice.

Don't forget though... CAS has evolved somewhat. If the TACP has the
gadgetry/ability to get a good set of coordinates, there's no need to
have
strike fighters even point their noses at the ground. Plinking targets
via
level deliveries with JDAM from medium and high altitudes is the way to
go
now. As electronically uplinked 9-line briefs come on line and the
ability
to generate these coords from the ground proliferates, the need to point
noses at dirt will decrease even more.

Nearly gone are the old days when pilot (or B/N) skill was the most
important targeting skill. Less romanticism, more accuracy.

--Woody

Glad to see the recognition of that. I can't begin to relate the
number of crusty ol' curmudgeons who bewail the loss to the inventory
of naplam and 2.75 FFARs because "we've abandoned CAS". They fail to
recongize the new technology that provides equivalent or better
close-in accuracy from afar. Lots of ol' timers couldn't match the CEP
of JDAM when doing laydown at 100 feet.

Also part of the equation is the changing face of war in which we
aren't seeing fixed battle positions and (hopefully) not encountering
"troops in the wire."

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.

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 13:29:48 GMT, 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.


I would have thought that would depend on whether one was at the recieving
end of it or not LOL.


greg

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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 10:47:29 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

On 10/8/03 12:59 PM, in article , "John
Carrier" wrote:

The A-10 is nicely optimized for the hostile CAS environment with two
well-separated engines, an armor tub for the pilot, etc. It lacks the range
and speed of the A-7, but that's not the prime driver for the mission. You
could also hang a large gun on the F-15E (arguably the best strike fighter
in the business) and kill tanks. That doesn't make it the best CAS
aircraft.

R / John

I agree with John. When the need arises for a attack aircraft that can get
low relatively safely and eliminate targets, the A-10 is the most effective
choice.

Don't forget though... CAS has evolved somewhat. If the TACP has the
gadgetry/ability to get a good set of coordinates, there's no need to have
strike fighters even point their noses at the ground. Plinking targets via
level deliveries with JDAM from medium and high altitudes is the way to go
now. As electronically uplinked 9-line briefs come on line and the ability
to generate these coords from the ground proliferates, the need to point
noses at dirt will decrease even more.

Nearly gone are the old days when pilot (or B/N) skill was the most
important targeting skill. Less romanticism, more accuracy.

--Woody

Glad to see the recognition of that. I can't begin to relate the
number of crusty ol' curmudgeons who bewail the loss to the inventory
of naplam and 2.75 FFARs because "we've abandoned CAS". They fail to
recongize the new technology that provides equivalent or better
close-in accuracy from afar. Lots of ol' timers couldn't match the CEP
of JDAM when doing laydown at 100 feet.

Also part of the equation is the changing face of war in which we
aren't seeing fixed battle positions and (hopefully) not encountering
"troops in the wire."

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


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----