A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A-4 / A-7 Question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old October 13th 03, 04:38 AM
redc1c4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daryl Hunt wrote:

(snipage occurs, fore and aft)

Newsflash, we don't have enough F-15s and just how many F-22s do you think
are in the active duty inventory? We could have used the F-14 during
Vietnam but didn't.


really? that appears to be news to most folks:

Three early F-14As were delivered in the autumn of 1972 to VX-4 at NAS
Point Mugu, California for operational evaluation. The replacement
squadron VF-124 at NAS Miramar received its first Tomcats in June of
1972.
The job of VF-124 was to train Tomcat crews for duty with operational
carrier-based squadrons. The first two operational Tomcat squadrons
were VF-1 Wolfpack and VF-2 Bounty Hunters, both based at NAS Miramar.
These units deployed aboard the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) in mid-1974.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevo...r_us/f014.html

redc1c4,
do you enjoy getting caught lying, or are you just stupid?
--
A Troop - 1st Squadron
404th Lemming Armored Cavalry

"Velox et Capillatus!"
  #62  
Old October 13th 03, 05:26 AM
Harry Andreas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , wrote:

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

In article , Joe Osman
wrote:
snip
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".


The technology is a lot harder to defeat than most people realize.

The alternative is to spend a LOT of time training for dumb bomb
deliveries that you'll probably never do: a waste to resources when
you could be training for something more useful.
Or not train for dumb bomb deliveries enough, and if you have to do it,
not be competent enough which is a risk all it's own.

I think you need to bet on the odds, which are strongly in favor of
the technology, especially since it's been demonstrated in service.


until someone detonates an EMP nukes(s) in high orbit. No doubt
there's a coupla candidates already up there, waiting. There goes
your $trillion+ investment.. tsk tsk


....and the odds of that are?

Like I said, you got to bet on the odds.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
  #63  
Old October 13th 03, 06:23 AM
Tank Fixer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #65  
Old October 13th 03, 06:52 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Replacement_Tommel wrote:
In article ,

Daryl Hunt
says...


"Replacement_Tommel"

'SINVA LIDBABY
wrote in
message ...
In article

, Daryl
Hunt says...


"Replacement_Tommel"

'SINVA LIDBABY
wrote in
message
...

Tell the USAF that... for awhile they wanted to get

rid rid of
the A-10 and were pushing the "A-16" - picture a F-16

in green
camoflage with a 30mm gatling gun pod on its center

hardpoint.

CAS simply isn't something taken seriously by the

USAF.

You tell the AF that.

Oh, they already know it.


And when required, they are very good at it as is the

Navy.

I've read that grunts on the ground preffered asking the

Navy and
Marines for CAS over the USAF.

IMHO, based upon experience, I'd call in Army Aviation if it
didn't require heavy ordnance loads or wasn't at too high an
elevation, then Marine Air, then Navy air and if I have a
very good fix on the target, it is a stationary target and
it is at a range in excess of 500 M away from any US
personnel and can be easily identified by someone flying too
high, too fast to be really useful in CAS, (in other words,
not an A-10) then I'd call in the USAF.

Newsflash, the Army can't win em' all without support

from the other
branches.


No **** - why do you think I'm bitching about the USAF

neglecting
such things?

(snip)



The USAF has spent tons of money on the F-16 program and

has come
up with numerous test beds for the Lawn Dart (like the

F-16XL and
"A-16" - where the USAF tried to convince everybody that

a lizard
green F-16C with a 30mm gunpod was an A-10...).


You put good money into good and don't put good money

into bad. The
F-16
can go into the Attack role just by reconfiguring the

load. So can
the F-18 as well. And if they get into trouble with

Fighters, they
pickle their load and fight even up.


There was a two seater all weather A-10 (NAW-10?) that

he Air Force
looked at briefly and then decided that it didn't want

(what a
surprise...).


That gives two pilots the possibility of buying the farm

to any
Fighter
built since 1958.



The fact is - the USAF gets the F-16 pilots LANTRIN pods

and fun
stuff
that, while the A-10 guys are given Night Vision

Goggles.

Don't spend good money on a bad idea. Sounds like a

winner to me.


Well, Daryl... I'm going to correct myself, but at the

same time
embarrass you. The USAF has recently adopted the "Hog Up"

program,
and will be keeping the A-10 around until 2028.


http://www.hilltoptimes.com/story.as...79&storyid=210
9

(That's a year old article - hopefully the USAF hasn't

changed its
mind on this)


There are a lot of US Army aviation types who want the A-10
in Army service. I doubt that the Air Force is too keen on
that as about the only missions they've had recently are in
support of ground operations.

There haven't been any fighter to fighter duels in a long
time.


(snip)


The fact is, the USN has led the way with attack craft.

The Navy
even considered the A-12


The A-12? You mean the forerunner to the SR-71? Now

there's a plane
without a mission.


No. I mean the stealth attack plane that the Navy wanted.

http://www.aerofiles.com/gendym-a12.jpg


Looks interesting and quite possibly a good ground attack
platform (much better than the F/A-18 which isn't much for F
and less for A according to some of the older USMC pilots I
knew.


, whereas the the USAF has never really considered a

follow on for
the
A-10 (oh yeah, the A-16 - but the Air Force brass didn't

fool
anyone on that).


IT's not the Air Force attempting to fool anyone here.

It was
proven in 1980 that the A-10 was suseptable to any and

all fighters
including most Attack Aircraft to include the A-7, A-4,

SU7 and a
host of other AC it was supposed to replace. It never

filled it's
role completely.


It's role is CAS. It has done that well. 80% of the tanks

destroyed
in Desert Storm were done by A-10s.

(snip)


And why does the USAF want to keep the AC-130? It's

s-l-o-w, b-i-g,
can't fight Migs... damn that thing is WORSE than an

A-10!!!

Since you have never seen one inoperation, I don't wonder

why you
would say something as silly.


By your standards, since it is low and slow and vulnerable

to MIGs,
it's not worth a damn.



I've seen them in operation, I've also called for AC-130
strikes. It is a good point and area weapon system but very
vulnerable to AAA and to hand held weapons like the SAM 7
and similar missiles. The only countermeasures they have
that work against the missiles are flares and they usually
don't carry a lot of them. If the "bad guys" have a lot
of 12.7 or bigger stuff going up along with missiles the
AC-130 has to get out and wait for the AA to be neutralized
before they can be effective. That generally means the
enemy can seek cover and disperse while the F-15s or F-16s
come in to try to neutralize the AA.

Snark


  #66  
Old October 13th 03, 06:59 AM
Daryl Hunt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVA LIDBABY wrote in message
...
In article , Daryl Hunt

says...


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in

message
...
In article , Daryl Hunt

says...



From what I saw, the A-10, although slower than a F-16, can do two

attack
runs
in the same time a F-16 can do one. The A-10 can loiter better than the

F-16.

Then you need to see better.


You need to read better.

"In the same time..." means in the same amount of time, an A-10 can do two
attack runs whereas the F-16 will only do one.


And the A-10 Pilot is more than twice as vulnerable to everything. You sure
put a low price on a Pilots Life.




What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.

Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by

A-10s -
even
the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that he took

back
everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his ass.")


I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)


Tell the USAF that:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html


mercy snip

You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles". If the A-10 had done the bulk
of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim.
Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else. And ANY type of
A or F could do this. Bring back the OV-10 or the armed version of the O-2
and they could do it as well. The A-10 was primarily used AFTER the
Fighters and Bombers killed the Armor and made everyone put their heads
down.

End of discussion, Troll Boy.





  #67  
Old October 13th 03, 02:57 PM
Replacement_Tommel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Daryl Hunt says...


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message
...
In article , Daryl Hunt

says...


(sbip)


What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.

Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by
A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked that
he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it "saved his
ass.")

I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)


Tell the USAF that:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html


mercy snip

You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles".


Huh?

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------) ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During the
latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint force air
component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the bad things
that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 "

If the A-10 had done the bulk
of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim.


"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------) ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces."

Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else.


The article says "ARMORED" vehicles.

Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs.

Your reading skills are pitiful.

-Tom

"For the cause that lacks assistance/The wrong that needs ressistance/For the
Future in the distance/And the Good that I can do" - George Linnaeus Banks,
"What I Live for"

UMA Lemming 404 Local member, 404th MTN(LI)

  #68  
Old October 13th 03, 10:24 PM
Daryl Hunt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINVA LIDBABY wrote in message
...
In article , Daryl Hunt

says...


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in

message
...
In article , Daryl Hunt

says...


(sbip)


What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.

Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by
A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked

that
he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it

"saved his
ass.")

I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)

Tell the USAF that:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html


mercy snip

You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles".


Huh?

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air

assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------)

ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During the
latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint force

air
component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the bad

things
that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 "

If the A-10 had done the bulk
of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim.


"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air

assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------)

ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces."

Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else.


The article says "ARMORED" vehicles.

Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs.

Your reading skills are pitiful.


Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10 arrived.
The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80% of the
Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his
statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it? This
was NOT an official Air Force Statement.



  #69  
Old October 13th 03, 10:56 PM
dvick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in message
...
In article , Daryl Hunt

says...


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in

message
...
In article , Daryl Hunt
says...


(sbip)


What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by Bombers.

Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by
A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner remarked

that
he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it

"saved his
ass.")

I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)

Tell the USAF that:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html

mercy snip

You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles".


Huh?

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air

assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------)

ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During the
latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint force

air
component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the bad

things
that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 "

If the A-10 had done the bulk
of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that claim.


"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air

assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------)

ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces."

Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else.


The article says "ARMORED" vehicles.

Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs.

Your reading skills are pitiful.


Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10 arrived.
The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80% of the
Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his
statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it? This
was NOT an official Air Force Statement.



So to summarize, he provided a link to a document on an official Air
Force site which in turn cited the Air Command and Staff College
Seminar/Lesson Book for the specific information you disagree with.
You, on the other hand, have nothing but the famous "because Daryl
said so" argument to back up your claim. At least you're consistent.

  #70  
Old October 14th 03, 12:03 AM
Daryl Hunt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"dvick" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:58 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in

message
...
In article , Daryl Hunt

says...


"Replacement_Tommel"
'SINV ALIDBABY wrote in

message
...
In article , Daryl

Hunt
says...


(sbip)


What mission? It's main role for Tank busting was done by

Bombers.

Nonsense. 80% of the MBTs taken out in Desert Storm were done by
A-10s - even the USAF has damitted that (USAF General Horner

remarked
that
he took back everything bad he said about the A-10 because it

"saved his
ass.")

I don't know where you got your info (you made it up, of course)

Tell the USAF that:


http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/fedor2a.html

mercy snip

You will not that it said "Ground Vehicles".

Huh?

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air

assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------)

ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces.32 During

the
latter part of the ground war, Lt Gen Charles A. Horner, the joint

force
air
component commander (JFACC), stated bluntly, "I take back all of the

bad
things
that I said about the A-10. I love them! They saved our ass."33 "

If the A-10 had done the bulk
of the Armor killing as you have claimed, it would have made that

claim.

"Although they represented less than 10 percent of the coalition's air

assets,
A-10s were responsible for about 70 percent of the (Look Daryl ------)

ARMORED
(----look Daryl) vehicles destroyed by coalition air forces."

Ground Vehicles consist of trucks more than anything else.

The article says "ARMORED" vehicles.

Armored vehicles consist of MBTs, SPA, and APCs.

Your reading skills are pitiful.


Nope. But most of the armor was destroyed even before the A-10 arrived.
The Bombers and Fighters took them out. Now, is he had said that 80% of

the
Armor was destroyed that was left, I would put more credence in his
statements. Don't you recognise PR and Politicing when you see it? This
was NOT an official Air Force Statement.



So to summarize, he provided a link to a document on an official Air
Force site which in turn cited the Air Command and Staff College
Seminar/Lesson Book for the specific information you disagree with.
You, on the other hand, have nothing but the famous "because Daryl
said so" argument to back up your claim. At least you're consistent.


I know PR when I see it. You people have no idea how much of this goes on.
Too bad. Things do blindside you when they come. When the PR is no longer
necessary, the changes they wanted to do all along happens.

But don't let that bit of fact get in your way.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question A Lieberman Instrument Flight Rules 18 January 30th 05 05:51 PM
VOR/DME Approach Question Chip Jones Instrument Flight Rules 47 August 29th 04 05:03 AM
A question on Airworthiness Inspection Dave S Home Built 1 August 10th 04 05:07 AM
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question jlauer Home Built 7 November 16th 03 02:51 AM
Question about Question 4488 [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 3 October 27th 03 02:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.