A-4 / A-7 Question

"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

On 10/9/03 11:03 PM, in article
, "John R Weiss"
wrote:

"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.


The primary driver behind the 500 lb JDAM was so the Harrier could carry it.
The rest of the services thought about it and figured it'd be a good idea
too.

Come to think of it, if someone's working on a 1760 capable ITER, you could
hang 8 JDAM on a Hornet!

--Woody

(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

Grantland

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

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.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

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

Come to think of it, if someone's working on a 1760 capable ITER, you could
hang 8 JDAM on a Hornet!

IIRC, McDonnell-Douglas had one (or maybe it was a VER) in the works back around
89 or 90, but the Navy didn't want to pay for it.

On 10/10/03 12:36 PM, in article B6Chb.729401$uu5.123386@sccrnsc04, "John R
Weiss" wrote:

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

Come to think of it, if someone's working on a 1760 capable ITER, you could
hang 8 JDAM on a Hornet!

IIRC, McDonnell-Douglas had one (or maybe it was a VER) in the works back
around
89 or 90, but the Navy didn't want to pay for it.


I seem to remember discussions (never pen to paper) of a MER for the A-6
back when the JDAM was still AIWS. Think about that--22 MK-82 JDAM on an
Intruder... It would have to be a SWIP Block 1A or better yet an F.

--Woody

On 10/10/03 6:56 AM, in article ,
"Grantland" 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

Grantland

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur


Right because terrorists can drive U-Haul trucks into space.

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

I seem to remember discussions (never pen to paper) of a MER for the A-6
back when the JDAM was still AIWS. Think about that--22 MK-82 JDAM on an
Intruder... It would have to be a SWIP Block 1A or better yet an F.

That, too. IIRC, one problem was that the 1553 subset of the 1760 interface on
the A-6 SWIP was not complete enough. It probably would have been for the A-6F
only. In fact, the "smart VER" (or whatever they called it) would have required
rewiring the F/A-18A/B (not sure of the C/D) to get GPS info to the stations;
the coax was not in the initial contract.

However, AIWS became JSOW, not JDAM. JDAM started in the USAF and merged with
the USN ABF (Advanced Bomb Family) program. Navy kept the JSOW lead; Air Force
kept JDAM lead.

Enough alphabet soup yet? ;-)

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 10/9/03 9:41 AM, in article , "Mike
Kanze" wrote:


snip

6 minutes later, there are warheads on foreheads.

Would that be "WOF" or "WHOFH" or "WHSOFHS"?

Frank

On 10/10/03 3:38 PM, in article IMEhb.83326$%h1.87290@sccrnsc02, "John R
Weiss" wrote:

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

I seem to remember discussions (never pen to paper) of a MER for the A-6
back when the JDAM was still AIWS. Think about that--22 MK-82 JDAM on an
Intruder... It would have to be a SWIP Block 1A or better yet an F.

That, too. IIRC, one problem was that the 1553 subset of the 1760 interface
on
the A-6 SWIP was not complete enough. It probably would have been for the
A-6F
only. In fact, the "smart VER" (or whatever they called it) would have
required
rewiring the F/A-18A/B (not sure of the C/D) to get GPS info to the stations;
the coax was not in the initial contract.


You are correct, J.R. 1553 would have needed to be upgraded to 1760. The
standard SWIP aircraft sans GPS could not have handled even a single JDAM.
GPS on the nav solution is a REQUIREMENT to drop JDAM. The SWIP Block 1A
(flew it at China Lake for about 80 or so hours) could have handled multiple
JDAM nicely (in theory/Woody speculation). It never made it past prototype,
but it was quite capable:

- ASN-139 RLG INS
- GPS
- CP-4 (vice CP-3B) Mission Computer 3X the memory, 4X the speed (still
not blazing)
- A no-kidding HUD for the pilot
- A (get this) DDI for the B/N
- An aerodynamic strake mod allowing it to max trap 9 knots slower at
38,400 lbs vice 36K. (As an aside, I once flew it on speed clean
wing at the field with 2.5 on the gas at 104 KIAS.)

All in all, it was to the Intruder what the F-14D is to the Tomcat, but it
was canned when the retirement of the Intruder was moved up.

The F/A-18A was re-wired/GPS'd to handle JDAM/JSOW. It's called the
F/A-18A+ (ECP-560/583).

However, AIWS became JSOW, not JDAM. JDAM started in the USAF and merged with
the USN ABF (Advanced Bomb Family) program. Navy kept the JSOW lead; Air
Force
kept JDAM lead.

Enough alphabet soup yet? ;-)


You're absolutely right... My faux pax. I always got ABF and AIWS mixed up
before they AGM-154A'd and GBU-32/35/31'd them.

ABC's right back atcha, J.R. |:-)

--Woody