A-4 / A-7 Question

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.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

"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.

http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/ya-7f.html

--�
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)

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.

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.

http://www.vought.com/heritage/products/html/ya-7f.html



Thanks, I had heard of the F16 experiment but never one on the A-4 or A-7


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

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

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.

Just saw something on the news about a B-52 doing CAS. 100 plus GPS bombs
dropped from 30,000 feet. If you only drop 1to5 per pass would give a lot of
onstation capability. The bottom line is Bombs on TGT. the Buff can now do it
better than just about anything and with low risk to the delivery crew.
All that said CAS mission in the A-6 was like flying around with your hair on
fire. What a fun mission to practice in peace time. Having never done it in
anger I think it would be pretty scary.But than again all combat is.
Sparky

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! =-----