A-4 / A-7 Question

[Tank Fixer]

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.

[Thomas Schoene]

"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)

[Tank Fixer]

In article t>,
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.

[John Carrier]

>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

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

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

[Ed Rasimus]

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.

[Mike Kanze]

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.
>
>

[Greg Hennessy]

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.

[Elmshoot]

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

[Joe Osman]

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! =-----

[John R Weiss]

"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.

[Guy Alcala]

Elmshoot wrote:

> Just saw something on the news about a B-52 doing CAS. 100 plus GPS bombs
> dropped from 30,000 feet.

More likely they were referring to the B-2 dropping 80 Mk. 82 JDAMs; go here:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030917/cgw043_1.html

Unless the Buff has been upgraded _very_ recently, IIRR only the pylons have the
1760 interfaces that allow target coordinates to be downloaded to the JDAMs,
limiting them to a maximum of 18 (9 per pylon). Internally, the Hs not only lack
the interfaces, but the bomb bay holds a maximum of 27 Mk. 82 500-lb. or M117
750-lb. bombs (bomb weights are nominal, and actual weights are higher in both
cases). The bomb bay could be modified to hold up to 84 Mk. 82s or 42 M117s, as
was done with the 'Big Belly' mod to the 'D' models during the Vietnam war, but
it's extremely unlikely that they will do so, and even if they did it might not
be possible to install the interfaces in any case.

Guy

[Thomas Schoene]

"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)

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

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.

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/9/03 11:10 AM, in article
, "Elmshoot" >
wrote:

> 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

Not to pick a nit, but they checked in with more like 28 JDAM per night. (I
can't remember for the life of me if that was the actual number.)

With high altitude and a rather permissive environment, they do good
work--even though they're sort of radio air-time hogs.

BUFFDRVR feel free to roll in... 'scuse me... Make a bomb run here.

--Woody

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

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

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

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

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/9/03 1:17 PM, in article
, "Guy Alcala"
> wrote:

> Elmshoot wrote:
>
>> Just saw something on the news about a B-52 doing CAS. 100 plus GPS bombs
>> dropped from 30,000 feet.
>
> More likely they were referring to the B-2 dropping 80 Mk. 82 JDAMs; go here:
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030917/cgw043_1.html
>
> Unless the Buff has been upgraded _very_ recently, IIRR only the pylons have
> the
> 1760 interfaces that allow target coordinates to be downloaded to the JDAMs,
> limiting them to a maximum of 18 (9 per pylon). Internally, the Hs not only
> lack
> the interfaces, but the bomb bay holds a maximum of 27 Mk. 82 500-lb. or M117
> 750-lb. bombs (bomb weights are nominal, and actual weights are higher in both
> cases). The bomb bay could be modified to hold up to 84 Mk. 82s or 42 M117s,
> as
> was done with the 'Big Belly' mod to the 'D' models during the Vietnam war,
> but
> it's extremely unlikely that they will do so, and even if they did it might
> not
> be possible to install the interfaces in any case.
>
> Guy
>
>
>
>

Thanks, Guy. 18 JDAMs is the number. I couldn't remember it before.

--Woody

[John R Weiss]

"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.

[John R Weiss]

"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.

[Helomech]

"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

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

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

[Grantland]

(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

[Harry Andreas]

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

[John R Weiss]

"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.

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

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

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

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.

[John R Weiss]

"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? ;-)

[Frank Minich]

"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

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

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

[Dudhorse]

"Grantland" > wrote in message
...
> (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
>
..... and you can bet your last eggroll that the Red Chinese have got one of
their top thinktanks devising ways to circumvent/destroy the U.S. digital
infrastructure - Gulf War I & II have taught them and the world the way to
defang the U.S. across the board is to take out every one of our
networks/uplinks & downlinks. If they ever go head to head with us in the
future it will have to be their number one priority if they want to stand a
chance.

[Grantland]

"Dudhorse" > wrote:

>.... and you can bet your last eggroll that the Red Chinese have got one of
>their top thinktanks devising ways to circumvent/destroy the U.S. digital
>infrastructure - Gulf War I & II have taught them and the world the way to
>defang the U.S. across the board is to take out every one of our
>networks/uplinks & downlinks. If they ever go head to head with us in the
>future it will have to be their number one priority if they want to stand a
>chance.
>
Tue BUT: "Red" Chinese? No, Hong Kong (and, less so, Taiwan) showed
the "Reds" how errant they were. When they complete their program
they will be the most capitalist country on earth. Way beyond
high-tax, Socialist Amerika - Hong Kong writ gigantic. Taiwan
(peacefully, voluntarily) included. To *effect* this transformation
in an orderly manner, however, they need to stay in power. Hence the
Red hats. And nobody (in China) could care. Just keep up the 10%
growth.

So China is (should be) an ally, not a foe. Just like a fading
British Empire embracing the (virile, not-yet-corrupt) United States.
China is the future. Amerika is history.

Grantland

[Paul Austin]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote
> "Grantland" > wrote:
>
> > (Harry Andreas) wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >
>
> Right because terrorists can drive U-Haul trucks into space.
>
Since GPS Sats are thoroughly radiation hardened, it don't matter
much. It's impossible to take out GPS service with a single weapon of
any kind, any where. You_might_degrade system accuracy some places,
some times but that's about it. The Air Force is active in increasing
the hardness of the GPS system through increased coding gain, radiated
power and AJ antennas for the weapons. I don't see much payoff and do
see a lot of costs is maintaining the ability to deliver CAS fires
with dumb munitions. Better to proliferate the ways of guiding smart
munitions (mm-wave seekers for instance). The most fruitful avenue to
interfering with the New Age CAS is in network communications attacks
to slow down, corrupt or block those automated 9-line messages.

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/11/03 6:07 AM, in article ,
"Paul Austin" > wrote:

>
> "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote
>> "Grantland" > wrote:
>>
>>> (Harry Andreas) wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> Right because terrorists can drive U-Haul trucks into space.
>>
> Since GPS Sats are thoroughly radiation hardened, it don't matter
> much. It's impossible to take out GPS service with a single weapon of
> any kind, any where. You_might_degrade system accuracy some places,
> some times but that's about it. The Air Force is active in increasing
> the hardness of the GPS system through increased coding gain, radiated
> power and AJ antennas for the weapons. I don't see much payoff and do
> see a lot of costs is maintaining the ability to deliver CAS fires
> with dumb munitions. Better to proliferate the ways of guiding smart
> munitions (mm-wave seekers for instance). The most fruitful avenue to
> interfering with the New Age CAS is in network communications attacks
> to slow down, corrupt or block those automated 9-line messages.
>
>

Love the automate 9-line concept. Never actually used it. All that is
usually required is a set of target coordinates and a friendly location.
The rest of the 9-line WRT JDAM CAS is useless. What I'm saying is that a
network attack may slow the process down--but even then only slightly. All
it really means is that the pilot better have a blank kneeboard card.

--Woody

[Mike Kanze]

Woody,

Sad - well maybe.

I can't think of a single shipmate who relished flying into combat with an
unreliable weapons system. Catshot-lovin' inertials; nonintuitive knobology
(all of us "old" B/Ns managed to cycle steering in memory point at some
embarrassing juncture); AMTI circuitry that classified freeway overpasses as
"movers" and Whack-A-Mole circuit-breaker management techniques (most often
performed in unusual attitudes) were all aspects of the A-6A that added
greatly to risk - especially when combined with a mission of dubious value.
(And there were many such missions during the VN conflict.)

But such was life in a first-generation technology.

I've always loved the idea of driving as many of the smarts as may be
feasible from the manned delivery vehicle into the unmanned weapon. Humans
shouldn't go into harm's way unless there is no better solution.

Besides - smart weapons make lousy POWs.

Owl sends.
--
Mike Kanze

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

650-726-7890

"The best political metaphor from Arnold Schwarzenegger's movie career is
not his three 'Terminator' roles. Rather, it's 'Kindergarten Cop.' In the
California legislature, Ah-nold will be taking on the largest
publicly-funded day-care center west of Washington, DC."

- Mike Kanze


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>

[Mike Kanze]

Sparky,

>Just saw something on the news about a B-52 doing CAS. 100 plus GPS bombs
dropped from 30,000 feet.

Sea story. Overheard a tale during the early 1970s of B-52s hitting the
range with a one-pass mass release of as many MK-76s as one of those
critters could carry. If true, musta been a sight for the ages.

BUFFDRVR: true, or just a another good Happy Hour tale?

--
Mike Kanze

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

650-726-7890

"The best political metaphor from Arnold Schwarzenegger's movie career is
not his three 'Terminator' roles. Rather, it's 'Kindergarten Cop.' In the
California legislature, Ah-nold will be taking on the largest
publicly-funded day-care center west of Washington, DC."

- Mike Kanze


"Elmshoot" > wrote in message
...
> [snipped]

[Guy Alcala]

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:

<snip>

>Thanks, Guy. 18 JDAMs is the number. I couldn't remember it before.

You're welcome. However, they were only carrying 12 rather than 18 up to now, as
they can only carry 6 x 2,000 lb. bombs on each pylon, rather than 9 smaller bombs.
AFAIK the Buffs didn't use Mk. 83 1,000 lbers (only the navy/ marines seem to use
the Mk. 83), so they were all Mk.84/BLU-109-based weapons. The champion JDAM
carrier up til now has been the B-1B, as it can (and has) carry twenty-four 2,000
lb. class JDAMs internally. the B-1 crew that bombed that building in Baghdad
trying to kill Saddam dropped a total of 21 out of 24 during the course of that
mission; only 4 were aimed at Saddam, with 9 and 8 going down on other targets
located elsewhere.

Guy

[Harry Andreas]

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

[WaltBJ]

(Harry Andreas) wrote in message >...
SNIP>
> > >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.
SNIP>
I understand (never having flown the thing) an F16 with its ring laser
gyro INS, laser/radar(?) ranging and continuous computing bomb
computer can achieve quite amazing accuracy in dumb dive bombing,
circa 10m accuracies. This accuracy is obtained with substantially
less practice than with the old fixed reticle and 'that looks about
right' (TLAR) we had to use in the F4 and earlier jets. The A7 with
its continuous predicting bomb sight was also easier to use and more
accurate that the depressed reticle sight. Where the depressed reticle
really gave fits was with the first bomb dropped in high winds - an
aim-off point of 600 feet is damn hard to eyeball over targets without
that big white known-dimension circle around them. That also means in
one pass-haul ass areas with no known 'yardstick' down there hits
become more a matter of luck with the old TLAR and dumb sight. Yeah,
we had dive-toss, radar ranging and the INS with a bombing computer.
But one 'no release' in a hot area kind of puts you off dive toss
until you get back to Avon park FL. :</
Walt BJ

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 10/23/03 8:22 PM, in article
, "WaltBJ"
> wrote:

> (Harry Andreas) wrote in message
> >...
> SNIP>
>>>> 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.
> SNIP>
> I understand (never having flown the thing) an F16 with its ring laser
> gyro INS, laser/radar(?) ranging and continuous computing bomb
> computer can achieve quite amazing accuracy in dumb dive bombing,
> circa 10m accuracies. This accuracy is obtained with substantially
> less practice than with the old fixed reticle and 'that looks about
> right' (TLAR) we had to use in the F4 and earlier jets. The A7 with
> its continuous predicting bomb sight was also easier to use and more
> accurate that the depressed reticle sight. Where the depressed reticle
> really gave fits was with the first bomb dropped in high winds - an
> aim-off point of 600 feet is damn hard to eyeball over targets without
> that big white known-dimension circle around them. That also means in
> one pass-haul ass areas with no known 'yardstick' down there hits
> become more a matter of luck with the old TLAR and dumb sight. Yeah,
> we had dive-toss, radar ranging and the INS with a bombing computer.
> But one 'no release' in a hot area kind of puts you off dive toss
> until you get back to Avon park FL. :</
> Walt BJ

You're bringing back my A-6 memories. I have a lot of time on iron sights.
Don't miss it.

All valid points. Substantially less time training to dumb bomb deliveries
when it's so easy to get a good hit.

--Woody

[John R Weiss]

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" > wrote...
>> SNIP>
>> 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.
> > SNIP>
> >I understand (never having flown the thing) an F16 with its ring laser
> >gyro INS, laser/radar(?) ranging and continuous computing bomb
> >computer can achieve quite amazing accuracy in dumb dive bombing,
> >circa 10m accuracies.
>> SNIP>
> You're bringing back my A-6 memories. I have a lot of time on iron sights.
> Don't miss it.
>
> All valid points. Substantially less time training to dumb bomb deliveries
> when it's so easy to get a good hit.

Since we have gotten to the time when aircraft systems are reliable enough to
count on in the short hairs, you have a valid point. HOWEVER, I believe it is
still a "good idea" for an air-to-mud pilot to understand the basic principles
behind what the computer is doing for him.

With about 1700 hours each in the A-4 and A-6, including an instructor tour in
the A-4, I've seen a lot of reasons in the past for a pilot to be able to "feel"
when the computer is about to do something bad -- like release a load of Mk 82s
a mile short of the target. I got to be really good at dive bombing from the
back seat of the TA-4, using the clock as a gunsight (no self-respecting SNA
would DARE to NOT hit the pickle when I said "Pickle," even if it did cost him a
beer). Later, when flying with newbie B/Ns (and an occasional weak "old guy")
in the A-6, I could often sense well ahead of time when things weren't going
quite right, and had to make use of the planned manual backup. Then there are
the times when rolling in for a CCIP or General Boresight attack, a press on the
Attack button decided to cause general hate & discontent in the computer, and a
quick slap of the gunsight button to Manual allowed a good hit in spite of it.

Then there's the case for "airmanship" and "air sense." Being proficient at
manual bombing means a pilot is proficient at detecting and correcting for
errors in real time, as well as getting himself to the proper point at the
proper time in the first place. Also, while the computer may make up for a
suboptimal delivery profile and get the bomb on target, it cannot make up for
the loss of Pk when the impact angle is suboptimal in a delivery against a hard
target.

Some of these considerations are no longer totally relevant when dropping a JDAM
from a Hornet, but when going back to CAS with dumb bombs, it's still "a good
thing" to be able to support your Grunt buddies even if the computer craps out
at the last minute. They may not have the luxury of waiting for the backup...

[Mike Kanze]

John,

I second your point about needing to understand the basic principles.

>Later, when flying with newbie B/Ns (and an occasional weak "old guy") in
the A-6, I could often sense well ahead of time when things weren't going
quite right, and had to make use of the planned manual backup. Then there
are the times when rolling in for a CCIP or General Boresight attack, a
press on the Attack button decided to cause general hate & discontent in the
computer, and a quick slap of the gunsight button to Manual allowed a good
hit in spite of it.

Brings back many memories of the A-6A and its squirrelly AN/ASQ-61 computer.
In this machine that sense of "sense" you mentioned was often a lifesaver.
An experienced and coordinated pilot-B/N crew could often tell pretty
quickly how well the Q-61 was going to hold together, and (as you said)
would have a backup for the all-too-frequent times when things turned to
worms. (Most B/Ns of that era - myself included - had tighter degraded
system CEPs than full-system ones.)

The OB-16 low-level route (through the eastern Oregon canyons) was a good
test of the team and machine. How you both felt about the "tightness" of
the system determined how low into the canyons you went - if at all.

Owl sends.
--
Mike Kanze

"Owl", B/N
A-6A, A-6B (PAT ARM), KA-6D

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

650-726-7890

"Friends don't let friends take home ugly men."
- Women's restroom, Starboard, Dewey Beach, DE, USA

"Beauty is only a light switch away."
- Perkins Library, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA


"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:ZQemb.18835$Fm2.9908@attbi_s04...
[snipped]