The term "Fighter"

[Prowlus]

What does it mean nowadays with the introduction of multirole fighters
.. Does it mean :

(1) An aircraft tasked with destroying other enemy aircraft ie Tornado
F.3

(2) An aircraft that is tasked with destroying enemy military hardware
including: SAM sites, AA Guns , tanks and other aircraft on the ground
or in the air IE most of the USAF/USN fastjet tactical inventory with
the exception of the A-10

Has the term become diluted over the years to mean an aircraft that
can destroy most GENERAL militery hardware?

[Cub Driver]

I have seen articles and even books that include bombers such as the
B-17 under the rubric of "fighter."

To somebody utterly naive about warfare, "fighter" is just another
term for "warplane."

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Paul F Austin]

"Cub Driver" wrote
>
> I have seen articles and even books that include bombers such as the
> B-17 under the rubric of "fighter."
>
> To somebody utterly naive about warfare, "fighter" is just another
> term for "warplane."

_Small_warplane, generally with a small crew and no facilities for getting
up to go to the bathroom.

[Lyle]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:20:36 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
> wrote:

>
>"Cub Driver" wrote
>>
>> I have seen articles and even books that include bombers such as the
>> B-17 under the rubric of "fighter."
>>
>> To somebody utterly naive about warfare, "fighter" is just another
>> term for "warplane."
>
>_Small_warplane, generally with a small crew and no facilities for getting
>up to go to the bathroom.
>
there was the xb-40, and yb-40 armed escorts

[robert arndt]

Lyle > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:20:36 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Cub Driver" wrote
> >>
> >> I have seen articles and even books that include bombers such as the
> >> B-17 under the rubric of "fighter."
> >>
> >> To somebody utterly naive about warfare, "fighter" is just another
> >> term for "warplane."
> >
> >_Small_warplane, generally with a small crew and no facilities for getting
> >up to go to the bathroom.
> >
> there was the xb-40, and yb-40 armed escorts

Back in the good old days fighters had P designations (for Patrol or
Pursuit, depending on who you talk to)... but then someone decided to
strap some bombs onto the aircraft and then along came the
fighter-bombers, which today would simply be an attack aircraft.
The Germans really changed everything with the Fw 190 and Ju 88 which
were true multirole aircraft.
Post WW2 the new USAF started reclassifying aircraft for simplicity
sake:

F= Fighter
B= Bomber
A= Attack
C= Cargo
R= Recon
TR= Tactical Recon
SR= Strategic Recon
U= Utility (cover for U-2, which really was a jet sailplane)
and so on...

But as the dedicated air superiority fighters started having to double
as attack aircraft the now idiotic F/A designation is applied to
purpose-built multirole aircraft like the F/A 18 Hornet and F/A 22
Raptor while the multirole capable F-16 Falcon and F-15E Strike Eagle
remain under the F designation.
I think our designation system is in need of redefinition. Why not use
an MR designation for MultiRole aircraft? I suggest the following
changes:

AS= Air Superiority
B= Bomber
S= Strike
MR= MultiRole
C= Cargo
R= Recon
TR= Tactical Recon
SR= Strategic Recon
GR= Global Recon
FX= Field-Effects craft
NFX= Nuclear Field-Effects craft
UAV= Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
AAV= Autonomous Aerial Vehicle
UCAV= Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle
ACAV= Autonomous Combat Aerial Vehicle
MAV= Micro Aerial Vehicle

Rob

[Errol Cavit]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
<snip>
>
> But as the dedicated air superiority fighters started having to double
> as attack aircraft the now idiotic F/A designation is applied to
> purpose-built multirole aircraft like the F/A 18 Hornet and F/A 22
> Raptor while the multirole capable F-16 Falcon and F-15E Strike Eagle
> remain under the F designation.
> I think our designation system is in need of redefinition.

No, it needs for the system to be followed. There is an excuse for the
F/A-18, but not for F/A-22 (_reason_ yes, excuse no). AIUI the system
defines aircraft with F and A roles as F's

> Why not use
> an MR designation for MultiRole aircraft?

You mean like the M? e.g. MH-53E, MH-60R, MH-60S. Don't know if it can be
used as the 'primary' letter, and can't be bothered looking in the FAQ to
check.

I suggest the following
> changes:
>
<snip suggested over-long designation system>

Currently Q is drone. Some changes in this area would probably be useful
before too long.


--
Errol Cavit |
I've heard a tape of collected kakapo noises, and it's almost impossible to
believe that it all just comes from a bird, or indeed any kind of animal.
Pink Floyd studio out-takes perhaps, but not a parrot.
Douglas Adams, _Last Chance to See_

[robert arndt]

"Errol Cavit" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> <snip>
> >
> > But as the dedicated air superiority fighters started having to double
> > as attack aircraft the now idiotic F/A designation is applied to
> > purpose-built multirole aircraft like the F/A 18 Hornet and F/A 22
> > Raptor while the multirole capable F-16 Falcon and F-15E Strike Eagle
> > remain under the F designation.
> > I think our designation system is in need of redefinition.
>
> No, it needs for the system to be followed. There is an excuse for the
> F/A-18, but not for F/A-22 (_reason_ yes, excuse no). AIUI the system
> defines aircraft with F and A roles as F's

That's my point. A Fighter should be an F and stick to air superiority
only. Strike aircraft should be an A (Attack) and be tasked with
hitting ground targets. Any aircraft that performs dual roles should
fall under the MR designation denoting MultiRole. I think MR is much
better than F/A. It was just annoying when they started using that on
the Hornet but now it seems idiotic with the Raptor. The Raptor was
supposed to be THE air superiority fighter of the USAF with a simple
F-22 designation. Then when the program started slipping and proving
costly they switched the designation over to F/A-22 in an effort to
sell us a multirole aircraft to justify the costs. Soon, there will be
the even more idiotic FB-22 which is puzzling since they drop the
slash when a fighter is transformed into a bomber. Then, of course, is
the other designation problem of the F-117, which is actually a strike
aircraft and should be A-117. This stealth craft has NO fighter
capability at all. And you say we need to enforce the current
designations?
>
> > Why not use
> > an MR designation for MultiRole aircraft?
>
> You mean like the M? e.g. MH-53E, MH-60R, MH-60S. Don't know if it can be
> used as the 'primary' letter, and can't be bothered looking in the FAQ to
> check.

Doubling of letters doesn't eliminate that combo. What about the
CH-53?
>
> I suggest the following
> > changes:
> >
> <snip suggested over-long designation system>
>
> Currently Q is drone. Some changes in this area would probably be useful
> before too long.

There HAS to be as unmanned aircraft come in a complex variety of
forms: drone (towed or remote piloted), true RPVs, true UAVs, the
coming UCAVs, and those UAVs designed for global loitering. The Q
designation doesn't make a lot of sense here. The unmanned nature of
all these should produce another designation either in general not
just lump all of them into the UAV category. UAVs and UCAVs are
evolving into different types. Ordinary UAVs perform a mission,
usually recon and are controlled. What happens when the UAVs are given
autonomous capability to search where they want, loiter, and return to
an area of their choosing?
And what about Germany's UAV hunting trio Brevel, Mucke, Taifun? The
Germans, who will introduce this system by 2005/6 use the Brevel for
recon, Mucke then jams the target, while the armed Taifun kamikaze
dives onto it. All are current considered UAVs independently but form
a UCAV system as a trio. The Taifun then in reality isn't even a UCAV
since it is not intended to survive- it is a KV (KillVehicle).
Think about that.

Rob

[Emmanuel.Gustin]

Prowlus > wrote:

: Has the term become diluted over the years to mean an aircraft that
: can destroy most GENERAL militery hardware?

No. The reality has always been that an aircraft designed
to do air combat efficiently must be have good handling
qualities, high power reserves, good armament, robustness,
and spare lifting capacity. Ever since WWI, this has meant
that a good fighter can be very useful in other roles too.
Sopwith Camels made good attack aircraft and even
dive-bombers...

As fighters are the essential aircraft of an air force,
which is is almost impossible to do without, cuts tend
to be made in the other categories. The real onset of this
was during WWII, when fighters became so big and powerful
that they replaced first light and then also medium bombers,
although this process was not completed until after the
war. Naval air forces, that had to parcel out the limited
space on a carrier, were particularly quick to recognize
that a good fighter could be a decent bomber. In the 1930s
dual-role fighters-and-dive-bomber types were fashionable.

With few exceptions, pure fighters have been defensive
interceptors, often all-weather intereceptors with
expensive and fragile electronic systems. Even Spitfires
and Sabres were fitted with bomb racks as soon as their
operators could find the opportunity. These days, equipping
aircraft purely as fighters make little sense, even for
a rich air force such as the USAF; why not exploit all
the capabilities of a very expensive airframe?

--
Emmanuel Gustin

[Errol Cavit]

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> "Errol Cavit" > wrote in message >...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > But as the dedicated air superiority fighters started having to double
> > > as attack aircraft the now idiotic F/A designation is applied to
> > > purpose-built multirole aircraft like the F/A 18 Hornet and F/A 22
> > > Raptor while the multirole capable F-16 Falcon and F-15E Strike Eagle
> > > remain under the F designation.
> > > I think our designation system is in need of redefinition.
> >
> > No, it needs for the system to be followed. There is an excuse for the
> > F/A-18, but not for F/A-22 (_reason_ yes, excuse no). AIUI the system
> > defines aircraft with F and A roles as F's
>
> That's my point. A Fighter should be an F and stick to air superiority
> only. Strike aircraft should be an A (Attack) and be tasked with
> hitting ground targets. Any aircraft that performs dual roles should
> fall under the MR designation denoting MultiRole.

You can physically hang a bomb any almost any fighter if you want to.
Remember the F-15 was "not a pound for air-to-ground"? Then some time
later came the F-15E.


> I think MR is much
> better than F/A.

Try reading what I wrote. This is not a problem with the designation
system, it's a problem with people doing non-sensical things based on
(but outside) the system. Redefining the system won't help much with
the issue of political fiddling.

It was just annoying when they started using that on
> the Hornet but now it seems idiotic with the Raptor. The Raptor was
> supposed to be THE air superiority fighter of the USAF with a simple
> F-22 designation. Then when the program started slipping and proving
> costly they switched the designation over to F/A-22 in an effort to
> sell us a multirole aircraft to justify the costs. Soon, there will be
> the even more idiotic FB-22 which is puzzling since they drop the
> slash when a fighter is transformed into a bomber. Then, of course, is
> the other designation problem of the F-117, which is actually a strike
> aircraft and should be A-117. This stealth craft has NO fighter
> capability at all.

There is also the tendency to not give new series letters, so we have
CC-130J rather than something sensible like C-130K, and significant
changes to the F-16 being shown by block numbers. Don't get me started
on the F-35.


And you say we need to enforce the current
> designations?

I didn't say that. I say the issues would be far fewer if you enforced
the current _system_. Listing examples were people have done things
outside the system isn't an argument for changing the system.

> >
> > > Why not use
> > > an MR designation for MultiRole aircraft?
> >
> > You mean like the M? e.g. MH-53E, MH-60R, MH-60S. Don't know if it can be
> > used as the 'primary' letter, and can't be bothered looking in the FAQ to
> > check.
>
> Doubling of letters doesn't eliminate that combo. What about the
> CH-53?

The cargo-only versions of the H-53, as opposed to the Mine warfare +
cargo versions? What about them?
You would call the current CH-53E's MRH-53E? The current MH-53E's
would be MRH-53F or something?

> >
> > I suggest the following
> > > changes:
> > >
> > <snip suggested over-long designation system>
> >
> > Currently Q is drone. Some changes in this area would probably be useful
> > before too long.
>
> There HAS to be as unmanned aircraft come in a complex variety of
> forms: drone (towed or remote piloted), true RPVs, true UAVs, the
> coming UCAVs, and those UAVs designed for global loitering. The Q
> designation doesn't make a lot of sense here. The unmanned nature of
> all these should produce another designation either in general not
> just lump all of them into the UAV category. UAVs and UCAVs are
> evolving into different types. Ordinary UAVs perform a mission,
> usually recon and are controlled. What happens when the UAVs are given
> autonomous capability to search where they want, loiter, and return to
> an area of their choosing?

What's wrong with using Q as vehicle type = unmanned? If you make it
much more specific, you risk modifications to software or control
methods changing the primary designation for what is the same physical
vehicle. Perhaps a different letter if it is capable of fully
autonomous operation? Makes far more sense than
your TRUAV-1 for the Predator (currently it's RQ-1, you could argue
that the armed ones should be AQ-1 or ARQ-1).

> And what about Germany's UAV hunting trio Brevel, Mucke, Taifun? The
> Germans, who will introduce this system by 2005/6 use the Brevel for
> recon, Mucke then jams the target, while the armed Taifun kamikaze
> dives onto it. All are current considered UAVs independently but form
> a UCAV system as a trio. The Taifun then in reality isn't even a UCAV
> since it is not intended to survive- it is a KV (KillVehicle).

Can the Taifun be recovered if it isn't 'fired'? If so, RQ-xxA,
EQ-xxB, and AQ-xxC. Or treat the Taifun as a guided missile and
designate accordingly. Why is this worse than your suggestion?


> Think about that.


Think about how aircraft designs can develop, and all the
possibilities that have to be taken into account. Using 3 or 4 letter
acronyms parts of designations just doesn't make sense. That's why
code letters are used in the most current systems, not the
buzz-acronym of the moment.

Errol Cavit | "Pressures are put on governments to
satisfy their public's demand for immediate action. The intervention
in
Somalia was undoubtedly media led. It was disastrous. There is a
connection
between those two statements." Hudson & Stanier, 'War and the Media'
1997

[David L. Pulver]

(Prowlus) wrote in message >...
> What does it mean nowadays with the introduction of multirole fighters
> . Does it mean :
>
> (1) An aircraft tasked with destroying other enemy aircraft ie Tornado
> F.3
>
> (2) An aircraft that is tasked with destroying enemy military hardware
> including: SAM sites, AA Guns , tanks and other aircraft on the ground
> or in the air IE most of the USAF/USN fastjet tactical inventory with
> the exception of the A-10
>
> Has the term become diluted over the years to mean an aircraft that
> can destroy most GENERAL militery hardware?

These days, "fighter" usually means "A single or dual-seat fast mover
capable or at least originally designed in some variant or other for
reasonably effectively performing an air superiority or intercept
mission, regardless of what else it can do" the reasonably-effectively
part translating into "at least mach 1, carries air-to-air missiles,
and ideally supersonic with a air-intercept radar" and the "what else"
usually being strike, recon, and SEAD.

There are instances when an aircraft receives a fighter *designation*
for unusual reasons (the F-117), but these are anomalies. Also F-111,
which was supposed to be a fighter but didn't work out as one, and
such.

Also, USAF tactical aviation doesn't like calling anything an "attack"
aircraft so aside from the A-10 (clearly not a real modern fighter,
being subsonic, even if it can carry a few sidewinders!) we get things
like F-105 ("It's a fighter because it's got a gun and is supersonic,
even if it's not used as one"). The Harrier and such get in the way a
bit, but Sea Harrier at least has an air-intercept radar, while the
other types are more attack aircraft

[Ed Rasimus]

On 23 Dec 2003 19:54:25 -0800, (David L. Pulver)
wrote:

>These days, "fighter" usually means "A single or dual-seat fast mover
>capable or at least originally designed in some variant or other for
>reasonably effectively performing an air superiority or intercept
>mission, regardless of what else it can do" the reasonably-effectively
>part translating into "at least mach 1, carries air-to-air missiles,
>and ideally supersonic with a air-intercept radar" and the "what else"
>usually being strike, recon, and SEAD.

Invariably in this discussion we get a melding of the historic and the
current, insertion of an occasional red herring and a convolution of
USN and USAF terminology.

In USAF terminology, a "fighter" usually means a tactical fast mover.
It probably has good agility and a sensor suite to detect enemy
airborne targets, but for the last thirty years has been acknowledged
as an aircraft that will seldom encounter a credible air/air threat.

"Air superiority is something a fighter pilot does on his way to and
from the target." I said it, and I still believe it.

>
>There are instances when an aircraft receives a fighter *designation*
>for unusual reasons (the F-117), but these are anomalies. Also F-111,
>which was supposed to be a fighter but didn't work out as one, and
>such.

The F-111 was supposed to be a tactical fast mover. See above for USAF
tradition.
>
>Also, USAF tactical aviation doesn't like calling anything an "attack"
>aircraft so aside from the A-10 (clearly not a real modern fighter,
>being subsonic, even if it can carry a few sidewinders!) we get things
>like F-105 ("It's a fighter because it's got a gun and is supersonic,
>even if it's not used as one").

Now you're on the fighting side of me. The F-105, designed in the
early '50s and fielded operationally with the D model in 1959 (FY '58
production), was single seat, single engine and very capable air/air.
It had an air/air radar mode, lead computing gun sight, good agility
(+8.67/-3.0 G) and was sidewinder capable. If fought with an
understanding of the aircraft's P-sub-s and V-G diagrams, it was
pretty serious air/air. You might want to review the number of MiG
kills by F-105s for verification.

Oh, and did I mention that killing MiGs was something we did on our
way to and from the target?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tuollaf43]

"Errol Cavit" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> <snip>
> >
> > But as the dedicated air superiority fighters started having to double
> > as attack aircraft the now idiotic F/A designation is applied to
> > purpose-built multirole aircraft like the F/A 18 Hornet and F/A 22
> > Raptor while the multirole capable F-16 Falcon and F-15E Strike Eagle
> > remain under the F designation.
> > I think our designation system is in need of redefinition.
>
> No, it needs for the system to be followed. There is an excuse for the
> F/A-18,

Actually the new revised designation of the erstwhile F/A-18E is now
the FREAK-18E; the changed designation being considered more
reflective of the range of capabilities that aircraft possess -
fighter, reconnaissance, electronic warfare, attack and aerial
refueling.

> but not for F/A-22 (_reason_ yes, excuse no). AIUI the system
> defines aircraft with F and A roles as F's
>
> > Why not use
> > an MR designation for MultiRole aircraft?
>
> You mean like the M? e.g. MH-53E, MH-60R, MH-60S. Don't know if it can be
> used as the 'primary' letter, and can't be bothered looking in the FAQ to
> check.
>
> I suggest the following
> > changes:
> >
> <snip suggested over-long designation system>
>
> Currently Q is drone. Some changes in this area would probably be useful
> before too long.

[Matt Clonfero]

In article >, David L.
Pulver > wrote:

>Also, USAF tactical aviation doesn't like calling anything an "attack"
>aircraft so aside from the A-10 (clearly not a real modern fighter,
>being subsonic, even if it can carry a few sidewinders!) we get things
>like F-105 ("It's a fighter because it's got a gun and is supersonic,
>even if it's not used as one"). The Harrier and such get in the way a
>bit, but Sea Harrier at least has an air-intercept radar, while the
>other types are more attack aircraft

Well, in the US, Harriers are designated AV-8 - so attack, not fighter.
In the UK, they are Harrier GR.x (x being the mark number), for ground
attack and recce - so, still not fighters. The Sea harrier is designated
FA.2, since it's got a realistic air combat role.

Aetherem Vincere
Matt
--
To err is human
To forgive is not
Air Force Policy

[Cub Driver]

>Well, in the US, Harriers are designated AV-8 - so attack, not fighter.
>In the UK, they are Harrier GR.x (x being the mark number), for ground
>attack and recce - so, still not fighters. The Sea harrier is designated
>FA.2, since it's got a realistic air combat role.

I think that if the USAF had adopted the harrier, it would have an F
designation, or at the very least F/A. The USAF simply doesn't like to
recognize the concept of an attack aircraft.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Tex Houston]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Well, in the US, Harriers are designated AV-8 - so attack, not fighter.
> >In the UK, they are Harrier GR.x (x being the mark number), for ground
> >attack and recce - so, still not fighters. The Sea harrier is designated
> >FA.2, since it's got a realistic air combat role.
>
> I think that if the USAF had adopted the harrier, it would have an F
> designation, or at the very least F/A. The USAF simply doesn't like to
> recognize the concept of an attack aircraft.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford


With the system used "U.S. Joint Aircraft Designation System of 1962",
faults aside, how does the USAF have this choice?

Regards,

Tex Houston

[Cub Driver]

>With the system used "U.S. Joint Aircraft Designation System of 1962",
>faults aside, how does the USAF have this choice?

By not adopting the aircraft, or by redesigning and redesignating it.

Has the USAF adopted an attack aircraft since the A-10 was rammed down
its throat?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 05:25:11 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>Has the USAF adopted an attack aircraft since the A-10 was rammed down
>its throat?
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford

Difficult to let that urban legend prevail without comment. The A-10
was definitely not rammed down any metaphorical AF throat. It was the
product of a well designed competition between A-9 and A-10 to build
an updated A-1; an airplane with high survivability, close-in
accuracy, heavy payload, and good anti-armor capability. The value of
such an aircraft had been conclusively demonstrated in SEA and the
application for such a type in European NATO Fulda Gap scenarios was
obvious. (The initial deployment to Ben****ers/Woodbridge with six
FOLs in Germany is illustrative.)

Repeat again after me:

1. The USAF recognizes CAS as a mission.
2. The A-10 is a valued aircraft (despite the fact that lots of
fighter pilots think Vipers or Eagles are more glamorous.)
3. Folks who fly or have flown the A-10 like and respect it.
4. It has been very successful over the years.
5. The USAF recognizes CAS as a mission.

Lather, rinse, repeat.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Cub Driver]

>It was the
>product of a well designed competition between A-9 and A-10 to build
>an updated A-1;

Which competition was rammed down the Air Force's throat! Crikey, Ed,
have you looked at Campbell's The Warthog and the Combat Air Support
Debate ?

www.warbirdforum.com/warthog.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:15:34 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>>It was the
>>product of a well designed competition between A-9 and A-10 to build
>>an updated A-1;
>
>Which competition was rammed down the Air Force's throat! Crikey, Ed,
>have you looked at Campbell's The Warthog and the Combat Air Support
>Debate ?

>all the best -- Dan Ford

I'm always reluctant to base an interpretation of a complex issue on a
single revisionist author, particularly one that writes more than 20
years after the events. I recently mentioned to BUFDRVR that
Clodfelter on Linebacker II is not the only opinion as well.

I was active duty during the period of adaptation of the A-10,
including both the design competition and the operational deployment
in Europe, where I was in Hq USAFE. Later, I went through AGOS and
served as ALO to the 2nd Bde, 4th ID where we employed and integrated
the A-10. I also had the opportunity to participate in defensive A/A
training for the A-10 RTU at Davis-Monthan. And, after retirement from
active duty, I worked for Northrop Aircraft Division, where we still
had the A-9 files available for program review.

Who was doing the throat ramming? It certainly wasn't Congress, which
has little clue about operational requirements. Was it the Army? They
have been a co-equal since 1947, so they weren't in a position to ram.
AF recognized a need for a CAS aircraft, an anti-armor platform, a
long-endurance, heavy lifter for battlefield support and a replacement
SAR aircraft. It all came bundled in the A-10.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:47:17 GMT, Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> And, after retirement from
>active duty, I worked for Northrop Aircraft Division, where we still
>had the A-9 files available for program review.
>

Having has access to the paperwork for the A9, how did it rate IYHO ?
Interesting that the otherside went for a similar planform for the Su-25.

greg
--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:27:09 +0000, Greg Hennessy >
wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:47:17 GMT, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
>> And, after retirement from
>>active duty, I worked for Northrop Aircraft Division, where we still
>>had the A-9 files available for program review.
>>
>
>Having has access to the paperwork for the A9, how did it rate IYHO ?
>Interesting that the otherside went for a similar planform for the Su-25.

I didn't have an opportunity to review the fly-off comparisons. I was
primarily involved with training system development as part of the
YF-23 proposal (the RFP required a total package of not only aircraft
but aircrew and maintenance training as well.). I also did PATS
proposal work (Primary Aircrew Training System)--a follow-on to the
T-37. Lots of interactive simulator flying as well. (Hope these
disclosures don't force Dudley to have to initiate action to silence
me with prejudice. ;-) ))

My very humble opinion was that while the company was very innovative
and certainly had the production infrastructure in place for either
A-9, F-17, F-20 or F-23 production, the management was not as tight as
I think was necessary to meet program goals. Did I say that tactfully
enough?? It may have been an impression that only occurred at the
angle that I was viewing the big picture from.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Mary Shafer]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:15:34 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
> >It was the
> >product of a well designed competition between A-9 and A-10 to build
> >an updated A-1;
>
> Which competition was rammed down the Air Force's throat! Crikey, Ed,
> have you looked at Campbell's The Warthog and the Combat Air Support
> Debate ?

I was around at the time and I don't remember this at all. It sure
didn't seem to show up in AvWeek or Flight, at any rate. Nor did I
hear anything from Contractor's Row, which is a hotbed of gossip and
inside news, sometimes inextricably mixed.

I do remember discussion about whether the USAF had enough support
from the Army, as well as comparisons with the USMC, but the USAF
seemed really hot for the new airplane, whichever it was.

For what it's worth, Dryden got the YA-9s after the fly-off. The four
engines went to Ames to power the QSRA eventually and, much later, the
airframes went to be gate guards.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:47:03 GMT, Ed Rasimus > wrote:


>My very humble opinion was that while the company was very innovative
>and certainly had the production infrastructure in place for either
>A-9, F-17, F-20 or F-23 production, the management was not as tight as
>I think was necessary to meet program goals. Did I say that tactfully
>enough??

say no more ;-)


greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

[Cub Driver]

>I'm always reluctant to base an interpretation of a complex issue on a
>single revisionist author, particularly one that writes more than 20
>years after the events

Hardly a revisionist. He was an A-10 driver :)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com