A-4 / A-7 Question

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.

"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.

"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)

"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.

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" 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.

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.