![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:46:27 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote: On that note, anyone got any idea of how much did the A7s long long legs reduce by when fitted with the bigger blower ? The A-7F, Corasair III, Strikefighter, etc. all included an airframe stretch and extra fuel in addition to an F100 or F110. Interesting, I didnt know about the F110 being considered for it. The airframe stretch was to allow the a/c to be supersonic (Mach 1.4 level IIRR), and the extra fuel was to keep the range/endurance in the same ballpark. Any idea of the peformance improvement on the 'lo' part of an attack mission with the F110/F100 ? For instance, here's the proposed Corsair III changes, which was designed to use rebuilt A-7A/A-7B airframes from the Boneyard, although A-7D/Es would be easier to convert: An F110-GE-100, 16,700 lb. mil and 27,600 lb. A/B; A constant-section plug of 29.5" to extend the fuselage around the wing root area; another plug of 7.5" to the aft fuselage to tailor the airframe to the F110 and its remote accessory gearbox. Rear fuselage canted upwards 5 degrees to provide ground clearance for the longer tailpipe. A more sharply-pointed nose cone (see F-8); the original was made blunter to reduce length on carriers. Internal configuration changed to increase fuel capacity. Did the USN have any interest in looking at a turbocharged E model ? greg -- $ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@' The Following is a true story..... Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! =----- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | January 30th 05 04:51 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
A question on Airworthiness Inspection | Dave S | Home Built | 1 | August 10th 04 05:07 AM |
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question | jlauer | Home Built | 7 | November 16th 03 01:51 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |