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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:31:41 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:
I have no idea what the F100 fit would have done. I seem to recall that the airframe was aerodynamically limited as far as max speed. That goes with being nicknamed a 'SLUF' I suppose. The real strength of the A-7D was the endurance. While it couldn't go quite as fast as AF types would have preferred, it carried a significant load for a long time. The true significance was demonstrated during Linebacker when they A-7Ds of the 354th TFW out of Korat would takeoff and fly unrefueled to Route Pack V or VI and return. Interesting, obviously something with equivalent legs which can fly 100+kts quicker to/over/from the target is going to be more than just a minor improvement. One is talking about serious potential in two seat variants for wild weasel etc. At issue (from an AF point of view, but not apparently from the USN operator's perspective) was the ability to recover energy quickly when placed on the defensive. A SAM break that took you down to very low altitude, usually with high-G, would squander both kinetic and potential energy. With AB you could regain both fairly rapidly. Without AB you were in a precarious situation. The extra thrust of a more efficient engine might have improved that aspect of A-7 ops. Obviously something to consider if the balloon ever went up in europe. europe. Its an interesting consideration of the road not travelled. Another would be thinking about if the AF had procured single seat F16-Es 1 for 1 instead of 'C's during the 80s. They would have made an interesting compliment to the attack options available during Desert storm and elsewhere. greg -- $ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@' The Following is a true story..... Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:38:27 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote: On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:31:41 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote: The real strength of the A-7D was the endurance. While it couldn't go quite as fast as AF types would have preferred, it carried a significant load for a long time. The true significance was demonstrated during Linebacker when they A-7Ds of the 354th TFW out of Korat would takeoff and fly unrefueled to Route Pack V or VI and return. Interesting, obviously something with equivalent legs which can fly 100+kts quicker to/over/from the target is going to be more than just a minor improvement. One is talking about serious potential in two seat variants for wild weasel etc. While the endurance and range were impressive, the energy available was not. As I indicated below, the survivability in an intense SAM environment was questionable. In fact, in short order during Linebacker II, the A-7s were withheld from "downtown" targets out in the flats of RP VI and used as bomb droppers on "diversionary" targets in RP V and on the western edge of VI. They did get downtown initially, but after the first couple of SAM experiences, they didn't get back to the area. They wouldn't have made a good Weasel. The endurance and range, along with the ordinance carrying capability did, however make them an excellent SAR airplane. They assumed the Sandy mission for North Vietnam strikes very soon after arrival in theater. That didn't take a two seat airplane when the A-1 did it and didn't require two seats with an A-7 either. At issue (from an AF point of view, but not apparently from the USN operator's perspective) was the ability to recover energy quickly when placed on the defensive. A SAM break that took you down to very low altitude, usually with high-G, would squander both kinetic and potential energy. With AB you could regain both fairly rapidly. Without AB you were in a precarious situation. The extra thrust of a more efficient engine might have improved that aspect of A-7 ops. Its an interesting consideration of the road not travelled. Another would be thinking about if the AF had procured single seat F16-Es 1 for 1 instead of 'C's during the 80s. They would have made an interesting compliment to the attack options available during Desert storm and elsewhere. You're unclear here. I assume you mean TWO seat F-16Es instead of Cs? If, I again assume, that would mean a parallel development to the F-15E? Clearly without knowing something about what sort of weapons delivery improvement an F-16E would have over a C, it's difficult to say much. The CCIP delivery of dumb bombs by the F-16 A or C was always exceptional--that's what was used on Isirik I believe. The LANTIRN package for C models makes the airplane pretty good all-wx. And the SEAD capability is acceptable for the C. Are you maybe referring to the crank-wing F-16XL? There you would have gotten more fuel in the big wing for more endurance and more lift capacity. Still, there's little to have recommended going that way rather than the considerably better performance and growth capacity of the F-15E. It seems as though they ran out of targets during Desert Storm long before they ran out of attack options. greg |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
It seems as though they ran out of targets during Desert Storm long
before they ran out of attack options. F-4Gs ended up doing some strike missions, since they were running out of SEAD targets to go after. NMANG A-7s came close to being sent over there to the gulf in late 90 Ron Pilot/Wildland Firefighter |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:45:32 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:
They did get downtown initially, but after the first couple of SAM experiences, they didn't get back to the area. They wouldn't have made a good Weasel. Even with a F100/F110 ? I assume given it size it would also be down to a lack of internal space to put all the electronic gear etc ? The endurance and range, along with the ordinance carrying capability did, however make them an excellent SAR airplane. They assumed the Sandy mission for North Vietnam strikes very soon after arrival in theater. That didn't take a two seat airplane when the A-1 did it and didn't require two seats with an A-7 either. True. You're unclear here. I assume you mean TWO seat F-16Es instead of Cs? If, I again assume, that would mean a parallel development to the F-15E? I meant the XL as you refer to below. Clearly without knowing something about what sort of weapons delivery improvement an F-16E would have over a C, it's difficult to say much. The CCIP delivery of dumb bombs by the F-16 A or C was always exceptional--that's what was used on Isirik I believe. I remember you mentioning this before. Are you maybe referring to the crank-wing F-16XL? There you would have gotten more fuel in the big wing for more endurance and more lift capacity. It was that side of the equation I was thinking about, I believe the advertising went something along the lines of, carry the same load twice the distance when compared to the standard model. greg -- $ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@' The Following is a true story..... Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
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 |