jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) (10/08/90)
From: jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher)
There is an additional combat aircraft which I have not previously described
in my series of postings on combat aircraft in the Persian Gulf. It is the
A-4 Skyhawk, which participated in the initial fighting during the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait.
The Skyhawk was produced in so many different versions that it is difficult to
keep them all straight. These versions have widely varying capabilities, and it
is impossible to lump them all into a single umbrella description. Each of the
variants must be described separately, which is what I will try to do in this
posting.
Here is a summary of the various variants which have been produced:
A-4A One Wright J65-W-4 turbojet. 2 20-mm cannon in
wing roots. Two external stores racks under wings, one
under the fuselage. Maximum weapons load of 5000 lbs.
Avionics mounted in nose cone.
Top speed: 664 mph at sea level. 8400 lbs empty weight.
20,000 lbs. maximum loaded weight.
Total of 165 built.
A-4B New single-skin rudder with dual hydraulic boost,
strengthened rear fuselage structure, inflight probe-and-
drogue refuelling system, changes in cockpit and gunsight.
One Wright J65-W-16A turbojet, 7800 lb. st.
Capable of carrying the Martin AGM-12 Bullpup air-to-
surface missile.
Several were refurbished and sold to foreign air forces.
Total of 542 built.
A-4C Addition of terrain-clearance radar in a 9-inch longer
nose, autopilot, angle of attack indication system, LABS,
and improved low-level ejector seat. Most were powered
by Wright J-65-W-20 turbojet, 8400 lb. st.
Total of 638 built.
A-4D Designation not used to avoid confusion with pre-1962
designation of A4D.
A-4E One 8500 lb. st. Pratt and Whitney J52-P-6A turbojet.
Improved fuel consumption over J65 produced substantially
increased range. Improved ejector seat. Improved navigation
system (TACAN, Doppler, and radar altimeter). Two additional
stores pylons under outer wing. Up to 8200 lbs. of external
stores could be carried.
In service, many examples were retrofitted with a humped
electronics compartment behind the cockpit. Many also
received the more powerful J52-P-8 of 9300 lb. st.
Some had the straight refuelling probe replaced by the canted
probe of the later A-4M.
Total of 499 built.
Maximum speed: 673 mph at sea level.
Initial climb rate: 5750 ft/min.
Normal range: 1160 miles.
Maximum range: 2525 miles
28 surplus A-4E aircraft were transferred to Israel in 1973
as part of American emergency aid during Yom Kippur war.
TA-4E Two-seat advanced training version of A-4E. 2-1/2 foot longer
fuselage with tandem, two-seat cockpit. Reduced internal fuel
capacity. Zero-zero ejector seats. Two built.
A-4F One 9300 lb. st. Pratt and Whitney J52-P8A, zero-zero ejector
seat, nosewheel steering, wing spoilers, additional avionics
installed in hump compartment atop the fuselage.
Better flak protection.
Total of 147 built. Many were re-engined with the 11,200 lb.
st. J52-P-408 turbojet.
8 ex-US Navy A-4Fs were delivered to Australia.
TA-4F Production version of TA-4E powered by 9300 lb. st. J52-P-8A
turbojet. Total of 238 built. Most were upgraded to TA-4J
standards. A few became EA-4F "electronic agressors", and
23 became OA-4Ms. Two ex-US Navy TA-4Fs were transferred to
the Royal Australian Navy.
EA-4F Electronic countermeasures training aircraft.
A-4G One 9300 lb. st. J52-P-8A turbojet. Version for Royal
Australian Navy. Generally similar to A-4E. 8 built.
Operated for a time from aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne.
Most surviving Australian Skyhawks were sold to New Zealand.
TA-4G Two-seat advanced trainer for Royal Australian Navy. Generally
similar to TA-4F. Two built.
A-4H Specifically designed for Israel's Heyl Ha'Avir to operate from
land bases. Basically similar to the A-4E but powered by
9300 lb. st. J52-P-8A turbojet and fitted with modified square-
tipped vertical tail surface. Ribbon-type drag chute in
canister beneath rear fuselage. Two 30-mm DEFA cannon.
Aircraft latter retrofited in Israel with the humped avionics
compartment and extended tailpipe. Ninety built.
TA-4H Two-seat trainer version of A-4H. Ten built. All delivered
to Israel.
TA-4J Two-seat advanced trainer. Some of the tactical systems are
removed. One 8500 lb. st. J52-P-6 turbojet. Only one 20-mm
cannon was fitted, and often even this was removed.
293 built. Many TA-4F trainers were updated to TA-4J standards.
Will fulfill standard pilot trainer role until replacement by
T-45 Goshawk.
A-4K Version for the Royal New Zealand Air Force. One J52-P-8A
turbojet, 9300 lb. st. Square-tipped fin and rudder. Drag
chute beneath fuselage. 10 built.
TA-4K Two seat advanced training version of A-4K for RNZAF.
A-4KU Version for Kuwait. One 11,200 lb. st. J52-P-408A turbojet.
Square-tipped vertical tail, breaking chute. Generally
similar to A-4M. 30 built.
TA-4KU Two seat trainer version of A-4KU for Kuwait. 6 built.
A-4L Designation given to A-4C taken out of fleet squadron service
and overhauled for use by reserve squadrons. Improved
instrumentation and humped avionics compartment. Equipped
with uprated J65-W-20 of 8400 lb. st.
A-4M Special version for US Marine Corps. 11,200 lb. st.
J52-P-408A turbojet. Enlarged canopy for improved visibility,
doubled ammunition capacity, self-contained electrical engine
starter. Modified refuelling probe angled to starboard to
prevent interference with electronic equipment in the nose.
Square-tipped vertical tail, drag chute. Total of 158 built.
50 percent better climb and 25 percent shorter takeoff run.
13 were transferred to Israel, where they were brought up
to A-4N standards. Most Marine Corps A-4Ms were retrofitted
with heads up display and a Hughes ARBS (Angle/Rate Bombing
System) featuring television and laser tracking modes.
APG-53A terrain-clearance radar, ASN-41 inertial navigation
system, and Elliot 546 heads-up display.
Maximum speed: 670 mph at sea level.
Initial climb rate: 8440 ft/min.
Maximum fery range: 2055 miles (three external tanks)
Can carry most of the Marine Corps inventory of weapons,
including 250-lb and 500-lb bombs, gun pods, torpedoes, and
Zuni and Mighty Mouses rocket packs.
Various ECM pods can be attached to complement the internal
systems.
Typical Marine Corps close-support mission involves carrying
4000 lbs of ordinance a distance of 150 miles, including
loiter time.
13 A-4Ms were delivered to Israel in 1973 as part of American
emergency aid during the Yom Kippur War.
OA-4M Designation given to 23 TA-4Fs modified to serve with the
Marine Corps in the tactical forward air coordinator role.
Avionics in hump, nose and fin caps, TACAN, ECM, additional
navigational and communications equipment.
A-4N Version for Israel. Retained basic airframe and engine of
A-4M. New navigation/weapons delivery system, including a Lear
Siegler digital computer, Singer-Kearfott inertial platform,
Elliot heads up display. Two 30-mm DEFA cannon.
ABRS laser seeker under nose, APN--153(V) mapping radar,
radar altimeter, rear warning radar detector.
Can carry the AIM-9 Sidewiner and Raphael Shafrir air-to-air
missiles, unguided rocket packs, AGM-62A Walleye TV-guided
glide bomb, IAI Gabriel III/AS air-to-surface missile, AGM-65
Maverick, AGM-12 Bullpup, Mk 82 Snakeye retarded bomb, plus
various varieties of iron bombs.
117 built.
A-4P 75 Ex-US Navy A-4Bs refurbished and delivered to Fuerza Aerea
Argentina. Most were equipped with the Ferranit D126R Isis
lead-computing weapons sight.
A-4PTM Version for Royal Malaysian Air Force. 34 A-4C and A-4M surplus
to US Navy requirements were refurbished and fitted with
TACAN, a new navigation/communication system, attitude heading
system, lead computing sight, and improved ejector seat.
PTM stands for "Peculiar to Malaysia".
All of the A-4PTMs can carry and fire the AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM.
Approximately 20 of the A-4 PTMs have the capability of
launching the AGM-65 Maverick surface-to-air missile.
TA-4PTM Six A-4C/A-4L airframes modified as two-seaters and transferred
to Malaysia.
A-4Q Designation given to 16 refurbished A-4Bs acquired by Comando de
Aviacion Naval Argentina in 1971 and based aboard the carrier 25
de Mayo.
A-4S Surplus A-4Bs extensively modified and transferred to Singapore.
Solid state electronics for communications, radio, and
navigation systems. Redesign of cockpit. Installation of
A-4M-type angled flight refuelling probe. Drag chute in
canister beneath rear fuselage. 2 30-mm Aden cannon. 40
aircraft were modified.
APQ-145 air/ground mapping and ranging radar. Doppler
navigation radar. Ferranti ISIS lead-computing gunsight
for gunnery and air-ground weapons delivery.
Some modified by Singapore Aircraft Industries with new
avionics and sturdier underwing pylons and given the
A-4S-1 designation.
TA-4S Two-seat training version of Skyhawk for Singapore. Modified
from surplus A-4B airframes. Separate tandem cockpits and
canopies for the two crew members.
Remarks:
. Total of 2960 Skyhawks built. Longest continuous manufacturing
run of any US military aircraft (1954-1979).
. Simple, reliable, easy to maintain. Its small size and high
degree of maneuverability make it useful in air-to-air combat,
even against more modern aircraft with twice its maximum speed.
. No wing folding mechanism.
. Provided the backbone of US Navy carrier-based striking power
during the early stages of the Vietnam War.
. Most dangerous missions flown by A-4 over North Vietnam were
flak and defensive missile suppression. For these missions, armed
with Shrike anti-radiation meissiles and cluster bombs.
. Maneuverability of Skyhawk was a distinct asset when it encountered
MiGs over North Vietnam.
. Initially, attacks on North Vietnamese targets were made at low
level to avoid detection by radar. However, the required zoom before
bomb release resulted in an unacceptable loss of speed and
maneuverability. Later, targets were approached at high altitude
and high speed, and were bombed while in a shallow dive. This
technique proved to give better bombing accuracy.
. The early SA-2 surface-to-air missiles operated by the North
Vietnamese were relatively easy for the Skyhawk to dodge, provided
its pilot saw them coming. It was usually the one you didn't see
that got you.
. Last US Navy carrier-based Skyhawk squadrons were phased out in 1975,
when they were replaced in service by the LTV A-7 Corsair II.
Single-seat Skyhawks remained in service with Navy reserve units
until the late 1970s. By the mid 1980s, only a few Skyhawks remained
with agressor training units. Two-seat training versions still
remain in service.
. Marine Corps A-4Ms remain in service.
. Maneuverability of Skyhawk lead to its use as an "agressor" aircraft
for air combat training.
. During the Falkland/Malvinas war between Argentina and Britain,
A-4P and A-4Q Skyhawks operated by both Argentine air force and navy
pilots flew many gallant attacks against Royal Navy ships. Often,
these aircraft were flown to the limits of their range. Credited with
sinking the HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, and HMS Coventry, and damaging
several others. Argentine bombs often failed to explode when they
struck British ships (the bombs were designed for use against land
targets); otherwise losses of Royal Navy ships might have been even
higher. Losses of Argentine Skyhawks were appalling. Sea
Harriers, surface-to-air missiles, and operational accidents
accounted for 22 Argentine Skyhawks destroyed.
. During Yom Kippur war of 1973, provided most of the Israeli short-
range striking power on the Sinai and Golan Heights fronts. Losses
to ground fire and surface-to-air missiles were very high, especially
during the first few days of the war. The situation improved only
after Israel was able to neutralize most of the enemy missiles and
radar-guided flak, and Skyhawk losses began to decline. Israeli
Skyhawks were victorious in several air-to-air encounters with enemy
fighters.
. Israeli Skyhawks have been upgraded over the years, notably by the
addition of extended jet tailpipes for infra-red suppression and by
the provision of various ECM systems. In addition, some have been
fitted with locally-installed maneuver flaps under the wing.
. Skyhawks continue in service with the Heyl Ha'Avir, and still fly
occasional retaliatory strikes against guerilla bases in Lebanon.
. Major upgrading program for New Zealand Skyhawks initiated in the mid
1980s, with installation of Westinghouse APG-66NZ radar optimized for
maritime search and track, Ferranti heads-up display, HOTAS (hands-on
throttle-and-stick) control, radar warning receiver, and chaff/flare
dispenser.
. A batch of refurbished Skyhawks were sold by Israel to Indonesia.
. Proposal by Singapore Aircraft Industries to upgrade A-4S Skyhawk
with General Electric F404-GE-100D turbofan.
. During Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the most determined resistance
was provided by the Kuwaiti A-4KM Skyhawks. They were not on alert
at the time of the Iraqi invasion. In spite of the runway being
cratered by Iraqi air strikes, they were nonetheless able to mount
several bombing and strafing attacks on advancing Iraqi forces.
Kuwaiti sources claim that their air and ground forces destroyed
21 Iraqi MiG aircraft and 15 Iraqi helicopters during the invasion.
Resistance was ultimately futile, and when the Bayan Palace finally
fell, the surviving Kuwaiti Skyhawks fled to neighboring countries.
References:
McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Since 1920, Rene Francillon, Naval
Institute Press, 1988.
The World's Great Attack Aircraft Aircraft, Gallery Books, 1988.
Modern Air Combat, Bill Gunston, Mike Spick, Crescent, 1983.
Various issues of Aviation Week
Joe Baugher *************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories * "Bones!!!!!! " *
200 Park Plaza * "He's dead, Jim." *
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7050 *************************************
(708) 713 4548
ihlpm!jfb
jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com
Who, me? Speak for AT&T? Surely you jest! dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) (10/09/90)
From: dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) Wow. It sounds like an improved version would be a candidate for the close air support mission they keep trying to use the F-16 for. Their top speeds ought to be closer at sea level than at high altitudes... Phil Fraering dlbres10@pc.usl.edu
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (10/10/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> The A-4 Skyhawk was just recently removed from its last active squadron in the US Military. The USMC was the last service to use it. It will be used in the USMCR until the AV-8B and F-18D purchases are complete. It would be very difficult for us to rely on the A-4 for air support considering we own less than 100 of them. All the rest have been sold to other nations and since they are first line combat aircraft for them, I doubt they'd give them back. Besides, why get rid of the A-10 in the first place? The A-10 is the only Western aircraft designed from the beginning specifically with the CAS mission as its sole purpose. Even though the A-10's never seen actual combat, it has destroyed more tanks (M-47/M-48 Targets) than any other weapon system in history. So what if it's ugly, so what if it's slow; it's the best aircraft for the mission. Allan [mod.note: Claiming to have destroyed more tanks than any other weapon system in history is a pretty tall claim. I'm sure the Ju 87 Stuka, 8.8cm FlAK 18/36/37, and PzKw IV could all make strong claims on that title, as well. Can someone supply numbers to substantiate this ? - Bill ] ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIDN 3/C (PLCJR) Allan Bourdius, Carnegie Mellon University NROTC "Retreat hell! We just got here!" ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu The opinons expressed in this letter/posting do not, nor are in any way intended to, represent the official policies and positions of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, the United States Marine Corps or the United States Navy; so there!
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/10/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) >Wow. It sounds like an improved version would be a candidate for the >close air support mission they keep trying to use the F-16 for. Their >top speeds ought to be closer at sea level than at high altitudes... The Skyhawk, unfortunately, is out of production. However, a comparable aircraft is still in production: current Harrier capabilities are roughly equivalent to the later Skyhawks, quite aside from the Harrier's more unusual abilities. -- Imagine life with OS/360 the standard | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology operating system. Now think about X. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/10/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) > . Israeli Skyhawks have been upgraded over the years, notably by the > addition of extended jet tailpipes for infra-red suppression ... Minor quibble: the extended tailpipes don't do a lot to suppress IR emissions, as it is pretty hard to do much about a jet engine's IR, especially against modern heat-seekers (which home on the exhaust, not the hot engine parts). The extended tailpipes come from experience with shoulder-launched-SAM hits: those simple little missiles tend to hit in the tailpipe area, and they don't have a very big warhead, so if the tailpipe is nice and long, all they do is dent the sheet metal. -- Imagine life with OS/360 the standard | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology operating system. Now think about X. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
jabusch@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (John Jabusch) (10/11/90)
From: jabusch@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (John Jabusch) >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >>From: dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) >>Wow. It sounds like an improved version would be a candidate for the >>close air support mission they keep trying to use the F-16 for. Their >>top speeds ought to be closer at sea level than at high altitudes... >The Skyhawk, unfortunately, is out of production. However, a comparable >aircraft is still in production: current Harrier capabilities are roughly >equivalent to the later Skyhawks, quite aside from the Harrier's more >unusual abilities. >-- >Imagine life with OS/360 the standard | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >operating system. Now think about X. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry Beg to differ... the A-4 Skyhawk is still produced in Singapore, with new avionics and engines, and some underlying airframe mods, and will continue to be produced for quite some time. This is not sufficient for DoD procurement criteria, so it won't be found in the US inventory. Ces't la Vie! Any pilot who's flown both the A-4 and the Harrier will argue with your second point. The Harrier is far from being as agile at the Skyhawk, and has a smaller payload. John W. Jabusch INTERNET: jabusch@cerl.cecer.army.mil MILNET: jabusch@osiris.arpa US Mail: USA CERL, PO Box 4005 Newmark Drive, Champaign, Il 61824-4005 Voice/Phone: Commercial (217) 352-6511 -- John W. Jabusch INTERNET: jabusch@cerl.cecer.army.mil MILNET: jabusch@osiris.arpa US Mail: USA CERL, PO Box 4005 Newmark Drive, Champaign, Il 61824-4005 Voice/Phone: Commercial (217) 352-6511
jabusch@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (John Jabusch) (10/11/90)
From: jabusch@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (John Jabusch) >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >>From: jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) >> . Israeli Skyhawks have been upgraded over the years, notably by the >> addition of extended jet tailpipes for infra-red suppression ... >Minor quibble: the extended tailpipes don't do a lot to suppress IR >emissions, as it is pretty hard to do much about a jet engine's IR, >especially against modern heat-seekers (which home on the exhaust, not >the hot engine parts). The extended tailpipes come from experience >with shoulder-launched-SAM hits: those simple little missiles tend >to hit in the tailpipe area, and they don't have a very big warhead, >so if the tailpipe is nice and long, all they do is dent the sheet >metal. Most of the extended tailpipes have an external open cowling which deflects cooler air from the airstream into the exhaust. As a result of the dynamics, a hot spot is created behind the jet, but not right at the end of the pipe. In some cases, for example the A-7's later mods, the hot spot is more than a few feet back! Enough in practise to alter the effects of even a Sidewinder or Sparrow, which direct most of their blasts sideways. Anyway, as you pointed out, the simple little missiles from shoulder- launched SAMs are most effected by this. Of course, this is the primary threat for a close-support fighter in today's military, since they are frequently too close to the mud for a larger unit to track effectively. If they can suppress small-SAM effects, they can stay lower longer, and avoid the large SAM sites and their tracking systems. John W. Jabusch INTERNET: jabusch@cerl.cecer.army.mil MILNET: jabusch@osiris.arpa US Mail: USA CERL, PO Box 4005 Newmark Drive, Champaign, Il 61824-4005 Voice/Phone: Commercial (217) 352-6511 -- John W. Jabusch INTERNET: jabusch@cerl.cecer.army.mil MILNET: jabusch@osiris.arpa US Mail: USA CERL, PO Box 4005 Newmark Drive, Champaign, Il 61824-4005 Voice/Phone: Commercial (217) 352-6511
jabusch@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (John Jabusch) (10/11/90)
From: jabusch@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (John Jabusch) jfb@ihlpm.att.com (Joseph F Baugher) writes: > A-4E One 8500 lb. st. Pratt and Whitney J52-P-6A turbojet. I was in the USMC, serving as I&I (Instructor/Inspector) Staff with the MARTD (Marine Air Reserve Training Detachment) at NAS Memphis from 1976 through 1980. I kept in touch with many of the reserves there up till around 1986. Our squadron, flew A-4Es and a TA-4J. Very little difference in the avionics and performance, other than expected. Our pilots were mostly reserves, who loved the A-4s. Most of them had experience in at least one other Navy/Marine Corps airframe, and preferred the A-4. One called it the "go-kart of the sky" in reference to its maneuverability and flyability. We had one pilot who flew in from California just to be in the A-4. A definite favorite with them! We had the Martin-Baker latest/greatest seats, APG-53 terrain scanning system, and a lot of other nice features. The APG-53 was so unrealiable and expensive to maintain that we removed it from all the aircraft and didn't use it at all. All the airframes we owned had the "biscuits", large flat cans full of various avionics components in the nose, replaced by newer systems as part of the standard upgrade package. Newer avionics included the APX-72 (IFF transponders), associated KIR-1A (IFF Mode 4 computer), APN-157 TACAN (I think that number is correct), and the UHF was replaced, but I can't remember the new designation. Overall, a pretty good avionics package. UHF repair was manpower-intensive - each stage, some 5 or 6, of the IF and RF portions had variable tuned capacitors, which look like large disks with flat spokes and no outer rims. Each spoke is tuned by manual adjustment with a ceramic tool, and the procedure takes several hours! When you put the case on and pressurize it, it goes off frequency again! The TACAN was prone to immediate failure due to inadequate warm-up. A trasmitter transistor bank in it _had_ to be allowed warmup time (control box swith in "Standby" position) of five minutes, or the entire bank would blow when place in transmit mode. No internal override, and with the occasional overly-efficient checklist completion, a pilot would blow the TACAN and down the aircraft. (We added two checklist steps - mark time at fire-up, insure that five minutes had passed since fire-up). The "turtle-back" or hump contained DECM (ALQ-___ - two large heavy boxes!) and various small components. Of course, there were also some antenna mods to the A-4Es to allow that. APN-141 Radar Altimeters were part of the new package as well, but also very unreliable as avionics go. The ECM and Krypto packages were seldom flown, due to cost of maintenance if failure occurred, and lack of need. Doppler was the APN-153, if I remember correctly. Calibration on this puppy was a real bear! Gyros and loft-bombing support came from the AN/AJB3A rate gyro system (Hughes?), and only the flight computer and autopilot systems remained as old electrical systems. Weapons: 250 & 500 lb GP HEX, Shrike, Bullpup, inboard 20mm > A-4M Special version for US Marine Corps. 11,200 lb. st. VA-124, the old Corsair-based "Black Sheep" squadron once led by Pappy Boyington, now flies the A-4M (or did in 1987). Very impressive aircraft still today. The Blue Angels were flying A-4s up until the Hornets became common in the fleet, which took a few years (the first F/A-18 squadron began forming in the planning stage in 1976). John W. Jabusch INTERNET: jabusch@cerl.cecer.army.mil MILNET: jabusch@osiris.arpa US Mail: USA CERL, PO Box 4005 Newmark Drive, Champaign, Il 61824-4005 Voice/Phone: Commercial (217) 352-6511 -- John W. Jabusch INTERNET: jabusch@cerl.cecer.army.mil MILNET: jabusch@osiris.arpa US Mail: USA CERL, PO Box 4005 Newmark Drive, Champaign, Il 61824-4005 Voice/Phone: Commercial (217) 352-6511
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) (10/11/90)
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy) In article <1990Oct10.000344.29709@cbnews.att.com> ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: >Besides, why get rid of the A-10 in the first place? The A-10 is the >only Western aircraft designed from the beginning specifically with the >CAS mission as its sole purpose. Even though the A-10's never seen >actual combat, it has destroyed more tanks (M-47/M-48 Targets) than any >other weapon system in history. So what if it's ugly, so what if it's >slow; it's the best aircraft for the mission. >[mod.note: Claiming to have destroyed more tanks than any other >weapon system in history is a pretty tall claim. I'm sure the Ju 87 >Stuka, 8.8cm FlAK 18/36/37, and PzKw IV could all make strong claims on >that title, as well. Can someone supply numbers to substantiate this ? >- Bill ] Since Hans Ulrich Rudel is recorded as having destroyed over 500 tanks (and one battleship, described by the Russians as "slightly damaged and later raised" -- i.e., off the bottom where it sank) _himself_ while flying a Stuka during WWII, I think that the Ju 87 would most likely take top honors as a tank destroyer among aircraft. Not having hard data on how many tanks have been destroyed by A-10 training and exhibition flights, I'm not sure whether Rudel might not be able to beat the A-10's record all by himself. Sean Malloy | "The Crystal Wind is the Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | Storm, and the Storm is Data, San Diego, CA 92152-6800 | and the Data is Life." malloy@nprdc.navy.mil | -- _Emerald Eyes_, D.K. Moran
zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove) (10/11/90)
From: zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove) In article <1990Oct10.000344.29709@cbnews.att.com> ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: >Besides, why get rid of the A-10 in the first place? The A-10 is the >only Western aircraft designed from the beginning specifically with the >CAS mission as its sole purpose. Even though the A-10's never seen >actual combat, it has destroyed more tanks (M-47/M-48 Targets) than any >other weapon system in history. So what if it's ugly, so what if it's >slow; it's the best aircraft for the mission. I believe the A-10 has seen some combat during the Invasion of Grenada. I am pretty sure I remember seeing television shots of it making raid on that island from Barbados. The again I could be wrong. Dr. Strangelove -- Dr. Strangelove "People in high places may defend you, U.Wisconsin Milwaukee but son you better hope they keep the peace." Major: Political Science Defenders of the Flag- Bruce Hornsby Why that Alias? From the Movie Dr. Strangelove.
pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) (10/15/90)
From: pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) This could be legend only, but I dimly recall the A-4 as one of the few (perhaps last?) aircraft design projects to equal or surpass the design/mission specs without going over budget. It was bang on the money and I believe the designers were accused of lying when they claimed they could deliver such performance at the stated price. Can anyone confirm this? It would be interesting to know if any more\ modern designs can rival this. Perry Morrison
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/15/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: jabusch@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (John Jabusch) >Beg to differ... the A-4 Skyhawk is still produced in Singapore, with >new avionics and engines, and some underlying airframe mods, and will >continue to be produced for quite some time... Um, what do you mean by "produced"? The Singapore folks are *refitting* existing Skyhawks, not building new ones. The Douglas production line closed permanently some time ago, and there has never been any other. >Any pilot who's flown both the A-4 and the Harrier will argue with your >second point. The Harrier is far from being as agile at the Skyhawk, >and has a smaller payload. Agility I can't comment on. As for payload, you have to be careful which version you are comparing; *current* Harriers (AV-8B) do indeed have payload capacity similar to that of late-model Skyhawks, last I looked. (And the early Harriers are comparable to the early Skyhawks.) -- "...the i860 is a wonderful source | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology of thesis topics." --Preston Briggs | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
clay@swbatl.sbc.com (Patrick Clay - 529-7760) (10/15/90)
From: clay@swbatl.sbc.com (Patrick Clay - 529-7760) In article <1990Oct11.050817.29127@cbnews.att.com> jabusch@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (John Jabusch) writes: >VA-124, the old Corsair-based "Black Sheep" squadron once led by Pappy >Boyington, now flies the A-4M (or did in 1987). Very impressive aircraft >still today. The Blue Angels were flying A-4s up until the Hornets became >common in the fleet, which took a few years (the first F/A-18 squadron >began forming in the planning stage in 1976). > I got to see a representative of the Black Sheep "show his stuff" at an air show this past summer--they now fly the AV-8 Harrier, which I guess is the Marine's choice for ground support these days. --Patrick Clay -- clay@swbatl: Patrick Clay 550 Maryville Centre Drive Ste. 400 St. Louis, MO 63141 (314)-529-7760
v059l49z@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) (10/16/90)
From: v059l49z@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) In article <1990Oct15.033730.12655@cbnews.att.com>, pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) writes... >This could be legend only, but I dimly recall the A-4 as one of the >few (perhaps last?) aircraft design projects to equal or surpass the >design/mission specs without going over budget. It was bang on the money >and I believe the designers were accused of lying when they claimed they >could deliver such performance at the stated price. The A-4 was built at about HALF the maximum weight specified by the Navy. Because of it's small size, a wing-folding system was omitted from the design because it wasn't felt that it was needed. The weight was kept down by not installing things like radar and other electronic equipment. In later models, such equipment went into the "hump" visible behind the cockpit. During the Bay of Pigs operation, A-4's (among other planes) flew over Cuba to monitor what was happening. The only maps they had on board were ESSO (Exxon) road maps! Kind of hard to imagine today a plane for the military that DIDN'T have problems with its weight! Paul
jabusch@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (John Jabusch) (10/16/90)
From: jabusch@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (John Jabusch) henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >Um, what do you mean by "produced"? The Singapore folks are *refitting* >existing Skyhawks, not building new ones. The Douglas production line >closed permanently some time ago, and there has never been any other. Hmmm. I can't recall the source - I read too much stuff. However, I would swear the most recent article I read on this implied they were actually producing new airframes. I, too, understood this to originally be a refit process. Perhaps I have read too much into the text. Now, where was that article? -- John W. Jabusch US Army Construction INTERNET: jabusch@cerl.cecer.army.mil Engineering Resesarch Lab MILNET: jabusch@osiris.arpa Champaign, IL
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/16/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) >This could be legend only, but I dimly recall the A-4 as one of the >few (perhaps last?) aircraft design projects to equal or surpass the >design/mission specs without going over budget. It was bang on the money >and I believe the designers were accused of lying when they claimed they >could deliver such performance at the stated price. Ed Heinemann, Douglas's chief designer, was accused not only of lying but of insanity. The original specs -- which at least one other major company rejected as impractical -- were for a 30,000lb aircraft, while Heinemann proposed to meet them at 15,000lb. He did it, on time and on budget. As far as I know, this has never been equalled before or since. The closest similar performance was Heinemann's previous effort, the A-3 Skywarrier strategic bomber, which others rejected at 100,000lbs and he brought in successfully at 68,000lbs (he had incentive -- the bigger number assumed operation from a supercarrier, and Heinemann correctly believed that the then-current supercarrier project would be cancelled, so he had to make his bomber operate off existing carriers). -- "...the i860 is a wonderful source | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology of thesis topics." --Preston Briggs | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
ron@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (Ron Miller) (10/19/90)
From: ron@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (Ron Miller) Re: A-4 lore >Henry Spencer: > Ed Heinemann, Douglas's chief designer, was accused not only of lying but > of insanity. The original specs -- which at least one other major > company rejected as impractical -- were for a 30,000lb aircraft, while > Heinemann proposed to meet them at 15,000lb. He did it, on time and on > budget. As far as I know, this has never been equalled before or since. > He used some really creative approaches too. For example, the turbine oiling system in the A-4A (?) was a TOTAL LOSS system! Saves on system weight if it doesn't have to be recirculated! Leading edge slats are free-deploying (watch them slam back on catapault launch on some old TV footage sometime) based on AOA. No actuators - no actuator weight. (The Blue Angels had their slats secured to ensure no unpredictability in flight.....) The aircraft is a great example of creative ways to meet a mission reqt. without following the conventional approach thru extrapolating other solutions to similar problems. Ron Miller (got a ride in a TA-4 once :-)
phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) (10/24/90)
From: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) In article <1990Oct11.050817.29127@cbnews.att.com> jabusch@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (John Jabusch) writes: >TThe Blue Angels were flying A-4s up until the Hornets became >common in the fleet, which took a few years (the first F/A-18 squadron >began forming in the planning stage in 1976). In the early 80's I was fortunate enough to work within a few hundred yards of the runway and Moffett Field, getting multiple chances to watch the BA's practice and perform. They switched to the F/A-18's around 1986. It's My Humble Opinion that the F-4's were the better aerobatic demo planes. They were far nimbler than the F/A-18's and seemed to get closer together. And they could _land_ in formation, something the larger planes have to do one at a time, at least at Moffett's runway. Obviously, the group has to fly current aircraft, but it's too bad they couldn't find something smaller. -- | phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG | Phil Gustafson | {ames|pyramid|vsi1}!zorch!phil | UNIX/Graphics Consultant | sgi!gsi!phil | 1550 Martin Ave., San Jose CA 95126 | phil@gsi | 408/286-1749
raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) (10/24/90)
From: raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) I certainly that Ed Heinemann is creative, but many of the features on A-4 just reflects sound practical engineering design. Total loss lubrication is probably the very first lubrication method, but his acute analysis of the trade-off between extra oil vs extra plumbing showed his good enginnering sense. The external ribs for the rudder, a trade mark of the A-4, is another case in point. As for the slats, they are just simply brillant. Just call me `Man'. "And why take ye thought for " -- Matt. 6:28 raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu
phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) (10/24/90)
From: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) In article <1990Oct10.000344.29709@cbnews.att.com> ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: > >Besides, why get rid of the A-10 in the first place? I don't think anyone has mentioned Fighter Pilot Syndrome. Fighter pilots believe to a man that their planes must be as fast as possible, as pretty as possible, and as noisy as possible. The A-10 loses on at least the first two requirements. And fighter pilots grow up to be generals, and generals pick the planes for the next generation of fighter pilots. I considered putting a smiley on this. If I did, it would be for the tone, not the opinion. -- | phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG | Phil Gustafson | {ames|pyramid|vsi1}!zorch!phil | UNIX/Graphics Consultant | sgi!gsi!phil | 1550 Martin Ave., San Jose CA 95126 | phil@gsi | 408/286-1749
adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) (10/24/90)
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk> In article <1990Oct11.050750.29021@cbnews.att.com> jabusch@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (John Jabusch) writes: > >>From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) > >>The Skyhawk, unfortunately, is out of production. However, a comparable >>aircraft is still in production: current Harrier capabilities are roughly >>equivalent to the later Skyhawks, quite aside from the Harrier's more >>unusual abilities. > ... >Any pilot who's flown both the A-4 and the Harrier will argue with your >second point. The Harrier is far from being as agile at the Skyhawk, >and has a smaller payload. I can't compare the agility of the Skyhawk and the Harrier, except to say that I'd like to see a Skyhawk come to a stop, fly backwards a little, then continue forwards on its way. The old Harrier (known to America as the AV-8A) has a smaller payload than the late type Skyhawks, but is slightly faster. The Skyhawk has a longer range. However, Henry said "current Harrier", which I assume means the AV-8B, or Harrier GR 5 over here. That one can carry up to 9000 lbs of payload, about the same as the best Skyhawks, and is faster still. It's still a bit short on range, though; but in-flight refuelling can help overcome that problem. The Skyhawk is probably cheaper than the Harrier, but since when has that influenced anything? :-) "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/25/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) >... The external ribs for the rudder, >a trade mark of the A-4, is another case in point. Actually, this is one of the two or three things Heinemann is embarrassed about. The Skyhawk ran into two or three minor problems during development, hasty fixes were thrown in to meet deadlines, and there was never a chance to go back and tidy them up properly. The externally-ribbed rudder was one of them; that improvised-looking bulge above the tailpipe is another. -- The type syntax for C is essentially | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology unparsable. --Rob Pike | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
na0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nicholas G. Alexander) (10/26/90)
From: "Nicholas G. Alexander" <na0u+@andrew.cmu.edu>
I did a research paper on this two years ago, in my sophomore year. Of
high school. (Yeah, I know.) So the information here may be a little
outdated. But I believe that the information I gathered is valid still.
Sources were various books about the air war in vietnam and two
articles in AIRMAN, the Air Force magazine.
The A-10 while great at its job, is old. The warthog could probably
hold its own for a couple more years, but eventually age and maintanence
costs would pull them out of the air before ground fire ever got a
chance.
So the DoD decided to do research on what kind of aircraft they
wanted to replace the A-10. Slow and well armored, or quick but
vulnerable?
Then they tried to decide who would have control of the aircraft.
The army, who called the things in, or the Air Force, who has cart
blanche on aircraft. After a battle, the Air Force won.
Things went downhill from there. The "flyboy syndrome" was never
more evident.
The army requested, nay, begged for another well armored, relatively
slow aircraft that could haul lots of ordinance, stay on station for
long periods, and plant the munitions it carried accurately. From what
I have read, the army established in Vietnam that high speed jets were
not the best option for CAS. There were often problems with the use of
F-4's as CAS, because the ordinance didn't go where it was supposed to.
The Air Force didn't like that at all. Slow aircraft aren't
romantic. Niether, for that matter, is dropping bombs on enemy troops.
So the Air Force decided that they would make the job more "liveable" by
trying to force a slightly modified version of the F-16 into the role.
The theory was that the A-16 would zip in and out so fast it couldn't be
hit.
There are a couple of problems with this theory. First of all,
"zipping in and out" does not lend itself to accurate ordinance
placement. Secondly, no matter how fast you go through, the stuff
flying about in the air is going to cause damage. With the A-16, that
damage is more than likely to be to a critical componet.
On the surface, there appear to be financial advantages to using the
F-16. Costs would go down because you are not making a new aircraft
from scratch. But what good is cutting costs if you end up killing your
men when it counts, because the aircraft couldn't defend the grunts or
itself? A
So what you've got now is a big mess. The A-10 is near the end of
its stint. The army is not happy with what is being offered, and the
Air Force is not listening to their complaints. This has turned into a
political battle instead of an effort to find an aircraft that will fit
its role. The reasons for searching for a replacement for the A-10 are
becoming increasingly valid. However, the reasons for picking it's
replacement are not.
Nick Alexander
Freshman, Carnegie Mellon & #1 Air Force Bratmurf@decwrl.dec.com (Colin Murphy) (10/26/90)
From: daver!cypress!murf@decwrl.dec.com (Colin Murphy) In article <1990Oct22.035428.17147@cbnews.att.com>, raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) writes: > > > From: raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) > I certainly that Ed Heinemann is creative, but many of the features > > As for the slats, they are just simply brillant. > I believe that Willy Messerschmidt's Me-109's had self deploying leading edge slats, obviously before the A-4 did. I assume Ed knew about them. This does not detract from the design accomplishment embodied in the A-4, the list of Ed Heinemann's aircraft, and their range of types is almost unbelievable. Colin Murphy - ROSS Technology, Inc, daver!cypress!murf - (408) 943-2887
military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (10/29/90)
From: p14.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org!Dan.Daetwyler (Dan Daetwyler) PG> And fighter pilots grow up to be generals, and generals pick the planes PG> for the next generation of fighter pilots. PG> I considered putting a smiley on this. If I did, it would be for the PG> tone, not the opinion. PG> --
gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) (10/29/90)
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) In article <1990Oct26.020053.25883@cbnews.att.com> na0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nicholas G. Alexander) writes: > >The A-10 while great at its job, is old. The warthog could probably >hold its own for a couple more years, but eventually age and maintanence >costs would pull them out of the air before ground fire ever got a >chance. > > So the DoD decided to do research on what kind of aircraft they >wanted to replace the A-10. Slow and well armored, or quick but >vulnerable? The DoD ignores the most logical action which is to continue the A-10 production line. Ten penny nails are an old design, but as long as we continue to make new ones, they do the job they were designed for well. I've seen nothing that is significantly better at CAS than the A-10 so the logical course is to continue to produce the A-10. Gary
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (10/29/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >So what you've got now is a big mess. The A-10 is near the end of >its stint. The army is not happy with what is being offered, and the >Air Force is not listening to their complaints. This has turned into a >political battle instead of an effort to find an aircraft that will fit >its role. The reasons for searching for a replacement for the A-10 are >becoming increasingly valid. However, the reasons for picking it's >replacement are not. All the more reason to pick an existing, *adequate* CAS aircraft to replace it that is already in the inventory, i.e. the AV-8B Harrier II. Unfortunately, the USAF suffers from NIH (not invented here) syndrome even worse than the Army. The Marines are lucky we don't. If we did, we'd hardly have any weapons. The M249 SAW, the SMAW, the AV-8, the Mastiff RPV, and the Reactive Armor for our M60's all were originally made elsewhere. Allan ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIDN 3/C (PLCJR) Allan Bourdius, Carnegie Mellon University NROTC "Retreat hell! We just got here!" ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu The opinons expressed in this letter/posting do not, nor are in any way intended to, represent the official policies and positions of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, the United States Marine Corps or the United States Navy; so there!
raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) (10/29/90)
From: raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) The rudder ribs were indeed a quick fix. All other internal rib designs suffered aerodynamic problems probably due to excess thickness. The final design has a thin section excluding the ribs. It works beautifully and never gave any problem. So why would Ed Heinmann be embrassed? Does Mr. Spencer have sources to indicate it was so? Just call me `Man'. "And why take ye thought for " -- Matt. 6:28 raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu
raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) (10/29/90)
From: raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) I think Handley Page/De Havilland held the patent for automatic slats. This was pre-war. Aircraft designers do not have to be inventors to be brilliant. Just call me `Man'. "And why take ye thought for " -- Matt. 6:28 raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/30/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: raymond%europa@uunet.UU.NET (Raymond Man) >The rudder ribs were indeed a quick fix. All other internal rib designs >suffered aerodynamic problems probably due to excess thickness. The >final design has a thin section excluding the ribs. It works beautifully >and never gave any problem. So why would Ed Heinmann be embrassed? Presumably because it has disadvantages in other ways, or it simply offends his sense of esthetics. He is on record as being embarrassed about it. >Does Mr. Spencer have sources to indicate it was so? His autobiography, for one. (Precise reference including ISBN on request -- the book is at home.) -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (11/05/90)
From: p14.f7.n391.z8.fidonet.org!Dan.Daetwyler (Dan Daetwyler) GC> The DoD ignores the most logical action which is to continue the A-10 GC> production line. Ten penny nails are an old design, but as long as we GC> continue to make new ones, they do the job they were designed for well. GC> I've seen nothing that is significantly better at CAS than the A-10 GC> so the logical course is to continue to produce the A-10. Sigh. I always liked the A-10, but the above statement convinces me that they're not long for this world. DoD and "logical" in the same paragraph.... Tsk, Tsk!! D Squared
rjn@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (Bob Niland) (11/06/90)
From: Bob Niland <rjn@hpfcso.fc.hp.com>
/sci.military / military@cbnews.HP.COM / 1:53 pm Nov 4, 1990 /
GC> The DoD ignores the most logical action which is to continue the A-10
GC> production line. Ten penny nails are an old design, but as long as we
GC> continue to make new ones, they do the job they were designed for well.
GC> I've seen nothing that is significantly better at CAS than the A-10
GC> so the logical course is to continue to produce the A-10.
According to Aviation Leak, the Fairchild-Republic A-10 production line is
now a credit card processing center, and has been for several years.
Regards, Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland Internet: rjn@hpfcrjn.FC.HP.COM 3404 East Harmony Road
UUCP: [hplabs|hpfcse]!hpfcrjn!rjn Ft Collins CO 80525-9599stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) (11/29/90)
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) In article <1990Oct29.025307.6365@cbnews.att.com>, ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes; > The DoD ignores the most logical action which is to continue the A-10 > production line. Ten penny nails are an old design, but as long as we > continue to make new ones, they do the job they were designed for well. > I've seen nothing that is significantly better at CAS than the A-10 > so the logical course is to continue to produce the A-10. There's only one problem with this "logical course" -- the A-10 has been out of production for years, and Republic is in pretty poor shape and might not be able to get it back into production. In any case, the cost of restarting production would be high. Meanwhile, the F-16 line is still in operation. There may be better alternatives for the CAS mission than the A-16, but it's no simple or cheap matter to churn out a few more A-10s. Steve (the certified flying fanatic) stevenp@decwrl.dec.com