During the mid 80's to the early 90's the US Navy had a decision to make. Either jump on the stealth bandwagon with the A-12, continue on with an upgraded F-14, continue on with an upgraded A-6 or develop a new attack jet.
They settled on a new attack jet in the form of the F/A-18E-F.
This was brought on by the failure of the A-12, the expense of the F-14 and the short sightedness of officials when it came to the promise of the A-6F.
From Wikipedia.
An advanced A-6F Intruder II was proposed in the mid-1980s that would have replaced the Intruder's elderly Pratt & Whitney J52 turbojets with non-afterburning versions of the General Electric F404 turbofan used in the F/A-18 Hornet, providing substantial improvements in both power and fuel economy. The A-6F would have had totally new avionics, including a Norden AN/APQ-173 synthetic aperture radar and multi-function cockpit displays – the APQ-173 would have given the Intruder air-to-air capacity with provision for the AIM-120 AMRAAM. Two additional wing pylons were added, for a total of seven stations.General characteristics
Although five development aircraft were built, the Navy ultimately chose not to authorize the A-6F, preferring to concentrate on the A-12 Avenger II. This left the service in a quandary when the A-12 was cancelled in 1991.
Grumman proposed a cheaper alternative in the A-6G, which had most of the A-6F's advanced electronics, but retained the existing engines. This, too, was cancelled.
- Crew: 2 (pilot, bombardier/navigator)
- Length: 54 ft 7 in (16.6 m)
- Wingspan: 53 ft (16.2 m)
- Height: 15 ft 7 in (4.75 m)
- Wing area: 529 ft² (49.1 m²)
- Airfoil: NACA 64A009 mod root, NACA 64A005.9 tip
- Empty weight: 25,630 lb (11,630 kg)
- Useful load: 34,996 lb (15,870 kg)
- Max takeoff weight: 60,626 lb (27,500 kg)
- Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney J52-P8B turbojets, 9,300 lbf (41.4 kN) each
- * Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0144
- Drag area: 7.64 ft² (0.71 m²)
- Aspect ratio: 5.31
- Maximum speed: 563 knots (648 mph, 1,040 km/h)
- Range: 2,819 nmi (3,245 mi, 5,222 km)
- Service ceiling: 40,600 ft (12,400 m)
- Rate of climb: 7,620 ft/min (38.7 m/s)
- Lift-to-drag ratio: 15.2
We went off the track and even if we can afford all the capability that is sought by think tanks and theorist, all we'll have is a return to the past as our future.
Poor planning 20 years ago is costing us today. We've seen this before though. In the Marines we retired the 105mm howitzer and had to procure 120mm mortars to make up for the deficit.
In the Navy, the A-6 was sent to pasture before its time and UCAVs are desire to make up for the lost range and throw weight that they provided (ok, range, not munitions carried).
In the Army, they went with the M4 carbine instead of sticking with a true combat rifle...they'll have to rectify that situation soon.
I said all that to say this.
We need to be smart, practical and knowledgeable about the choices that we make today. Others will fight with the equipment that is chosen.
We might also need to face the fact that the existing acquisition system has sent many good systems to the pasture well before their time...often to line the pockets of certain individuals with less regard for the needs of the nation.
ReplyDeleteI'm entirely in favor of the USN replacing their lost capabilities by reviving those capabilities. There's no reason to develop an expensive, new program to provide too few aircraft when something like the A-6 exists (superior to almost any other aircraft in its role). Shaping of the frame to reduce RCS and technical improvements could have A-6s flying important missions for decades to come...but while we've spent the better part of the last 2 decades involved in conflicts where 'stealthy' aircraft have been shot down by 1980s SAMs and where enemy air defenses fell to conventional, un-stealthy aircraft, we're looking for a first-day stealth solution.
Sometimes you have the solution and just need to find it...
totally agree. you just said it better than i did. THANKS!
ReplyDeleteThe Navy was in paranoid me-too stealth mode with the A-12 though. I think they were panicked about losing obsolete-by-stealth-plane carriers, and the USAF "winning" (and getting all the money to make shiny new toys).
ReplyDeleteAny issues with the A-6F were declared fatal and the program was killed. IIRC there were some issues with the composite wing (stiffer w/different stress to the fuselage, I think). It would have been worked out, but the Navy was desperate for "1st day" strike against the USSR, so they wouldn't be left out of the planning, and eventually, funding.
I think I mentioned money twice. Imagine that. People doing stupid things for money.
The M-4 thing seems to be the Army being boresighted on fighting in Baghdad. There's a right tool for every job. Foot patrols in open country with long sight lines is not the job for a shorty carbine.
Sol,
ReplyDeleteOops, sorry for posting anonymously..."anonymous" is just that tiny fraction of an inch away from the name fill-in. That and careless haste...
Sgt. C,
Good points, all and true.