Check out the numbers on the A-7F and marvel. The plane was developed in 1985 and was meant to replace....the A-10 which at the time was being criticized by the USAF for being too slow! via Wikipedia.
General characteristics
- Crew: One pilot
- Length: 50 ft 1/2 in (15.25 m)
- Wingspan: 38 ft 9 in (11.81 m)
- Height: 16 ft 11 in (5.16 m)
- Empty weight: 23,068 lb (10,463 kg)
- Max takeoff weight: 46,000 lb (20,865 kg)
Performance
- Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 turbofan dry, 26,000 lbf (120 kN) with afterburner
- Maximum speed: Mach 1.2
- Range: 2,302 mi (2,000 nmi; 3,705 km) maximum with four 300 gallon external tanks
Armament
- Service ceiling: 55,000 ft (16,764 m)
- Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 Vulcan gatling gun
- Hardpoints: external with a capacity of over 17,000 lb of ordnance,
Wow. Without the 30mm cannon, extra armor, etc... What's the point? So it's a little bit faster... Whoop-dee-shit. It would be hard to justify this in a service filled with F-16s.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, the A-10 continues to be the platform that just won't die:
http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20130925/NEWS05/309250035/Senator-blocks-USAF-secretary-nominee-over-possible-A-10-cuts
The Air Farce hates anything slower than 600kph. If it's slow, it blows according to the zoomies.
DeleteOn the one hand, the zoomies were convinced that with so many Soviet anti-air assets (SA-7, SA-13, Tunguska) available to the Soviet army, there was no way a slow plane like the A-10 would survive multiple hits. CAS would need to be strictly dine-and-dash affair or with stand-off.
When Desert Storm happened and there was film of A10s coming back missing major parts, huge holes and still flying, it was the proof-of-concept A10 supporters needed to say it could survive in a high-threat environment. And so without the rationale, it killed off the A-7F.
However, it is a shame the A7D's were killed off. A great, dedicated attack aircraft that didn't move too fast and could deliver tons of ordnance. Many of those aircraft had rather short service lives and had plenty of life left in them.
By "replace the A-10" the USAF meant "eliminate the CAS role and focus on the strike business" which, coincidentally is the same thing they mean when they say the F-35 will replace the A-10 . . .
ReplyDeleteMore seriously: once they focused on strike the emerging F-16 made a lot more sense overall, just as Doug points out. However it is worth considering that they low mix A-7, with its insane range and load carrying capability for a plane of its size, would have been an excellent plane for environments like A-stan and Libya (maybe day 2 Libya . . .).
Timely post. Beyond the better kinematics and loadout, the A-7F would have had lots of air to ground avionics to help CAS targeting and comm. Unfortunately some moron Congressman got involved then too.
ReplyDeleteBB; Still making stuff up I see.
Man, you can say what you like, I read your article and there's 2 sides to each story, but don't act like there's no basis at all for drawing the conclusion that the air force has been trying to dump the CAS role. Most of our planes can carry JDAMs and they are great and all for fighting low tech adversaries who don't have anyway to interfere with your signals but what about if China starts an ASAT campaign or there's some other high tech countermeasure, CAS will still need to get close.
DeleteTAC Commander General Russ was pushing for the F-16, focused first on a2a, then on interdiction, and only then on CAS, to replace the A-10 from '84 on. It was congress and the pentagon who forced the issue to the point where the YA-7H even flew and they did so against USAF opposition all the way. So no, not a "congressman got involved" problem but rather a "USAF never wanted even a BAI plane with secondary CAS capability instead of a fighter" problem. In this respect, very similar to how the USAF never wanted the A-7 in the first place, it being slow and all.
DeleteAs for the F-35 and CAS, technology has made that a more complicated discussion but, it is clear that the A-10 role of 'WVR CAS', for lack of a better term, is being eliminated, not replaced, and that, unlike the A-10, any use of the F-35 for CAS will be after the USAF has finished using it for A2A, SEAD, and strike missions.
You can make a good argument for the advantages of the multi-role fighter over dedicated CAS planes in the 'big picture', and the arguments for the F-35 in this respect are exactly the same as the arguments for F-16s to replace A-10s in the '80s, but the it is difficult to see how getting rid of A-10s and their CAS dedicated pilots and replacing them with multi-role pilots in a plane optimised and prioritized for other tasks is not at least a decreased emphasis on CAS.
This is why the A-7F should have been the A-10 Replacement. It had great Range, Great payload and was excellent for places such as Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq. It's too bad we can revive it as an A-10 replacement.
ReplyDeleteProblem is that in the 1970s(feb 1973) they tested the A-7 vs the A-10 and the Corsair was considered a worst CAS aircraft...this was because a congressional delegation from Texas(Vought was in Texas) pushed the A-7.As a result of this lobbying the Senate armed services committee withheld 30 million earmarked for long lead items for the first A-10 prodution lot.Both the house and the Senate mandated that another fly-off be conducted,this time btw the A-10 and the A-7(the A-10 allready won vs the A-9).
ReplyDeleteThis began on 15 April 1974 at Fort Riley,Kansas.By May it was determinad by the fly-off pilots that the A-10 was far better suited for the CAS mission,particularly in target-spotting in less than ideal conditions,while the Fairchild design also offered superior survivability features.The pilot testify to the House about their findings and the results were unanimous in favor of the A-10.
Source:Combat aircraft monthly March 2013.
I love the A-7F ,and the concept that drove this plane,but it would be to complement the A-10...never to replace it...
Exactly. It's a bomb truck and when there was a need for dropping a lot of ordnance on bridgeheads or communication hubs, this would have been great, but for CAS, the A-10 was better.
DeleteWhat will happen to todays A-7Fs? will the US armed forces go after the Silent Eagle,the ASH and the F-16V or will they fade in to the darkness?
ReplyDeleteumm, only 2 A-7F prototypes were ever made, and it's still slow.
DeleteAnd the SE lost S. Korea :)
-All aircraft full with bombs are slow...
DeletePut 17000 lb of ordenance in the F-35 and lets see how it will fly...
The F-15Se can carry 23000lb...
And it lost against politics...not against the F-35...it won the competition remenber?
Bit unrelated but I found some more info on that new Russian-French IFV
ReplyDeletehttp://www.armouredvehicle.info/?p=242