A-6 Invader capabilities
vzl...@q.com
are their any current aircraft that can match all the A-6
capabilities?
hcobb
A pair of Super Hornets.
One to carry the bombs and one to carry the fuel.
-HJC
David E. Powell
A-6 might be nice to have right now. Good time on station and plenty
of Pave Ways, JDAMs and SDBs.
Ron
Probably not, in term of range and sheer bomb truck capability.
As the military often does, they decide to do a major upgrade program,
them immediately retire said aircraft. the A-6E fleet was getting an
systems upgrade along with a rewinging program too, but then it was
decided to just retire the whole A-6 Intruder fleet. Some were sent
right from the rewinging facilty right to the boneyard, and some that
were there waiting to be rewinged, were just turned into artificial
reefs.
Timur
Matt Wiser
Blame Slick Willie and the CNO at the time (Kelso?). Slick Willie's
admin told the CNO he could have either two more Seawolf-class SSNs or
the A-6 upgrade program. The CNO was a sub guy, so guess what he
chose? A crying shame: my cousin (now an F/A-18E driver) was offered
A-6s when women were allowed into combat cockpits, but that was just
before the phaseout decision was made. She went to Hornets (Cs at the
time) and hasn't regretted it, but does wish for Intruders every once
in a while-like going into Afghanistan and not having to multiple
refuel going in and out.
bob urz
How many total are left in the boneyard?
are they going to use them for target drones too?
bob
David E. Powell
After Sept. 11 I thought of the Intruders, if they were going to
increase the size of the military by a couple squadrons. I figured
that expanding it a bit would be one of the first things they would
do.
Typhoon502
B-1B with the Sniper targeting pod? Except for the carrier capability,
that is. The B-1 does have an onboard toilet to compensate, however.
David E. Powell
Extra attack payload, used correctly....
Orval Fairbairn
<fb8998b5-0a94-4e84...@1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
BTW: The A-6 was the "Intruder," not the "Invader." ECM version is the
"Prowler" (aka "Growler").
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
vzl...@q.com
Sorry, I knew it was the Intruder, I saw them daily at Oceana...brain
fart.
So the census is that there is still no aircraft with the capabilities
of the A-6. B-1 doesn't count. Imagine what the A-6F would be capable
of today with the increase in technology since it was chopped.
Matt Wiser
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 16:25:34 -0500, Orval Fairbairn
>
>
>
>
>
> <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> wrote:
> >In article
> > "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Jan 4, 9:25 am, Typhoon502 <jeb.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Jan 3, 12:44 pm, vzl...@q.com wrote:
>
> >> > > The A-6 was mentioned in the Super Hornet item. Just out of curosity,
> >> > > are their any current aircraft that can match all the A-6
> >> > > capabilities?
>
> >> > B-1B with the Sniper targeting pod? Except for the carrier capability,
> >> > that is. The B-1 does have an onboard toilet to compensate, however.
>
> >> Extra attack payload, used correctly....
>
> >BTW: The A-6 was the "Intruder," not the "Invader." ECM version is the
> >"Prowler" (aka "Growler").
>
> Sorry, I knew it was the Intruder, I saw them daily at Oceana...brain
> fart.
>
> So the census is that there is still no aircraft with the capabilities
> of the A-6. B-1 doesn't count. Imagine what the A-6F would be capable
>
> - Show quoted text -
And the F was canned to make room for the A-12. Nice going, Cheney.
hcobb
Isn't it time to restart the A-12?
Something along those lines with a pair of F-135s and weighted down to
the limits of EMALS.
-HJC
Dan
What is an F-135?
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
hcobb
Got me.
F135-PW-100
Happy?
-HJC
Matt Wiser
"Dan" <B24...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:81z0n.1169$YP1....@newsfe15.iad...
The latest project that's existing in HJC's imagination. As for the
A-12....the Navy would rather forget the whole thing.
hcobb
> The latest project that's existing in HJC's imagination. As for the
> A-12....the Navy would rather forget the whole thing.
A-12 range: 800 nmi
UCAS-D range: At least twice that.
-HJC
Ed Rasimus
I love discussions like this! Start out with a question which is
nebulous and undefined, then as possible answers are offered rule them
out for no reason specified, apparently only because it doesn't fit
the perceived desired answer.
What are "the capabilities of the A-6"? Lemme see:
Load of 24 mk-82 for very short range? Range goes up when bomb load
goes down. True of many tactical jets.
Carrier capable? A serious issue, but one with pros and cons. Force
projection by carrier is good, but limits of reach from blue water are
bad. Slow to deploy but flexible. Greatly reduces size and complexity
of a system to replace it.
Sub-sonic? Not really an attribute to seek, but not a deal-breaker for
realistic applications.
Day/night/all-WX? Lots of systems with that capability since F-16
LANTIRN, then F-15E, F-35 and others. Not a discriminator.
Low altitude terrain following? Lots of systems with that capability.
Requirement for low altitude ops greatly reduced by stand-off PGMs.
Unstealthy? Not a capability to be sought.
No A/B for energy recovery? Not a capability to be sought.
What other capabilities have I overlooked? Really ugly doesn't gain or
lose points in the contest.
Why does B-1 not count? Larger load, higher speeds, greater range,
faster deployability, better sensors, more growth space,
semi-stealthy, longer endurance...
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
Typhoon502
> Why does B-1 not count? Larger load, higher speeds, greater range,
> faster deployability, better sensors, more growth space,
> semi-stealthy, longer endurance...
Hmm, one of the three B-1B bays could carry the same 24 Mk. 82 warload
that an Intruder could carry. If you put the 10,000gal auxiliary tanks
in each of the remaining two bays, that'd make for quite a combat
radius.
Glenn Dowdy
"Ed Rasimus" <rasimus...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:uv47k5tfu0p31521k...@4ax.com...
>
> Why does B-1 not count? Larger load, higher speeds, greater range,
> faster deployability, better sensors, more growth space,
> semi-stealthy, longer endurance...
>
This thread lead me to go to the B-1 page on Wiki. I see that Boeing is
proposing the next gen version of the B-1B called the B-1R (for Regional).
Can they really be serious about the B-One-R?
Glenn D.
Typhoon502
> "Ed Rasimus" <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote in message
Hmm, that's a hard one. I mean, the USAF does need a big penetrator of
a bomber to deliver a load, but is the Boner slick enough to get in
and out of the target zone easily?
Ken S. Tucker
So I'm reading the post and then,
"that's a hard one"
"need a big penetrator"
"deliver a load"
in the background of a slick Boner, and then "target zone easily?".
I think that post should get Freudian posty of the month!
Ok, I think US 'Power Projection' (PP) is much less important than the
US 'economic' projection. The US PP usually fails, the US is crappy at
war, but has good inventiveness, and should focus on inate strength.
Personally I think the US over stimulated it's PP.
The foreign wars are bankrupting, so blame bankers.
Ken
frank
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 15:48:28 -0700, vzl...@q.com wrote:
> >On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 16:25:34 -0500, Orval Fairbairn
> ><o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> wrote:
>
> >>In article
I'd add we used to routinely go to A/B and lose the fighter types in
the dirt when we got detected at Red Flag. But you were probably a
better fighter pilot than the kids in the 80s.
BTW, you never fell for the old scam with the Buff drivers, did you?
Roll around them do all sorts of nifty aerobatics they could only
dream of, challenge them to beat that. They just drone on. You get
back up and challenge them again, they come back with, we just shut
down two engines...
frank
Start picking fights where you have a lot of inland targets, carriers
don't have the reach without air refueling. Add loiter time, you need
a bomb truck that can air refuel and stick around for hours. Worked
wonders in Afghanistan when they needed air support.
frank
> "Ed Rasimus" <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote in message
Why go to Mach 2.2 ? B-1B does 1.2 if it has to. Supersonic bombers
went out with the B-70. They've been talking about adding on air to
air missiles since back when B-1B was being built. Wont be the first
time somebody had the idea to fill up a bomb bay with air to air
missiles. Far as I know, never got past the design stage. Though would
scare the hell of the Migs in a target rich environment.
B-1A hit Mach 2.1 once or twice. But B-1B redesigned the inlets, was
more important to be stealthy than fast. We did high speed runs, but
most of the time droned on an M .85.
As far as electronics and other upgrades, that's always being done.
Some of the weapons never were on the drawing board when the B-1 was
flight testing. And still is.
Sounds like Boeing is angling for a rich contract.
Typhoon502
:) You realize that was just supposed to be one long string of
innuendo, yes?
David E. Powell
Agreed, and if they need something like that again the B-1 should be
just the ticket. I wonder how many SDB a B-1 could carry, and stay
right over an area where other assets are flagging targets? Huge
payload meets surgical precision.
Dan
Or "I just stood up and stretched" or "don't bother us, we have a
poker game going."
Yeff
> Or "I just stood up and stretched" or "don't bother us, we have a
> poker game going."
Got up a got a cup of coffee is another.
--
-Jeff B.
zoo...@fastmail.fm
"You, you, and you: panic. The rest of you, come with me."
hcobb
> Agreed, and if they need something like that again the B-1 should be
> just the ticket. I wonder how many SDB a B-1 could carry, and stay
> right over an area where other assets are flagging targets? Huge
> payload meets surgical precision.
Gross, but not yet.
-HJC
Daryl Hunt
Wasn't the A-12 the predecessor to the SR-71?
Jeff Dougherty
Same designation, different airplane. The Lockheed A-12 (short for
"Article 12") was indeed the Project OXCART aircraft built for the CIA
that preceded the SR-71. Its major difference from the SR-71 was that
it had only one crew member, which led to unacceptably high workload.
The Grumman A-12, also known as the Advanced Tactical Aircraft, was a
project to build a carrier-capable aircraft to replace the Navy's
A-6s. It was supposed to have roughly the same range, performance,
and payload as the projected A-6G upgrade as well as stealth. The
program was horribly mismanaged by both the contractors and the Navy
and imploded, with consequences to Naval Aviation that are still being
felt today.
-JTD
Orval Fairbairn
Daryl Hunt <dh...@i70westnospam.com> wrote:
Different A-12.
Daryl Hunt
Hmm, looks like something out of a scifi movie. Sometimes function wins
over beauty. The flying wing concept would probably work but I can
think of other designs that would be simpler and more efficient. Plus,
it's been pretty well thought that you don't need a flying wing to
necessarily be stealthy. Maybe it was a good idea to stop it where it
was before it actually became long on the tooth so fast in design.
Timur
frank
I nominate it for the all time winner of the amount of money spent
without flying. It was interesting at the finger pointing between the
contractor and the NAVAIR types. No doubt that will be an interesting
book if it ever comes out.
Tacit Rainbow spent something like a few billion without being
operational. Though they did launch a lot in tests, sometimes weekly
for a few years. Neat idea though, launch something that looks like an
ALCM, it loiters in area until the gomers turn on a RADAR then does
the SHRIKE homing down the beam bit.
At least ACM flew. And was in the inventory. One of the engineers
figured out the B-52 guys spent $12 million by the time they got to
the end of the runway before brake release. Scrub a mission, it was
all down the drain. And they scrubbed a lot. Lessee, ARIA, 2 choppers
for chase, 2 F4s with crew, RADARs, $900 coffee pot was chump change.
Pretty much Eddies' Air Patch up to Tonopah. not to mention tankers.
Matt Wiser
>
> - Show quoted text -
One problem that GD never did address was how RAM would function
exposed to the salt air while the aircraft was parked on a carrier
deck. Which Lockheed-Martin never did explain, either, when they
offered a navalized F-117 to the Navy.
Daryl Hunt
It appears to me that the Navy may still feel the loss of the A-7.
Eunometic
> The A-6 was mentioned in the Super Hornet item. Just out of curosity,
> are their any current aircraft that can match all the A-6
> capabilities?
Well the A-12 was supposed to be current.
Timur
http://china-arsenal.blogspot.com/2010/01/j-14-aircraft-hi-res-images.html
hcobb
> J-14 aircraft hi-res images:http://china-arsenal.blogspot.com/2010/01/j-14-aircraft-hi-res-images...
Note how the air intakes hop around between "photos".
I vote for the canards, should make the 0.5 m^2 PAK FA seem stealthy.
-HJC