Does the USN need a new skyraider?

richter111 · Post by **richter111** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:19 pm

develop one out of every four as a dedicated anti missile platform, Equip it with the latest in jamming and other anti-radar, anti-missile capability.

At least you know the A-10 could carry the load.

Ric

Tracy White · Post by **Tracy White** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:39 pm

richter111 wrote:Equip it with the latest in jamming and other anti-radar, anti-missile capability.

Why, when we'll have the superlative EA-18G Growler?

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:42 pm

Tracy White wrote:
richter111 wrote:Equip it with the latest in jamming and other anti-radar, anti-missile capability.
Why, when we'll have the superlative EA-18G Growler?

I question the word "superlative". The manufacturer's specifications indicate it falls short of the EA-6B in all areas except speed and cost of operations.

I am depressed by the reliance on a platform which has several shortcomings, not the least of which is range, for the bulk of USN carrier ops.

chuck · Post by **chuck** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:42 pm

Count yourself luck that we have no SF-18 ASW platform.

chuck · Post by **chuck** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:45 pm

Werner wrote: I question the word "superlative". The manufacturer's specifications indicate it falls short of the EA-6B in all areas except speed and cost of operations..

Why should that be a mark against the EF-18 in the eyes of those who wants to bring A-10 to the carrier deck? They are willing to put up with something that falls short of F-18 in everything except the size of the gun.

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:46 pm

chuck wrote:
Werner wrote: I question the word "superlative". The manufacturer's specifications indicate it falls short of the EA-6B in all areas except speed and cost of operations..
Why should that be a mark against the EF-18 in the eyes of those who wants to bring A-10 to the carrier deck? They are willing to put up with something that falls short of F-18 in everything except the size of the gun.

Well, I am not necessarily one of them, but a A-10N would cost a tiny fraction of it's F/A-18 brother.

My preference would be to rehabilitate the hundreds of A-6Es which litter Davis Monathan's parking areas and put them back in the air with the composite wing Boeing was going to put on as the A-6F. There is also plenty of space on this aircraft for fuel-efficient current-generation engines.

Would you rather have a fully up-to-date A-6F with the capacity of a B-52 and an unrefuelled combat range of 1000 miles for $40 million, or another F/A-18F for $140 million?

Tracy White · Post by **Tracy White** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:56 pm

Werner, the "

" means it was a JOKE.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:44 pm

Werner wrote: Would you rather have a fully up-to-date A-6F with the capacity of a B-52

Huh???

A B-52D with big belly modification can lift 35 tons of bombs and fly from Guam to Honai and back.

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:52 pm

Anonymous wrote:
Werner wrote: Would you rather have a fully up-to-date A-6F with the capacity of a B-52

Huh???

A B-52D with big belly modification can lift 35 tons of bombs and fly from Guam to Honai and back.

And the B-52Ds were all scrapped in the 1980s. Look at the current loadouts. I did not compare ranges.

chuck · Post by **chuck** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:46 pm

You are comparing the operational load used by B-52 to make intercontinental attacks with a theoretical maximum weight the A-6 can lift off the ground. This is hardly illuminating and clearly meant to mislead.

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:51 pm

Current B-52 loadouts are 12-16 1,000 pound JDAMS. The re-winged and re-engined A-6F can carry this same load for 1,000 miles, which is what I said.

chuck · Post by **chuck** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:53 pm

Werner wrote:Current B-52 loadouts are 12-16 1,000 pound JDAMS.

How many Mk-82s can B-52 carry? Can A-6 carry 16 JDAMS? I suspect realistically A-6 could only carry 4, 2 under each wing, unless it has some pretty special bomb racks.

Incidentally, the theorectical lifting capacity of both F-16 and F-18 are alos in the neighborhood of 8 tons. You can make the exact same comparison to favor F-18 over A-6.

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:54 pm

chuck wrote:
Werner wrote:Current B-52 loadouts are 12-16 1,000 pound JDAMS.

How many Mk-82s?

We don't do carpet bombing anymore.

Vietnam era A-6s carried 1/2 the MK.82s as a B-52.

A-6s dropped more aggregate tonnage in the Vietnam War than the B-52s.

Even with it's periodic reconstructions, current B-52s have load restrictions well below the original specifications.

chuck · Post by **chuck** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:57 pm

Werner wrote:
chuck wrote:
How many Mk-82s?
We don't do carpet bombing anymore.

Vietnam era A-6s carried 1/2 the MK.82s as a B-52.

A-6s dropped more aggregate tonnage in the Vietnam War than the B-52s.

That means nothing. Fewer B-52s were involved for a shorter time. A-6 can only carry 1/2 of B-52's load by loading up every one of its 5 hard point with 6 station bomb racks. It can not carry any drop tanks, ECM pods, etc. In that case we are still only talking about a B-52 without big belly modification, which, if I remember correctly, lets B-52 carry 24 Mk-82s on just its wing pylons compare to A-6's theoretical maximum of 30 bomb all together. B-52D can carry at least 30-40 more bombs in its bomb bay and still make Honai if I recall.

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:06 pm

chuck wrote:That means nothing. Fewer B-52s were involved for a shorter time. A-6 can only carry 1/2 of B-52's load by loading up every one of its 5 hard point with 6 station bomb racks. It can not carry any drop tanks, ECM pods, etc. In that case we are still only talking about a B-52 without big belly modification, which, if I remember correctly, lets B-52 carry 24 Mk-82s on just its wing pylons compare to A-6's theoretical maximum of 30 bomb all together. B-52D can carry at least 30-40 more bombs in its bomb bay and still make Honai if I recall.

You're comparing a 1960 B-52D to my notional A-6F. Stop that. We're not talking about that.

The B-52 also did not deliver it's load from less than 500 feet AGL. The amount of delivery for the A-6 is compelling proof that a carrier just over the horizon is more effective than a heavy bomber base several thousand miles away.

B-52s would be useless against a well-protected base or task force. The A-6 is designed for such a mission.

Tracy White · Post by **Tracy White** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:33 pm

Werner wrote:B-52s would be useless against a well-protected base or task force. The A-6 is designed for such a mission.

But only if the boat can get close enough. And why are you using the B-52 when the B-1 and B-2 are in the inventory? If you're going to re-wing the A-6, why exclude the other two?

I should say though that I spent a lot of time in Intruder and Prowler country growing up... my grandparents lived here and if you zoom out a bit you'll see NOLFC.. they were right under the approach.

We used to stay with them in the summer and occasionally park the car here and sneak into the grass so that the aircraft in the pattern went RIGHT over our heads.

Yeah, you might get some insight as to why I'm not that keen on the F-18

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:42 pm

Tracy White wrote:But only if the boat can get close enough. And why are you using the B-52 when the B-1 and B-2 are in the inventory? If you're going to re-wing the A-6, why exclude the other two?

I assume anywhere a carrier task force can get, it can gain air superiority.

B-1 & B-2? Because the trip from Whitman or Diego Garcia is too long to sustain a full campaign with a dozen or so aircraft.

Tracy White · Post by **Tracy White** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:46 pm

We've got over 60 B-1s.

Werner · Post by **Werner** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:50 pm

Tracy White wrote:We've got over 60 B-1s.

60 probably = 48 flightworthy. Flying from -- South Dakota to Iran and back? I'd rather have three flight decks in the Straight of Hormuz.

Tracy White · Post by **Tracy White** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:56 pm

Well, according to the Air Force there's 65 active (2 test) as of October '05... Wikipedia *cites* 67 as of around May.

Straight of Hormuz.... I was thinking more of the Taiwan area. You had, after all, talked about how China should counter USN carrier groups.