From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:25:21 GMT


From shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)

On Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:52:53 GMT, fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV) said:

John> I seem to recall that the main problem with the F-4's "aftermarket" 
John> cannon sprung from the fact that the Air Force specified that the
John> plane was to have *no* cannon, a kind of "by the way, guys, this 
John> is the Jet Age, and with homing missiles, nobody needs guns anymore" 
John> attitude.

Navy, not Air Force.  The F-4 Phantom was entirely specified and
accepted by the Navy.  The Air Force ended up getting F-4s much
against their will (ditto the A-7 somewhat later).

The F-4 was not just specified without a cannon, it was accepted and
went operational without a cannon.

Remember that everyone thought that the aircraft would stay fast and
only missiles would work and there would be no more furballs.  The
F-104 is the living embodiment of this theory.  It doesn't turn worth
a damn, even though it does have a gun.

This wasn't a bad assumption, particularly for a European war.  We
just weren't fighting a European war.

John> In the case of the F-16, however, (again if I'm remembering properly)
John> there is a cannon, but it was mounted on the upper surface of the 
John> canard and was intended mainly for air-to-air use.

Only the AFTI/F-16 has a canard and it doesn't have a gun.  The F-16
cannon is, indeed, intended for air-to-air use.  The F-16 is a
fighter, so it's only supposed to do air-to-air.  I think the F-16
gun is in the fuselage, offset to one side, but I'm not certain.

John> The two problems seem dissimilar to me, as the F-4 was designed as a 
John> multi-role from the start, but one which the brass thought would need
John> (at most) machine gun pods for air-to-ground use;  while the F-16
John> seems to be having the more formidable problem of being converted
John> from one type of fighter to another - a change in role, as opposed
John> to a change in armament.

The F-4 wasn't designed with quite as many roles as you're assigning
it.  It was to be the fleet defense fighter and an escort fighter,
protecting the attack aircraft.  Navy, remember?  The Air Force,
enraptured with its P_s, turned it into a bomber.  The Navy already
had bombers, in the form of A-6s and A-7s.

The F-16, on the other hand, was supposed to be the cheap, abundant
day fighter.  It's no longer cheap or restricted to days.  It's
already undergone a change away from its original role.  However, I
don't think that the tankkiller role is one that it's really going to
be suitable for.  The lightweight part of the F-16 seems to me to
mitigate against it.

Does anybody but me remember that the A-10 shot down more aircraft
than the F-16 in the Gulf?  (One helicopter versus nada.)

My signature seems quite appropriate for this topic, doesn't it?

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous




Newsgroups: sci.military