User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 9:17:11 PM EDT
[#1]
Just for the record, there's only one air wing that's all super hornets. The rest are a mix.
I don't know enough about the A6/A7 to comment on that, but I'm sure someone who does will appear shortly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 9:17:57 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Watched The Final Countdown today, and in contrast to today's carrier, which is absolutely swarming with Superbugs, the Navy of the 60s to 80s had not one, but two subsonic attack jets. Why? What did the A7 do, that the A6 didn't do better? Today's Navy does everything it can to keep the level of parts compatibility as high as possible. Having two subsonic bomb trucks seems like a poor idea in light of this. Guessing it was fallout from the goofy "standardization" nonsense being pushed at the time. A7 saw USN and USAF use, and the F-111 was being pimped as a carrier bird for a while. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 9:20:18 PM EDT
[#3]
Logical question, and I have always wondered it myself, except in ref to the A4 (even though I think Scooters a the hotness.)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 9:25:31 PM EDT
[#4]
A-7 was cheaper and a brazillion times simpler than the A-6. The Intruder was a massively complex and advanced all-weather heavy attack aircraft in the 60's. The A-7 was a lighter, simpler, good weather day attack job. It's all about having more aircraft on deck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 9:29:39 PM EDT
[#5]
The A6 was an all weather bomber that could see in the dark, do Wild Weasel stuff, refuel his buddies, carry alot of bombs, do electronic warfare, had a decent target tracker, good range, and handled really well at subsonice speeds to deliver bombs with damn good accuracy. The A7 was a good plane for what it was intended for, but it couldn't some of the things the A6 could, also it was a light strike bird while the A6 was a medium strike bird.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 9:33:30 PM EDT
[#6]
A7 was a cheap bomb truck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 9:34:05 PM EDT
[#7]
60s? Make that 4. A-4 and A-1 where used along side those others. The A-7 was a replacement for the A-4.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 9:37:46 PM EDT
[#8]
Weren't they designed for different roles? The A-6 as more of a "light bomber" and the A-7 as more of an all-around attack aircraft?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 9:42:46 PM EDT
[#9]
A-6s are loud. That's all I know about them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 9:44:58 PM EDT
[#10]
The A-6 is one of my favorite jets of all time. And the utility of it was amazing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 9:51:35 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Weren't they designed for different roles? The A-6 as more of a "light bomber" and the A-7 as more of an all-around attack aircraft? Switch it around and you're right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 9:55:51 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Watched The Final Countdown today... Watched a few days ago. It was cool seeing all the retired aircraft, especially that RF-8.  Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 9:56:08 PM EDT
[#13]
This thread need more picts 
A6 
A7 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 9:58:24 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Weren't they designed for different roles? The A-6 as more of a "light bomber" and the A-7 as more of an all-around attack aircraft? Switch it around and you're right. What's the difference? Bombers attack shit. Attack aircraft drop bombs on shit. I get the high/low concept for USAF applications, but if I've got a limited amount of space, I want the baddest 90 aircraft I can get on my boat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 10:00:26 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Watched The Final Countdown today... Watched a few days ago. It was cool seeing all the retired aircraft, especially that RF-8.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Thought I saw Crusaders in that movie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 10:01:51 PM EDT
[#16]
From what I have always heard, they carried a metric shit ton of ordnance
Quoted:
Watched The Final Countdown today, and in contrast to today's carrier, which is absolutely swarming with Superbugs, the Navy of the 60s to 80s had not one, but two subsonic attack jets. Why? What did the A7 do, that the A6 didn't do better? Today's Navy does everything it can to keep the level of parts compatibility as high as possible. Having two subsonic bomb trucks seems like a poor idea in light of this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 10:03:44 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Weren't they designed for different roles? The A-6 as more of a "light bomber" and the A-7 as more of an all-around attack aircraft? Switch it around and you're right. What's the difference? Bombers attack shit. Attack aircraft drop bombs on shit. I get the high/low concept for USAF applications, but if I've got a limited amount of space, I want the baddest 90 aircraft I can get on my boat. A-6 has more fancy gizmos on board. I think it had better range as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 10:07:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Weren't they designed for different roles? The A-6 as more of a "light bomber" and the A-7 as more of an all-around attack aircraft? Switch it around and you're right. This. The A-7 was a light attack aircraft. Cheap to produce, shorter range and smaller payload. The A-6 was a medium attack aircraft. More expensive, more survivable and a heavier payload. "Medium" - A single A-6 carried 10x the ordnance of a a WWII B-17! Final Countdown is an awesome glimpse into the Navy past. I love all the guys with beards! And Marines! I played it last deployment for the younger Sailors who had never seen it and they loved it! Kudos to the F-8, the last of the gunfighters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 10:07:23 PM EDT
[#19]
The movie for A-6 fans 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 10:11:01 PM EDT
[#20]
What is the deal with that book/movie? All the BNs buy it! My back's broke Sandy, I'm poppin smoke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2011 11:04:56 PM EDT
[#21]
A7 was a descendant of the F8 crusader, and a replacement for the A-4 Skyhawk and A-1 Skyraider. It was a light aircraft, fair weather attack abilities, also was used for close air support.
A6 was a whole different animal, it had longer range, and was built to be a bomber from the ground up. With no gun mounted, it was not as good in a close air support roll but could be used for such I would think. The EA-6B Prowler was the electronic warfare model, also did wild weasel duties. Easy to tell the difference due to the extra 2 seats and an absolutely awesome looking gold tinted canopy. Also to add: A7 - 2.9 Million A6 - 22 Million |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 12:06:00 AM EDT
[#22]
I'll see if I can find some decent pics of the Supersonic version called the Vought YA-7F "Strikefighter", they made two prototypes, but it was a no-go for various reasons.
Talk about repeating the past, after fuselage stretch/plugs to accommodate more powerful motor, they pretty much had an F-8.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 12:14:45 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: A-7 was cheaper and a brazillion times simpler than the A-6. The Intruder was a massively complex and advanced all-weather heavy attack aircraft in the 60's. The A-7 was a lighter, simpler, good weather day attack job. It's all about having more aircraft on deck. http://sobchak.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/a6intruder_cutaway.jpg  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 12:17:48 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Watched The Final Countdown today Dang, now you've done it! 1:15am and I just put it on NetFlix streaming. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 12:31:42 AM EDT
[#25]
A7 was the first combat aircraft with HUD.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 12:42:29 AM EDT
[#26]
A-7 replaced the Skyhawk and Skyraider. A-6 replaced the A-3. Why? Same reason the USAF uses F-16s to tote bombs rather than onlya B-52s. Both were great planes and plenty would argue the Hornet and even Super Hornet haven't actually replaced the Intruder. FWIW,they could carry a shit tin of iron. The first strike they ever made,the NVN reported it as B-52s. The SLUF was a great plane too,carried a bunch and was a very accurate bomber.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 12:58:50 AM EDT
[#27]
One was a light bomber that could fit on a carrier and the other was a light attack aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 1:08:24 AM EDT
[#28]
Off topic. Remember when a A-6 got shot down over Syria? Jessie Jackson negotiated the release of the crew.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 2:08:26 AM EDT
[#29]
The Grumman A2F (A-6) Intruder was the result of a February 1957 Navy request for proposals for a replacement for the Douglas AD Skyraider in both the Navy and the Marine Corps.
The Ling-Temco-Vought A-7 Corsair II was the result of a May 17, 1963 Navy design competition named VAL, which stood for Light Attack Aircraft. The VAL aircraft was to replace the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, and was to have as its primary mission the delivery of conventional ordnance as opposed to nuclear weapons. The requirement specified that the aircraft would have to be in service no later than 1967. Remember that the Navy was operating the Essex, Independence, Midway, Forrestal, Kitty Hawk and Enterprise classes of carriers when those planes were designed, built and operated. Both were piles of shit, hard to work on, non-existent spare parts, crappy designs, they were junk. Both were sent to the boneyard because their wings could not handle the stress of dropping bombs. The A-4 Skyhawk outlasted both of them. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
