F-35 at Paris Air show

[Rich46yo]

Speaking of Grumman, read an article about an all Grumman air wing on the USS Ranger right before it was retired.  Lots of A6 variants and Tomcats.   Ok, it wasn't all Grumman, but all the strike and air defense squadrons were.  So much was lost when the A6 was retired IMO - no more KA6D tanker (boo for the Navy, huge booo), soon the EA6Bs will be all gone, and then of course the medium/heavy strike capability gone.  The Supers are great, but don't have the range or payload that the A6 had.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/12452/the-uss-ranger-sailed-with-a-unique-grumman-air-wing-in-the-late-1980s

But on the other hand everything we fire now will land within 3 to 5 meters of where we want it now and stand off weapons extend the range of our USN aircraft 600+ NM.

So what does that mean? It means and F35c flying off a CV by New York city can take off, fly to the limit of its combat range, and Launch a JASSM-ER, which is very hard to detect, and put a 1,000 lb warhead thru the front window of your house in Omaha NE. So yeah the over all platforms are less, the payloads are less, but the capability of taking out targets are far, far, far more.

It took us 7 years to finally take out the Thanh Hoa bridge, the most strategic bridge of the Vietnam war because the bulk of the NVA arms and supplies traveled over the Song Ma river on their way south. The NVA put 5 air defense regiments around the bridge to defend it and we took heavy casualties in the many attacks against it. Also its Location meant we had to fly in a lot of bad weather to attack it. Now? Taking out that bridge, or any bridge, would be almost an after thought. We finally took out the Thanh Hoa bridge with the first precision weapons we deployed in 1972.

After 7 years, 871 sorties, 11 lost air craft, and about every conventional bomb we had. We even flew C-130's with 5,000 lb bombs over it trying to destroy it.

[DaveBB]

Everyone would have been onboard with the FB-22.  The F-15/F-15E combo worked out great. 

[Gman]

That's all true Rich, however the range issue, which the SH still greatly lacks compared to the A6 and F14 - the carrier strike group radius of influence dropped by 50% when the Hornets became the only offensive strikers - will hopefully be somewhat mitigated by the F35C's 20,000lb of internal fuel, and possible future internal tank carrying capability.  2 1/2000lb bombs+ 2 internal tanks could = a plane that can reclaim the lost range of the strike group + low observability and all the rest of the F35's capability.  New "robotanker" is coming too, which should help free up Supers from having to waste 1/3 or more of the squadron doing buddy tanking sorties.  However as it stands right now, today, the CVN strike group has a much shorter stick to poke people with than it had when the Intruder and Tomcat were still around.  You still have to get to, and return from, the targets you hit with precision munitions, especially bombs, as weapons like the extended range joint missiles are hugely expensive, and will be used up very quickly in any major conflict.  Plus, that weapon, and the other long range missiles, for the most part don't fit in the bays of the F35 and need to be carried externally, defeating the purpose of L/O and the ability for deep strike in A2/AA areas.  There will always be far more guided bombs than long range air launched missiles, which means range will still be an issue too. 

Time will tell regarding the F35C and its combat radius - we already have a good idea of the F35Bs, and it's fairly short, but that was known long before it was tested in that regard.  The C model is the largest of the 3, and carries the most gas, and it'll be interesting to see how far it can fight with just internal fuel, and any of the future internal and external fuel tank ideas that have been floated.

My friend CO of the RCAF test squadron which is part of the new Canadian fighter procurement, at least the military's side of it, and the F35 is back under consideration along with an advanced SuperHornet and a couple others.  The F35C is the strong leader of the 3 F35 options, due to it having compatible refueling apparatus for our existing drogue/basket tankers, the folding wings (the hangars are all set up spacing wise for the Hornets with folding wings too), and of course the longer range/persistence of the C model.  Every little bit helps, and our runways and bases are very sparse in the AO the new fighter will be flying in. 

[Nefarious]

After 7 years

The bridge was off limits from 1968 to 1972 when the bombing was halted.

So in reality it was only 4 years, and the first three years precision guided munitions were still very much in their infancy and not really in service yet. <S>

[Rich46yo]

On the other hand in the '70s and '80s when the Tomcat and A6 ruled the roost there weren't dozens upon dozens of VLS launchers on CSG ships loaded with Tomahawks, including fleet subs with over 150 alone. And now of course with other stand off missiles, a new AShM based on JSSM-ER, a SM with a land attack mode, ER 5" and ER-155mm guns "future along with rail guns". And each and all and more of the above on one network for the Commander to see air, land, and sea easily far more detailed and further then before.

Squids hated losing those airplanes but the truth is neither could do well in the contested airspace of today and the future. Plus the fact the F-14 was a mechanics nightmare and cost a fortune to operate against a threat that had all but dissapeared. The Backfire threat. It was a fine airplane but it was eating the USNs budget up during a time the world situation had changed and emerging technologies had to be developed.

I dont blame people for loving it and missing it, I feel the same about the Phantom. But the truth is its time has gone and the USN of today has even more reach and far more precision then it had in the '70s and '80s. As far as strike goes. I agree "Legs" might have been lost for ATA defense with F14 and Phoenix retired. Then again you have to higher sortie rate of the SH and soon F35c to make up for it, somewhat.

I truly dont know what Canada will do. They still produce, man for man, excellent troops but they just dont want to make the investment. They had a world class Navy in WW2, as well as other services, but now they aren't even capable of protecting their own shores. It would be a huge outlay for a respectable capability.

That's all true Rich, however the range issue, which the SH still greatly lacks compared to the A6 and F14 - the carrier strike group radius of influence dropped by 50% when the Hornets became the only offensive strikers - will hopefully be somewhat mitigated by the F35C's 20,000lb of internal fuel, and possible future internal tank carrying capability.  2 1/2000lb bombs+ 2 internal tanks could = a plane that can reclaim the lost range of the strike group + low observability and all the rest of the F35's capability.  New "robotanker" is coming too, which should help free up Supers from having to waste 1/3 or more of the squadron doing buddy tanking sorties.  However as it stands right now, today, the CVN strike group has a much shorter stick to poke people with than it had when the Intruder and Tomcat were still around.  You still have to get to, and return from, the targets you hit with precision munitions, especially bombs, as weapons like the extended range joint missiles are hugely expensive, and will be used up very quickly in any major conflict.  Plus, that weapon, and the other long range missiles, for the most part don't fit in the bays of the F35 and need to be carried externally, defeating the purpose of L/O and the ability for deep strike in A2/AA areas.  There will always be far more guided bombs than long range air launched missiles, which means range will still be an issue too. 

Time will tell regarding the F35C and its combat radius - we already have a good idea of the F35Bs, and it's fairly short, but that was known long before it was tested in that regard.  The C model is the largest of the 3, and carries the most gas, and it'll be interesting to see how far it can fight with just internal fuel, and any of the future internal and external fuel tank ideas that have been floated.

My friend CO of the RCAF test squadron which is part of the new Canadian fighter procurement, at least the military's side of it, and the F35 is back under consideration along with an advanced SuperHornet and a couple others.  The F35C is the strong leader of the 3 F35 options, due to it having compatible refueling apparatus for our existing drogue/basket tankers, the folding wings (the hangars are all set up spacing wise for the Hornets with folding wings too), and of course the longer range/persistence of the C model.  Every little bit helps, and our runways and bases are very sparse in the AO the new fighter will be flying in.

[Arlo]

It was a lot easier to appreciate tech advancements when the A-6 was rolled out considering this is what they replaced:



(Not that I think the A-1 Skyraider wasn't cool. They were deployed with Dad's CV in Vietnam.)

Nowadays, it seems all about the 'stealth' looks and price tag.

[Nefarious]

It was a lot easier to appreciate tech advancements when the A-6 was rolled out considering this is what they replaced:

(Image removed from quote.)

(Not that I think the A-1 Skyraider wasn't cool. They were deployed with Dad's CV in Vietnam.)

Nowadays, it seems all about the 'stealth' looks and price tag.

Great pic, what Carrier was your dad on?

[TequilaChaser]

Arlo, why didn't you include the A-7 Corsair on your chart?

I remember getting my first injury swapping out the engines on an A-7, raised up real quick at the wrong time catching the edge/end of the engine compartment door, slicing open my mid back on the right side of my spine... while kneeling/duck walking under the jet, as we were pushing the engine dolly out....

anyways.... Didn't notice that Jet on your chart

TC

[Arlo]

Great pic, what Carrier was your dad on?

He was on Lexington's last WestPac and Connie's first. I cut my navy brat teeth on his cruise books. My decision to join the Navy was primarily to follow in his footsteps .... alas, I went P-3s.

[Arlo]

Arlo, why didn't you include the A-7 Corsair on your chart?

I remember getting my first injury swapping out the engines on an A-7, raised up real quick at the wrong time catching the edge/end of the engine compartment door, slicing open my mid back on the right side of my spine... while kneeling/duck walking under the jet, as we were pushing the engine dolly out....

anyways.... Didn't notice that Jet on your chart

TC

Well, I was borrowing from other sources (as in 'not really my chart').

I'll gladly add wiki-web-net material for that old sexy bird:

Role:Attack aircraft
National origin:United States
Manufacturer:Ling-Temco-Vought
First flight   :6 September 1965
Introduction:February 1967
Retired:1991 (USAF, USN); 1993 (ANG)
1999:(Portuguese Air Force)
2014:(Hellenic Air Force)
Status:Retired
Primary users:United States Navy (historical)
United States Air Force (historical)
Portuguese Air Force (historical)
Hellenic Air Force (historical)
Produced   1965–1984
Number built   1,569
Unit cost:US $2.86 million
Developed from: Vought F-8 Crusader
Variants:LTV A-7P Corsair II
Vought YA-7F

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTV_A-7_Corsair_II)

[Arlo]

I found digitized copies of Dad's cruise books online:

Here's some of the squadron (VA-144 'Road Runners') posing in front of one of the FJs they flew off the Lex:



(They misspelled his last name - it should read 'Moncrief')

Not from the cruise book but a profile of the plane sporting VF-144 colors in 1961:



When the squadron transferred to the Connie they upgraded to the brand new A-4 (new ship-new plane):







(Sorry about the thread deviation. I get excited and travel back in time, feeling like a 4 yr old with Dad's cruise books spread open on the floor when I see these pics. I recently lost him - so there's melancholia added to that.)

[Arlo]

Well, Photobucket's new policy makes you pay to share 3rd party. erg.

Here's some links from the source I found (if you don't mind):

VA-144 Lexington 1961 (Dad's second from right, back row - bottom pic on page):



Dad's squadron upgraded to the new A-4 when they transferred over to the Connie:



(Again - sorry for the thread deviation.)

[Nefarious]

He was on Lexington's last WestPac and Connie's first. I cut my navy brat teeth on his cruise books. My decision to join the Navy was primarily to follow in his footsteps .... alas, I went P-3s.

Cool. That pic of the Connie was an awesome airwing. Phantoms and Crusaders together. The next year she would take part in Flaming Dart I and II against North Vietnam.

My dad served aboard the Independence, JFK, Nimitz, and America over 20 years with A-6 squadrons, and 1 cruise with S-3s.

Love the cold war naval aviation, wish we had a game like AH set in that era.

[icepac]

My dad flew the A7 and A4 and said that the A4, like the F105 were far better "pure fighters" than history tells largely because they likely weren't ever used as pure fighters.

The A4 and A1 without all the drag inducing bits, were pretty amazing to fly but you had to be watching like a hawk for the opportunity since pretty much all of them had all hardpoints and pylons at all times unless you got to ferry one during a change of said plane's purpose (like into a target tug.....if they even bothered with removing anything).

It cleans up pretty well.......well enough to not come in last in the unlimited field at the reno air races.



He said the A7's accuracy with ord and the electronics package is why it ended  up destroying so much stuff in the first gulf war.

This A1 was single seat but had extra radios to used as a relay/repeater.

It had special radios and a rare camera and almost got destroyed by the famous toilet bomb when it turned bowl to the wind after the drop and basically stopped in midair almost collecting 577.....which someone else was diving to film the drop.

At one time, there was film of the toilet drop.

[Arlo]