24 Jan 2022, 08:31
NOW attached a ONE page PDF of the text of the letter in three columns in landscape orientation.
Letters to the Editor
A-7D/A-10A Debate
I'm writing this letter after reading Cecil Brownlow's article on the tentative A-7D/ A-10A flyoff (AW&ST Aug. 20, p. 18). Even now I can foresee another great debate looming, such as existed with the multi-role vs. single-mission fighters, and the continuing saga of the F-15 vs. F-14.
But perhaps we're all a little guilty of not seeing the forest for all the trees. The bulk of the R&D funds have already been spent in the A-X, now A-10A, program, and the A-7D is being procured on a straight unit cost basis.
So the real question we should be debating is how many of which aircraft we need and want, not whether the A-7D or A-10A is the airplane we want/need.
While it may be true that a committee can pretty much gain a desired result by the ground rules laid down for any flyoff to be conducted, some of the misconceptions floating around at the higher echelons concerning A-7D and A-10A capabilities seem startlingly ignorant, if not ludicrous.
Who is it [who] is claiming that A-7D and A-10A capabilities are mutually exclusive? It tickles me to see comments such as attributed in your article to a "top Air force official'' who asserts. ''If you want to come in low... right close to friendly troops, then the A-10A is going to win." You gotta be kidding. Even the F-4, which hasn't gained the accuracy reputation that the A-7, A-37, A-1 and F-100 had in SEA close air support, can certainly hold its own with high drag bombs and napalm when it doesn't drop until the pilot can "'see the whites of their eyes.''
l think, and most fighter pilots agree, that the inherent accuracy of a particular airplane isn't really tested until you back off on the release parameters. And even then, you'll have to weigh the individual pilot's ability (except the A-7, where it starts to become who can aim more accurately with his "aiming symbol").
No, most experienced troops will agree that both the A-10A and A-7D will probably be identical insofar as accuracy at low altitude, short slant ranges is concerned. But now let's try what is asserted by the Saber Armor Charlie report, which the committee feels is weighted toward the A-10A. Indeed, let us allow an A-10A to "loft'' some bombs over the heads of friendlies into the enemy's fold. The assumption that the A-10 could do so with any accuracy and at a greater slant range than the A-7D is completely lacking any basis in fact or theory.
Unless someone has developed some new way for the human brain to integrate rapidly changing dive angles, airspeeds and ballistic coefficients and then press the pickle button when conditions are optimum for the ordnance to impact the target. then it will probably be the A-7D (that) will win any toss-bombing contest. And it should be pointed out here that the 10 meter CEA (cumulative error average) which was attributed to the A-7D in your article was obtained 99% of the time while toss-bombing.
On one particular mission under a low ceiling, my wingman and I calmly lofted iron bombs from a straight and level run to a target almost a mile and a half in front of us. Our accuracy under such conditions was certainly no 10 meters, but at those ranges even a 1 or 2 mil aiming error would be greater than those 10 meters normally attainable from a 15 to 30 deg. dive. But let me see any other airplane try the same thing and come within a "country mile.''
As far as other parameters, such as availability, range and bomb load are concerned, I think you'll see that where one aircraft has more speed to evade bullets, the other has the armor to absorb them and continue the mission... which would you rather fly? A-7Ds carried 4,000 lb. to Hanoi from Korat and returned without refueling . They also did not have to drop from 3,000 ft. to come close, fly in at a dazzling 350 kt. and come back the next day because most of their bombs missed. And all this at the same unit cost as the A-10A.
Surely each of the two aircraft has its own bailiwick in which the other is either uncomfortable or incapable. Let's go back to my premise that it shouldn't be which one, but how many of each.
I flew over 300 [A-37] missions, mostly close air support, during the Tet and May offensives of 1968. I worked "right down in close to friendly troops" on a regular basis in all kinds of weather, carrying a mix of ordnance, and from the Hue Citadel to Ca Mau. I remember working targets that the F-100s couldn't hack due to low ceilings, restricted visibility and mountainous terrain.
I remember one day when our entire daily schedule was canceled and we flew twenty- some-odd missions in support of rescue operations in II Corps because conditions were so bad that nobody else could get in.
But l also rementber clear days and nights when those gunners could keep us in sight all around the delivery pattern, and it was those times that my slow 250 to 300 kt. finals seemed to take a year.... I instructed Vietnamese for an additional three years in the same airplane before coming to the A-7D. So I think that I can appreciate the low-ceiling, restricted visibility, mountainous terrain argument that the A-10 people will offer.
Ask any A-7 jock who flew the SAR missions in North Vietnam what they would have liked to have flown versus the A-7. Surely our computed attack capability was nice to have, but we used the avionics in the plane mostly for navigation in those cases, and not for weapons and delivery.
Most will agree that in roles such as search and rescue that the A-10 with its loiter time, maneuverability and mixed ordnance capability is the plane to have. But to have it do we have to give all the A-7s to the Reserve and ANG? Do we need six wings of A-10s and none of A-7s? Who wants to take lite A-10 to downtown Hanoi? Why use a 30-mm. cannon on a tank when you can hit the thing with a 500 lb. bomb (not laser guided) from an A-7 releasing above 3,000 ft. (and it hits better closer in)?
Perhaps the best estimate of the situation in this debate was given by Mr. Brownlow, who mentions candidly that many A-10 proponents are simply using the plane as an argument against the Army's advanced armed helicopters. Now there's a machine which can literally toss/fire ordnance from over the heads of the friendlies... from a hover. Let's get serious about the A-7/A-10 controversy and decide where and how many of each do we need, not which one can do the required jobs so much better that the other is unnecessary.
PATRICK G. McAdoo
Captain, USAF
354th TFW
Myrtle Beach. S. C.
Aviation Week & Space Technology. Sept 11, 1973
- Attachments
-
GUMSavWeekLetter1973 p1.pdf- (176.1 KiB) Downloaded 58 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
