A7-F "Strikefighter" - Article Accuracy?

R

RayBee27

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
30 June 2008
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
This is my first post; I've been a lurker for a number of years.


Partially out of respect for this forum, and partially out of a sense of intimidation - I'm in awe of the breadth and depth of knowledge and it's accuracy presented here.


With that in mind, I'm curious as to the opinion of the accuracy of the following article:

foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com

Can We Learn Something From The Defunct A-7F "Strikefighter?"

The A-7 Corsair II, known also as the SLUF, as in "Short Little Ugly Fucker," was a conservative balance of economy, persistence, payload, and technology, and its final design evolution, the A-7F, could have been the right fighter for the wars to come in the new millennium.
foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com


I'm suspect by these sorts of articles (their viewpoints and their sources) that pop up on sites that seemingly cover a broad range of subject matter. The "Foxtrot Alpha" site is a spinoff/subsite of Jalopnik or Gizmodo. Sensationalism and a cavalier "jock" attitude is rampant there, and their writers seem to lack experienceMy apologies if I've unknowingly broken any rules here. Pardon me. And regardless of the response to this post, I wish to thank all for this amazing site.
 
RayBee27 said:
This is my first post; I've been a lurker for a number of years.


Partially out of respect for this forum, and partially out of a sense of intimidation - I'm in awe of the breadth and depth of knowledge and it's accuracy presented here.


With that in mind, I'm curious as to the opinion of the accuracy of the following article:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/can-we-learn-something-from-the-defunct-a-7f-strikefig-1591155307/all


I'm suspect by these sorts of articles (their viewpoints and their sources) that pop up on sites that seemingly cover a broad range of subject matter. The "Foxtrot Alpha" site is a spinoff/subsite of Jalopnik or Gizmodo. Sensationalism and a cavalier "jock" attitude is rampant there, and their writers seem to lack experience (personal or journalistic)and thorough knowledge.

My apologies if I've unknowingly broken any rules here. Pardon me. And regardless of the response to this post, I wish to thank all for this amazing site.
Click to expand...

It's about 80 % accurate. The PW engine proposed for the A-7F wouldn't put out 26K of thrust. 23K was more like it. In fact, one of the proposals was to take low time -100 engines out of jets being upgraded to the 220 and reuse them, much like the APG-65 transfer to the AV-8B. It was thought that since the A-7F wasn't required to move like a fighter, a lot of the -100 problems would be more manageable in it. Other proposals did use new build engines. An alternate configuration offered would use the F110 engine, which would dramatically kick the performace up even further.

The avionics upgrade, at least intially, would not be as great as impled, at least intially. for one thing, they proposed keeping the A-7D's radar. Other things would be further down the pike.

The A-7F could fly much farther than the A-7D carrying the same load, or could match the A-7D range with the same load but allow extensive use of afterburner. It must be remembered that the F100 and F110 dry put out as least as much thrust as the TF41, so extra performance was "free".

The CAS/BAI competition had already been dumped by the time the A-7F flew, it was painfully obvious that USAF was willing to consider any aircraft as long as it was the F-16. Because the A-7F brought so much capability for much lower cost, Congress funded two demonstrators and charged USAF with testing and evaluating the a/c in the CAS role. USAF did so, but their attitude basically was Congress only said they had to test it, not actually compare it for use. So they tested it, then mothballed it and said, "Can we have more F-16s please"?

Regarding the A-10's "supposed" inability to fly at high speed, there's nothing "supposed" about it. It's a lot slower than the A-7 or the Harrier, no one's ever gainsaid that.

I keep threatening to tell the A-7F story here, but I keep putting it off. Sorry...some day.
 
RayBee27 said:
This is my first post; I've been a lurker for a number of years.


Partially out of respect for this forum, and partially out of a sense of intimidation - I'm in awe of the breadth and depth of knowledge and it's accuracy presented here.


With that in mind, I'm curious as to the opinion of the accuracy of the following article:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/can-we-learn-something-from-the-defunct-a-7f-strikefig-1591155307/all


I'm suspect by these sorts of articles (their viewpoints and their sources) that pop up on sites that seemingly cover a broad range of subject matter. The "Foxtrot Alpha" site is a spinoff/subsite of Jalopnik or Gizmodo. Sensationalism and a cavalier "jock" attitude is rampant there, and their writers seem to lack experience (personal or journalistic) and thorough knowledge.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, the author of those pieces also lurks here.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Am I the only one who thinks there was room for both the A-10 and A-7F if we're talking about a universe where the Cold War doesn't end then?
Click to expand...

The A-7F didn't come into existence as an idea to persuade USAF to replace A-10. USAF had already decided to get rid of the Hog. They were theoretically looking at a number of concepts, including the Harrier, modified F-4, F-20 (not a chance!), but what they really wanted to do was buy more F-16s. The A-7F got further than most because its cost/benefit ratio was so outstanding but once again, its biggest disadvanatge was that it wasn't the F-16.
 
F-14D said:
I keep threatening to tell the A-7F story here, but I keep putting it off. Sorry...some day.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should take some of the images from the threads here, if you can get license to use them, and just write a short piece on the whole Strikefighter program that led to the YA-7F and it's performance and history and publish the entire short piece through a publication at Magcloud?

As much info as you have regarding the program, it would probably make a nice small publication to have; I would definitely buy it.
 
Sundog said:
F-14D said:
I keep threatening to tell the A-7F story here, but I keep putting it off. Sorry...some day.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should take some of the images from the threads here, if you can get license to use them, and just write a short piece on the whole Strikefighter program that led to the YA-7F and it's performance and history and publish the entire short piece through a publication at Magcloud?

As much info as you have regarding the program, it would probably make a nice small publication to have; I would definitely buy it.
Click to expand...

I have originals of some of the images that have shown up here, and also different stuff. For example, I published a picture of the panel way back here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,11.msg44306.html#msg44306

(has it really been thatlong I've been stalling on this?)

It's a matter of pulling diverse stuff out of storage and finding the itme. I will do it, though.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Am I the only one who thinks there was room for both the A-10 and A-7F if we're talking about a universe where the Cold War doesn't end then?
Click to expand...
No, no you are not. They really do complement each other.

fightingirish said:
The article has been updated.
www.thedrive.com

Veteran Flight Tester On How The YA-7F Strikefighter Was Really A Jet Recycling Program

The YA-7F program aimed to field a new battlefield interdiction jet for pennies on the dollar by using spare engines and airframes. And it worked.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...
What stand out that I didn't know was that it was a double bang for your buck. Not only were A-7s to be upgraded, but it also meant the F-15 and F-16 fleet with the low hours older F100 engines could be with the much more powerful new F100 and F110 engines, vastly improving their performance, because the engines they had could be handed down to the A-7F.

So you wind up with a much improved fleet of older F15s and F16s, and a fleet of A7Fs built from existing stockpiles of A7s and using existing engines, preserving investments made in both A7s and engines.
 
apparition13 said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Am I the only one who thinks there was room for both the A-10 and A-7F if we're talking about a universe where the Cold War doesn't end then?
Click to expand...
No, no you are not. They really do complement each other.

fightingirish said:
The article has been updated.
www.thedrive.com

Veteran Flight Tester On How The YA-7F Strikefighter Was Really A Jet Recycling Program

The YA-7F program aimed to field a new battlefield interdiction jet for pennies on the dollar by using spare engines and airframes. And it worked.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...
What stand out that I didn't know was that it was a double bang for your buck. Not only were A-7s to be upgraded, but it also meant the F-15 and F-16 fleet with the low hours older F100 engines could be with the much more powerful new F100 and F110 engines, vastly improving their performance, because the engines they had could be handed down to the A-7F.

So you wind up with a much improved fleet of older F15s and F16s, and a fleet of A7Fs built from existing stockpiles of A7s and using existing engines, preserving investments made in both A7s and engines.
Click to expand...

AFAIK such "recycling" idea is pretty unique in recent combat aviation history. Pretty much an aircraft build from recycled airframes (A-7E) with recycled engines (F100s).
Never heard anything like this.
 
Archibald said:
apparition13 said:
Colonial-Marine said:
Am I the only one who thinks there was room for both the A-10 and A-7F if we're talking about a universe where the Cold War doesn't end then?
Click to expand...
No, no you are not. They really do complement each other.

fightingirish said:
The article has been updated.
www.thedrive.com

Veteran Flight Tester On How The YA-7F Strikefighter Was Really A Jet Recycling Program

The YA-7F program aimed to field a new battlefield interdiction jet for pennies on the dollar by using spare engines and airframes. And it worked.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...
What stand out that I didn't know was that it was a double bang for your buck. Not only were A-7s to be upgraded, but it also meant the F-15 and F-16 fleet with the low hours older F100 engines could be with the much more powerful new F100 and F110 engines, vastly improving their performance, because the engines they had could be handed down to the A-7F.

So you wind up with a much improved fleet of older F15s and F16s, and a fleet of A7Fs built from existing stockpiles of A7s and using existing engines, preserving investments made in both A7s and engines.
Click to expand...

AFAIK such "recycling" idea is pretty unique in recent combat aviation history. Pretty much an aircraft build from recycled airframes (A-7E) with recycled engines (F100s).
Never heard anything like this.
Click to expand...
Kfir
 
Not sure. Kfir airframes were new ones (manufactured in Israel) and the J79s were "fresh" too (AFAIK).

Nesher maybe ? Even then, the Mirage V airframes were "new" and so were the Atars (from Switzerland).
 
I don't think so. Neshers maybe, but not Kfirs. Proof: Israelis Mirage III-C and Neshers were sold to Argentina. So they were not rebuild into Kfirs.
en.wikipedia.org

IAI Kfir - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Israel never got 220 Mirages to be turned into Kfirs.
 
I think we are not discussing the same thing (I did some edit): the Kfir is not the Nesher. The Kfir is a modified airframe (engine mainly). IMO, all variants post the early design are rebuilt airframe.
ArAF did fly the Nesher (Mirage III airframe) during the Falkland/Malvinas war.
 
TomcatViP said:
I think we are not discussing the same thing: the Kfir is not the Nesher. The Kfir is a modified airframe (engine mainly). IMO, all variants post the early design are rebuilt airframe.
Click to expand...

You are unclear. Kfir C-1 and C-2 were new airframes. C-7, yes, they were rebuild. So what ?

Still stick to my point
- second hands A-7E airframes, subsonic with Speys
- recycled with second hands F100s
- into supersonic aircraft.

Not a single A-7F would be a "NEW" aircraft. As if, a NEW airframe build by Vought.

When Kfir C-1 / C-2 (at least) were newbuild airframes. And the J79s were probably new, too.

The A-7F is kind of North American
(instead of building F-100s)
- taking in-service F-86H airframes
- putting J57s stolen from F-102s inside
- and fly that supersonic

That's unique in aviation history.

Alternatively: Dassault recycling 150 SMB-2 airframes from the Armée de l'Air, stealing Atar 9C from Mirage IIIC - by 1967 - and selling that in place of Mirage F1s.
 
Last edited:
I think a better analogy for Israel would be if they had Mirage IIIs in reserve into the 80s, and decided to rebuild them into Kfirs. And then deciding to put low hour J79s taken from F-4s into them, while upgrading the F-4s with PW1120s (and ideally rebuilding those into IAI Super Phantoms).
 
apparition13 said:
I think a better analogy for Israel would be if they had Mirage IIIs in reserve into the 80s, and decided to rebuild them into Kfirs. And then deciding to put low hour J79s taken from F-4s into them, while upgrading the F-4s with PW1120s (and ideally rebuilding those into IAI Super Phantoms).
Click to expand...

Very well said.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom