[PH-LKK]

The Century Wings effort to give us both A-6 Intruders and A-7 Corsair II's has put this question to my mind: Why did the US Navy want both? Sorry if this seems a stupid question, but did they not essentially fill the same roles? To be more precise, what could the A-7 do that the A-6 could not? (I know the A-7 had vastly superior range, but it's not obvious that this made an operational difference.)

[skysurfer808]

The big thing about the A-6 vs A-7 was that the A-7 was more expendable than the A-6. When you consider that the A-6 was designed for the all weather bombing mission, it makes little sense to use the Intruder in day bombing missions. In fact, when this was tried in Vietnam, the results didn't justify the losses. Why risk two crew members and a highly specialized avionics package against trucks and sampans. The A-7, on the other hand, was designed for the day bombing mission, with an austere night and bad weather bombing capability. It was meant to replace the A-4 Skyhawk, and carry a larger payload with greater survivability. The long range of the A-7 helped, as did the fact that it was a development of the F-8. Therefore, the two complemented each other on the carrier, the A-6 was the heavy all weather punch, while the A-7 was the generic bomb thrower, with F-4's and later F-14's providing cover. The replacement of all by F/A-18s is more a function of the USN's abandonment of the blue water maritime supremacy mission, than a validation of one type being able to take care off all carrier strike and fighter missions. And even the F/A-18E/F Rhino will see specialization into the EA-18G Growler ECM aircraft, with the F-35C eventually taking over the long range stealthy strike mission.

Skysurfer808

[PH-LKK]

Thanks Skysurfer!

BTW, what's a "blue water maritime supremacy mission"?

[timbo]

Originally Posted by PH-LKK

Thanks Skysurfer!

BTW, what's a "blue water maritime supremacy mission"?

Destroying someone else's ships, and denying them the use of the oceans. Since the fall of the USSR there really isn't a Blue water threat (deep water ocean spanning). All potential adversaries are very much coastal forces with very little power projection capability.

[sniperUK]

Just a pity the USN didn't pick the best aircraft because of the NIH syndrome

YouTube - Blackburn Buccaneer final low level flypasts and photographs

[firefighterpilot1]

They carried out similar missions, yes, but they also had different capabilities as well. The A-7 could not carry the payload an A-6 could. The A-7 came in to replace the A-4 Skyhawk, and both were light attack aircraft. The A-6 came in to replace the A-1 Skyraider and both were medium attack aircraft. The A-7 also had air to air capabilities while the A-6 was strictly air to ground and tanker capabilities. I'm sure there's more to it, but that's a basic overview of the differences.

Also, the A-6 was the one with vastly superior range. This was particularly useful in the Tanker role, as a mission tanker KA-6D was able to go with strike packages on missions and not have to rely as much on air force tankers. I am not sure of the reasons, but I have heard that the current tankers (S-3's) are not sent with strike packages as mission tankers the way KA-6D's would be.

[flyXwire]

Originally Posted by firefighterpilot1

Also, the A-6 was the one with vastly superior range. This was particularly useful in the Tanker role, as a mission tanker KA-6D was able to go with strike packages on missions and not have to rely as much on air force tankers. I am not sure of the reasons, but I have heard that the current tankers (S-3's) are not sent with strike packages as mission tankers the way KA-6D's would be.

By it's very defined mission role the S-3's are enemy sub hunters and don't quite have the same strike packages that the KA-6D's employ and enjoy.

[firefighterpilot1]

A strike package is a group of aircraft on an attack mission. The anti-sub mission of the S-3 has all but gone away. The S-3 practically only does tanking now.

The KA-6D carried only fuel tanks as the S-3 does when in the tanker role.

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by firefighterpilot1

The A-7 also had air to air capabilities while the A-6 was strictly air to ground and tanker capabilities. I'm sure there's more to it, but that's a basic overview of the differences.

Yes. A-7s backed up the F-14s in the air defense role.

[lanslide]

Originally Posted by Rush104

Yes. A-7s backed up the F-14s in the air defense role.

Were A-7s the first fighters to back up F-14s? Hornets were the only other fighter to work with Tomcats - right?