I have always thought of this A-7 vs. A-10 fly off as being somewhat ironic.
This is partly to do with the fact that the USAF ‘hates’-
 Any slow (non supersonic!!) aircraft.
 any aircraft that is designed for mud moving
 any aircraft that has been forced upon it by another rival service or politicians
i.e. the ‘Attack Experimental’ (AX) / A-10 program was primarily designed, built and fielded due to U.S Army demands for a dedicated CAS/Anti-tank aircraft, or it threatened to field its own fixed wing aircraft (tested G.91, A-4 Skyhawk and Kestrel) and advanced rotary-wing attack aircraft (AH-56 Cheyenne)

Ironically though, the A-7, itself was forced upon it by politics.
The A-7’s primary down falls in the eyes of the USAF brass was –
 It was a naval designed aircraft (full stop!!)
 It was not supersonic
 It was simple (not full of advanced, costly and temperamental electronics).

At the end of the day, there has been few aircraft that has been so purposefully studied, designed and built for its given role and survival over the battlefield, as that of the A-10 Thunderbolt II.
The USAF has at every turn and opportunity tried to off-load its A-10’s.
Lucky for the Army and Marines on the ground, that each time the USAF top brass have seemed just about convinced the politician, to either scrap or replace the A-10’s (weather it be by a run of the mill A-7D, or a souped-up supersonic variant of the A-7 (the YA-7F) Along came a few wars (Gulf War1), where the A-10 was to prove its metal in combat for the first time.
It did not just excel in its intended role of close-air support and anti-armour, but it also did excellent work in the role of interdiction, hunting and killing ‘Scud’ SSM’s and giving support to CSAR.
Again it did not take long for the USAF to forget what the A-10 was capable of and what it done and achieved in the Gulf.
This time the USAF tried to kill the A-10 by proposing and strongly pushing a so-called dedicated variant of the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon – the A-16.
But then came the war in Afghanistan and then the invasion of Iraq – and again the A-10 was called upon by ground forces to give valuable and feared CAS and anti-armour support to their operations.
So after all its excellent combat service and its proof of concept and role, is the USAF happy with the A-10 now??
They are upgrading some of them to A-10C standards!
Ask the Iraqi soldiers which aircraft they feared the most (after the B-52’s and their carpet bombing that is!):eek:
Ask a Taliban fighter which aircraft he fears and respects most of all in the mountains of Afghanistan?:eek:

My opinion is that if the USAF is still not wanting of the mighty A-10 Thunderbolt II, I say give them to the service that will both love, respect, appreciates and utilizes them!
The USAF should stop its bitching and inter-service rivalry and bickering, and hand its A-10’s and the close-air support role to the U.S Army!
(And maybe, just may be thirty or so of them to the Royal Australian Air Force!!!!!!!!!:D:D:D)

P.S. back to topic
I believe from sources I have read, that it was a U.S Senator/Congressman:dev2:, who came from the same State that LTV/Vought was located, that pushed and lobbied hard for the A-7/A-10 fly-off, in the hope to keep production of the A-7 going.

Regards
Pioneer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdiNRzkbKPE @ 0:38 in

What’s the advanced high aspect wing bomber design in this video?
Is it an actual prototype or a scaled model????

Regards
Pioneer

I am afraid that is the Australian government and military way – minimal capability, at minimal cost!
Hay I am surprised that they haven’t robbed the few Army’s RBS-70 systems and gunners again!
That is expected to defend Army units Monday to Wednesday, Air bases Thursday to Fridays and Naval ships Saturday to Sunday
But hell, well have some of those very expensive and minimal versatility on our new AWD’s (Air Warfare Destroyers) just to complicate things

Regards
Pioneer

Forgive me if this is in the wrong forum, but…

From my understanding, the primary carrier-borne anti-shipping duties of the USN was in the form of harpoons off of FA-18Cs during the 80s and 90s. This is to be presumably carried on by FA-18Es and F-35s of the next generation.

But what about the previous generation? During the time of the ol’ F-4 phantom in USN service? What plane was tasked with anti-ship warfare off the carriers? And was it still practical to, say, use maverick AtG missiles or iron bombs off an A-7 or A-6 against enemy surface combatants?

And for that matter, how was anti-ship combat carried out by the earlier generations, right after the old methods of torpedo/dive bombing was outclassed?

And a related question: is it viable to use guided precision bombs in the anti-ship role against a modern armed naval ship (Using the Kirov class battlecruiser as an example)?

Sorry – I thought this task was also assigned to the Grumman A-6E Intruder – also armed with Harpoon’s during the 1980’s-until its unfortunate demise!!!!!!!
I would really like to be a fly on the wall of a U.S carrier, and really hear how commanders feel about the loss of the Intruders range, payload and true all-weather capability?

Regards
Pioneer

Mate!
It isn’t the French Aerospatiale SA-321 Super Frelon?

Regards
Pioneer

I would have to say the Eurofighter
For the Eurofighter will give back to the RAF, a true multi-role fighter, which is able to mix it in close air-to-air combat.
The Tornado F3 it replaces, although a good aircraft, was always an economic compromise – utilizing the existing Tornado IDS’s basic airframe, systems and engines (although eventually upgraded to give greater power.
The Tornado F2/F3 was a pure interceptor, designed for long-range / long-time-on –station interception of Soviet long-range bombers.
With the advent of the Su-27 Flanker, which was able to escort the likes of the Soviet (even Russian’s today) Backfire’s and Blackjack’s, the Tornado F.3 would have had a hard time defending itself after launching its 4 x Sky Flash missiles.
You would not want to get into a dogfight with a Flanker, in a Tornado F3.
Where as with the Eurofighter, you still have your Aim-120 AAM’s, which after firing at a stand-off distance, you still have the choice and ability to close into a dogfight with the bombers and their escorts using your agility, ASRAAM and cannon!

Regards
Pioneer

Off the top of my head, without having too think too much-

Brewster Buffalo
Supermarine Swift
Fairey Battle
North American/Rockwell XFV-12A
McDonnell Demon

More to follow

Regards
Pioneer

The MiG-25 flew over many Nato countries in cold war, with impunity.

Source: former inteligence officer Tom Gervasi

Please keep in mind my friend that with the end of the Cold War, the Russians have admitted that many of the suspected over flights of NATO countries (and Israel) at that time were performed by the Tupolev Tu-123 ‘Yastreb’ long-range, high-altitude supersonic strategic reconnaissance drone, which carried both film cameras and SIGINT payloads.
The ‘Yastreb’ was powered by the KR-15, which itself was an expendable version of the R-15 engine used on the twin-engine MiG-25 Foxbat interceptor.
The Soviets at the time were happy for the West/NATO to think that this was the scary ‘Foxbat’, for phycological reasons, as it wanted to keep the knowlage of the likes of its fast and powerful UAV’s like the ‘Yastreb’ as a strategic secret from the West and NATO!
So the ‘Foxbat’ can not take all the credit!

I just love and admired the secracy and mis information capability that the Soviet Unnion lived and died by!

Heres some info on the ‘Yastreb’

introduced in 1964
Specifications
General characteristics
Crew: None
Length: 27.84 m (91 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 8.41 m (27 ft 7 in)
Height: 4.78 m (15 ft 8 in)
Empty weight: 11,450 kg (25,250 lb)
Gross weight: 35,610 kg (78,520 lb)
Powerplant: 1 × Tumansky KR-15, 98.1 kN (22,046 lb) thrust

Performance
Maximum speed: 2,700 km/h (1,675 mph)
Range: 3,200 km (2,000 miles)
Service ceiling: 22,800 m (74,800 ft)

Regards
Pioneer