+allenjb42 4,240 Posted August 5, 2008 Did the Marine A-6 units move on to the F\A-18D? And why didn't the Navy units get the F\A-18F instead of the former Tomcat squadrons? Didn't they think Navy Intruder crews could do air to air? I know that there was a gap between the A-6 being retired and the Superhornet two seaters coming on line, but not that long, and some historical squadrons (not to mention cool skinning options!) appear to have been lost. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
column5 63 Posted August 5, 2008 Did the Marine A-6 units move on to the F\A-18D?And why didn't the Navy units get the F\A-18F instead of the former Tomcat squadrons? Didn't they think Navy Intruder crews could do air to air? I know that there was a gap between the A-6 being retired and the Superhornet two seaters coming on line, but not that long, and some historical squadrons (not to mention cool skinning options!) appear to have been lost. The gap was several years. Another thing to consider was that the A-6 was designed at a time when the aircraft, its systems and pilot determined accuracy. Nowdays, even the cheapest aircraft could theoretically drop a LGB or JDAM with pinpoint accuracy. I think the A-6 and F-111 among others fell victim to this shift--precison munitions make percision aircraft obsolete. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted August 5, 2008 The gap was several years. Another thing to consider was that the A-6 was designed at a time when the aircraft, its systems and pilot determined the its accuracy. Nowdays, even the cheapest aircraft could theoretically drop a LGB or JDAM with pinpoint accuracy. I think the A-6 and F-111 among others fell victim to this shift--precison munitions make percision aircraft obsolete. I think you are absolutely right. Its also now a different equation in target sets. Before it was how many sorties in the strike package did we need to take out the target, to how many targets can one sortie take out. so far as squadrons missing - yes. We went from 14 airwings with 10 squadrons each to 11 plus one reserve with 6 squadrons each and 2/3 the previous deck load in strike aircraft. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ezlead 42 Posted August 7, 2008 The A-6 was supposed to be replaced by the A-12(Stealth attack aircraft). It didn't make into production(costs). The A-6 was carried for a few more years until the F/A-18 was modified for the attack role. Having the same aircraft in various roles makes for easier and less costly maintenance. The Super Hornet is a different aircraft(25% bigger than the original). Like Col5 and Typhoid say,precision munitions have changed the way of battle. One F/A-18 can do the same job as 4 A-6's because of what is carried(LGB's,Mavs,HARMS,Etc). Precision strikes with a lot less collateral damage are the way. But,I pick a squadron and make a skin even though it didn't exist. I'm not that big on accuracy. It's sometimes cool to imagine what they might have looked like. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+allenjb42 4,240 Posted August 8, 2008 Thanks guys. Don't get me wrong, I know why the A-6 was retired, all about the A-12 debacle and the advantages of the Superhornet over it's predecessor. I was just lamenting the loss of the history and traditions of the A-6 units and wondering why some of those units weren't retained to receive the Superhornet, that's all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted August 8, 2008 There's just fewer squadrons. Can't keep them all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MiGMasher 0 Posted August 25, 2008 I think in terms of Navy units, what remains of the A-6 units is VFA-115 (Pacific) and VFA-34 (Atlantic). I can't think of any other frontline U.S. Navy squadrons other than those two that survive to present day. I could be wrong though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MAKO69 186 Posted August 25, 2008 The A-6 was supposed to be replaced by the A-12(Stealth attack aircraft).It didn't make into production(costs). The A-6 was carried for a few more years until the F/A-18 was modified for the attack role. Having the same aircraft in various roles makes for easier and less costly maintenance. The Super Hornet is a different aircraft(25% bigger than the original). Like Col5 and Typhoid say,precision munitions have changed the way of battle. One F/A-18 can do the same job as 4 A-6's because of what is carried(LGB's,Mavs,HARMS,Etc). Precision strikes with a lot less collateral damage are the way. But,I pick a squadron and make a skin even though it didn't exist. I'm not that big on accuracy. It's sometimes cool to imagine what they might have looked like. How bout the A-6F Intuder II program that was cancelled. State of the art cockpit and electronics, new more powerful smokeless engines, new radar and jammimg technology, new composite wings, and oh yeah it would have been able to defend it self w/the AMRAAM-120. That would have been a great battle bird. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jug 99 Posted August 25, 2008 The gap was several years. Another thing to consider was that the A-6 was designed at a time when the aircraft, its systems and pilot determined accuracy. Nowdays, even the cheapest aircraft could theoretically drop a LGB or JDAM with pinpoint accuracy. I think the A-6 and F-111 among others fell victim to this shift--precison munitions make percision aircraft obsolete. Right to the point, Column 5, as usual. I did an analysis of the AMX that Brazil and Italy were co-producing some time ago and the conclusion was that the increasing pace of weapons technology justified the savings in a lower capacity airframe. The AMX has a moderate load carrying capability, good range, and is very maneuverable. It can sting back with the AIM-9L aboard and is maintainable by the services involved. It may not stun the crowd with a high-speed fly-by, but for the money it is quite capable. Theory being, let weapons technology carry the cheaper airframe. Looks like the trend they saw in their planning then is happening. Precison weapons in place of precision aircraft. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
column5 63 Posted August 25, 2008 Coincidentally I'm re-reading a book about the A-6 right now. One of the interesting bits of information is a comparison of the percentages that avionics contributed to the cost of the Intruder and its contemporaries: A-7: 17% F-4: 20% A-6: 43% Almost half of the cost of each A-6 produced was tied up in the DIANE system and associated gear, all of which was designed to put the aircraft over the target as accurately as possible for the release of dumb bombs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buzzard 72 0 Posted August 26, 2008 Less precision delivery avionics and equipment means more fuel, better performance aeronautically (in theory), or the option for a wider array of onboard ECM, etc.? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
column5 63 Posted August 26, 2008 C5, which book? http://www.amazon.com/Grumman-6-Intruder-W...737&sr=8-37 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DWCAce 19 Posted August 26, 2008 Ah, good series.. it's on the list :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
