Jump to content

Observations of Vietnam era A-7E features and loadouts


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, is it windy yet? said:

 

The top missile is the radar-guided AIM-9C, the bottom is an AIM-9D. I think this pic was taken very early on. The AIM-9Bs never had brown motor bands and these were probably still following that marking scheme. You'll also note that the seeker section and fins are painted white. I think they stopped doing that because the paint kept flaking off.  In short, these were test missiles.

69CA1DD3-3001-46D1-A6E6-7DB8C02FDB26.jpeg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 1:59 PM, Mizar said:

Since we are here a couple of question:

Could the A-7 fly with fuselage Aim-9 rail adapters without them?

The bottom of the A-7C fuselage had same lump and bumps of the A-7E or it was something amiss?

 

Luigi

 

Not sure what you are asking, are you asking if the A-7 can fly without the fuselage AIM-9 Launchers? that would be a yes.

 

If you are asking if the A-7 could fly the Launcher without the adapter (spacer) that goes between the launcher the fuselage, no, the mounting bolts are in a different location/set-up so you can't mount the launcher directly to the fuselage, you have to have the adapter. Also, even if you could mount the launcher to the fuselage, you couldn't load a Sidewinder, the back wings would hit the fuselage before you could get it slide onto the launcher.

 

For the lumps and bumps on the A-7C, IIRC it depends on the time frame. During Vietnam it had the same forward "belly pan" but the aft belly pan was smaller, I don't know if the avionics were every upgraded to Echo standards, I don't think they were. They also did have the strike camera that was on the belly by the tail hook and the wave guide conduits on the fuselage side like the Echo. For the Echo, the waveguide conduits came after Vietnam, around the 1975 timeframe IIRC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To add what Jim stated, those missiles appear to be test missiles and the photo was taken prior to Vietnam. The LAU-7's (launchers) do not have fin retainers which were required starting with the AIM-9D's and appear to be early test/development assets since they don't have the holdback pin either. Also, the guidance section of the D doesn't appear to be live, I don't see the glass eye for the seeker and there's no nose cone installed which was required when power was not applied to the aircraft so I'm thinking the guidance sections were dummies and these missile were used for compatibility/weapons separation testing. Also, the tow bar is the old 50's/early 60's style and they are still using ropes to tie down the aircraft so I would guess this photo was taken during ship board compatibility testing in 62/63) time frame. Back then they didn't have inert training missiles like we do today so they had to use live components during testing.

 

As Jim stated, the brown bands weren't on Sidewinder's during the early years (AIM-9A-C's) but they were on from the AIM-9D and up (the Delta was introduced around 62 IIRC) .

 

As to your question about types of missiles, there are several different types;

 

AIM/AGM = live tactical missiles. AIM - Air Intercept Missile (air to air missile), AGM - Air to Ground Missile

ATM = Air Training Missile, live rocket motor and guidance/control sections but inert warhead, the warhead is usually replaced with a telemetry section so the missile can be tracked and determined if it "killed" the target. These are used for training aircrew in the operation/firing of the weapon. The  Air Force calls ATM's "JAIM"'s but they are the same thing, just different name.

CATM = Captive Air Training Missile, live guidance section, everything else is inert, used to train aircrew in the operation of the missile.

DATM = Dummy Air Training Missiles, totally inert, used to train ordnanceman in the assembly, handling and loading/downloading of the weapon, not for flight.

 

The markings come already applied from the factory but can be applied by the ordnanceman when they need to be. touched up/replaced

 

*Before anyone says anything, I kept this to air launched missiles, I am not getting into RIM's, BGM's, etc, that's Gunnermate's stuff.

Edited by GW8345
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GW8345 said:

Not sure what you are asking, are you asking if the A-7 can fly without the fuselage AIM-9 Launchers? that would be a yes.

 

If you are asking if the A-7 could fly the Launcher without the adapter (spacer) that goes between the launcher the fuselage, no, the mounting bolts are in a different location/set-up so you can't mount the launcher directly to the fuselage, you have to have the adapter. Also, even if you could mount the launcher to the fuselage, you couldn't load a Sidewinder, the back wings would hit the fuselage before you could get it slide onto the launcher.

 

For the lumps and bumps on the A-7C, IIRC it depends on the time frame. During Vietnam it had the same forward "belly pan" but the aft belly pan was smaller, I don't know if the avionics were every upgraded to Echo standards, I don't think they were. They also did have the strike camera that was on the belly by the tail hook and the wave guide conduits on the fuselage side like the Echo. For the Echo, the waveguide conduits came after Vietnam, around the 1975 timeframe IIRC.

 

I should have posted a picture of it, sorry 😕

Anyway I was asking if it could fly with just the spacer mounted without the Sidewinder rail on it.

For the A-7C my idea was a low visibility bird from the 80's, there are some pictures on wikimedia but the problem is that they are not clear and I'm always excluding museum birds from my researches due them being mix-matched shapes of the former selves

 

Luigi

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mizar said:

 

I should have posted a picture of it, sorry 😕

Anyway I was asking if it could fly with just the spacer mounted without the Sidewinder rail on it.

For the A-7C my idea was a low visibility bird from the 80's, there are some pictures on wikimedia but the problem is that they are not clear and I'm always excluding museum birds from my researches due them being mix-matched shapes of the former selves

 

Luigi

Yes, the A-7 could fly with just the spacer (adapter), we did it from time to time when we had to remove the launcher and didn't have one to put on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2019 at 12:59 PM, Mizar said:

 

The bottom of the A-7C fuselage had same lump and bumps of the A-7E or it was something amiss?

 

 

It’s my understanding the primary difference between a C and an E is just the engine.  When the Navy decided to build the E model the Spey TF-41-2 wasn’t ready.  So the first 67 E models retained the P&W TF-30 and were redesignated C models. When the TF-41 became available subsequent airframes were designated E models. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, habu2 said:

 

It’s my understanding the primary difference between a C and an E is just the engine.  When the Navy decided to build the E model the Spey TF-41-2 wasn’t ready.  So the first 67 E models retained the P&W TF-30 and were redesignated C models. When the TF-41 became available subsequent airframes were designated E models. 

You are correct sir.

 

---------------------------------------------

 

Most of the A-7C's were converted to TA-7C or EA-7L's in the mid to late 70's, only a hand full of Charlie's survived into the early 80's and only one of those (IICR) was painted in low vis colors (it was a test bird at Kirkland AFB and had some kind of bird on the tail). By the mid 70's, all of the A-7C were turned over to either test squadrons or the RAG's (VA-174 and VA-122) and I think a few were re-engined after they were retired and sold to foreign countries.

 

The only external difference between the C and the E was the wave guide conduits, the E got them shortly after Vietnam, the C's never did IIRC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another external difference between a C and a E is the C had the air start receptacle on the port side like the A & B, you can make it out just above the vent on the fuselage bottom:

 

A-7C_of_VA-82_over_Vietnam_1972-73.jpg

 

here it is on a A, the one with 3 latches:

 

a-7a_153135_093_of_109.jpg

 

Jari

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/13/2019 at 4:49 AM, GW8345 said:

You are correct sir.

 

---------------------------------------------

 

Most of the A-7C's were converted to TA-7C or EA-7L's in the mid to late 70's, only a hand full of Charlie's survived into the early 80's and only one of those (IICR) was painted in low vis colors (it was a test bird at Kirkland AFB and had some kind of bird on the tail). By the mid 70's, all of the A-7C were turned over to either test squadrons or the RAG's (VA-174 and VA-122) and I think a few were re-engined after they were retired and sold to foreign countries.

 

The only external difference between the C and the E was the wave guide conduits, the E got them shortly after Vietnam, the C's never did IIRC.

 

On 4/13/2019 at 6:01 AM, Finn said:

Another external difference between a C and a E is the C had the air start receptacle on the port side like the A & B, you can make it out just above the vent on the fuselage bottom:

 

A-7C_of_VA-82_over_Vietnam_1972-73.jpg

 

here it is on a A, the one with 3 latches:

 

a-7a_153135_093_of_109.jpg

 

Jari

 

I'm late for the party and I'm sorry, but many thanks again guys! 😄

 

Also thanks Habu, can't edit to get your quote through 😕

Luigi

Edited by Mizar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...