i like its bulbous nose and the fact that its based and kicked ass

>>63872211 (OP)
A fellow man of culture I see

>>63872211 (OP)
>subsonic
LMAO FA-50 is better

>>63872211 (OP)
Like the Vikings, the view out that cockpit must be awesome.

based

It and the F-111 were the most advanced strike aircraft of the time (mid-1960s through mid-1980s)

>>63872211 (OP)
back when planes had soul

>>63872211 (OP)
she cute

it was the size of a World War II medium bomber and could carry the payload of a heavy bomber

>>63872211 (OP)
I don't know why, but I just think dedicated attack aircraft are so cool.

flight of the intruder is the best military aviation movie and i'm tired of pretending its not

and yes, a-6 is great.

"Fighters flying missions, bombers make history." You might enjoy the movie, 'Flight of the Intruder'. 1991 Directed by John Milius

>>63872211 (OP)
Carrier air wings used to be diverse as fuck

>>63872211 (OP)

>>63872240
>subsonic
like the B-2.

>>63877785
This always looked chaotic as hell to me, like any small movement of the boat or a breeze could knock them off or bang them into each other.

I realize now that a carrier is so well balanced that even on choppy seas it's a nonissue but looking at it sets off my ocd

>>63880384
They have chocks, parking brakes and tie-downs. They don't keep the aircraft on deck if they're in a storm/high seas.

>>63872211 (OP)
>a bulbous buffont?

>>63872211 (OP)
Not posting its objectively superior twin is a criminal offense. The fact that the EA-6B Prowler can use all the weapons of the A-6 really seals the deal.

Electronic warfare was even more potent in the EA-6's day, it needed replacement, but the concept still stands the test of time. 4>2 all day.

>>63877785
what year is that

>>63882691
Best for killing Italian Skiers.

OUTTA MY WAY PASTA FUCKING SHITS

>>63878622
Love the 2x2 seating layout

>>63882691
the first electronic warfare Intruder variant was the 2-seat EA-6A

>>63883857
>the first electronic warfare Intruder variant was the 2-seat EA-6A
Its shit (as in a disappointment). I'm sure crew overload was somewhat of a problem aswell, which is why it evolved into a 4 crew vehicle.

With 4 crew, the rear 2 can handle a majority/all of the EW work, while the co-pilot/navigator can focus on weapons. This is in my opinion one of the best combat support aircraft due to its ablilty to open up the combat zone to other friendlies with its EW capabilities. Not to mention it can drop some bombs/shoot missiles at targets from relatively safe altitudes.

Wouldn't want to go out without a fighter escort though, either that or be in a group of EA-6/A-6 aircraft.

>>63883223
Maybe they shouldn't have been in the way of a jet.

>>63884120
the A-6F with proper modern EA-18G electronics would have replaced it.

>>63884187
I agree, but then it wouldn't be so special IMO. Cool factor may not be a principle concern, but the EA-6 was definitely the cooler brother of the A-6.

The A-6 was also mogged by the EA-18 Growler. Nevertheless, the A-6 series of aircraft were a bit long in the tooth anyways (no air frame fulfilling an important role should be more than 40~ years old), however, the EA/A-6 was just that, old and ready for retirement. Served us well, and it will be missed (by me, anyways.)

>>63884228
It should have been and upgraded and supported program through the 1980s and 1990s, just as the F-14 ought have. (thanks to Traitor Cheney and the other war-for-greater-Israel traitors, we are where we are today)
Super Hornet should never have existed

>>63884152
Maybe he shouldn't have been flying under a cablecar on a jolly.
Someone got done for destroying his in flight footage on that one.

>>63877785
>>63883215
>what year is that
1967
aircraft of CVW-14 on forward flight deck of USS Constellation (CVA-64)
>RA-3B
>A-4C
>A-6A
>RA-5C
in photo foreground

>>63882691
Prowlers were notorious for being difficult to land on the carrier. Not sure if that extended to the Intruder also.

>>63884484
How on earth did that jet cut the steel cable instead of having its aluminium vertical stabilizer sliced off by the cable?!

>>63882691
Was replacing Prowlers with Growlers a mistake?

>>63872211 (OP)
I never paid much attention to her in the past but over time she has grown on me.
>>63890325
Considering what Growler is slang for in the rest of the civilized world then it depends on your point of view.

>>63890402
What is it slang for?

>>63891175
Lady garden

>ski cable car
>Nothing personal kid

>>63872211 (OP)
Based
>>63872240
Half the range and a fraction of the payload, very impressive.

>>63877632
Could also out-drag race any other naval aircraft due to having zero bypass turbo jets lmao

>>63884228
Retiring the A-6 (and bombcat) for an all bug airwing was a disaster that literally continues to fuck over Navair to this day. We burned up the entire legacy fleet and most of the traps on the super fleet just doing buddy refueling during GWOT. Entire fucking debacle would have been avoided if they kept the 60 A-6s they had *just* rewinged and SLEPed instead of turning them into a reef. Late 90s early 2000s NAVAIR was the darkest timeline imaginable

>>63872211 (OP)
A plane so ugly that even as a kid I wouldn't play with it.

>>63891429
Funny, that's what the other kids thought about you.

>>63891467

>>63891550
lurk more

>>63891567

>>63872211 (OP)
I heard they designed it so that the flight crew could hold hands.

>>63882691
Always found ace combat funny in how it never acknowledges your copilots despite them clearly being modeled. The prowler is particularly funny with its three mute Tagalongs

>>63893445
those are just afterimages from your character moving super fact manning all the stations

>>63893445
>three mute Tagalongs
How can you tell they're Filipinos?

>>63893445
It's funniest in AC5, since the canon plane in that game is the F-14A and since those are two seaters; there's just another 8 characters who never get mentioned at all.

>>63894493
At least they're along for more than the ride in Project Wingman

>>63891425
>out-drag race
Except the A-4 Skyhawk which had same engine

>>63894515
At first she played hard to get . . .

>>63891425
>burned up the entire legacy fleet
the A-7 should also have been kept (for a time) re-engine with nonafterburning F110
A-6F with F404

>>63882691
>tfw you will never experience sitting in the backseat setting off ied's remotely

>>63872211 (OP)

>>63872211 (OP)
A-6 being turbojet powered meant that it would have required extensive redesign to use turbofans.

S-3, OTOH, already used turbofans, so it only needed a NEO upgrade. Getting rid of it was a huge strategic mistake. Carrier groups lost their organic ELINT, tanker, and heavy aerial ASW component.
>but muh single-type efficiencies
Effectiveness is efficiency.

>>63877740
the book is great too

>>63907036
>extensive redesign
They already had done it, A-6F >>63884187
Also low bypass turbofans as installed in contemporary jet fighters/bombers are not any different dimensionally, inside of an aircraft fuselage, than turbojets

>S-3
Another airframe and program that should never have been dropped. USN carrier air fixed wing today (no, the Super Hornet should never have existed) ought consist of:
>Tomcat 21
>F/A-18C/D
>EA-18G
>E-2D
>C-2B (upgraded carrier onboard delivery, yes this should have been continually upgraded and in low rate production, parallel with the related airframe E-2 since the 1980s)
>A-7F (with non-afterburning F110)
>A-6F (with non-afterburning F404) >>63897974
>S-3 / ES-3 / KS-3 (tanker) / CS-3 (carrier onboard delivery
>F-35C

>>63907300
>Tomcat 21
I like the Supacat as much as the next planefucker, but swing-wings were the answer to a problem which went away on its own, after computer-modeled fluid dynamics became a thing.
>the Super Hornet should never have existed
There's nothing wrong with the Superbug. It's unremarkable, but a solid workhorse. And you can't have Growlers without the strike version of the Superbug.
>A-7F
The Strikefighter would be redundant, with the Superbug and the Intruder II on deck.

So a modified roster would be:
>F/A-18E/F
>EA-18G
>E-2D
>C-2B
>A-6F (re-engined with the Superbug's F414)
>S-3 / ES-3 / KS-3 / CS-3
>F-35C (eventually)

A wide array of planes, for a wide array of missions. Right tool for the job, no "everything is a nail" hammer logic.

>>63907345
Why keep A-6s, if you need tanking the S-3s are there and they're flat out not survivable in a strike role in a modern peer conflict

>>63907383
Better endurance than the Superbug. If used on mudhut bombing runs, where AA is nonexistent, survivability isn't important.

>>63907398
Forgot to add: Even if tanking is available, not needing to refuel cuts down on operational complexity.

>>63907383
A-6 is long range high loadout strike, that the F/A-18 can't provide and USN fixed wing carrier fleet has lacked since the Intruder retirement.
Core capacity

>>63907345
I should revise my initial post (You) replied to:
never mind the EA-18G.
it should be the EA-6G (A-6F with EA-18 electronics)
the legacy Hornet is the pound-for-pound F-4S Phantom replacement, Tomcat 21 is the long range fleet defense interceptor (as originally designed and intended, except for the 21st century)
and the A-7F with non-afterburning F110 for dedicated ground pounding close support
no Super Hornets, ever.

>>63878622
>>63882691
fun fact: the EA-6B had gold tint on the canopy to """protect the crew""" from the emissions of the AN/ALQ-99 electronic warfare suite.

I'm sure that worked really well, and nobody's brain was ever fried.

>>63907402
VC10, the only tanker that can get there faster than you.
RIP.

>>63894590
A-4 was also based

>>63907547
Pretty sure they "accidentally" cooked some hajii IED placing dumbass from a distance while trying a ground operated system in Iraq, and those weren't as powerfull.

>>63907547
There for a time period we had issues with the gold coating on the interior of the canopy glass flaking off. Finally traced it down to surface prep issues during the manufacturing process. Blemish and scratch limits were pretty damned strict. As far as I know no aircrew ever had their nuts fried.

>>63907300
>>63907345
>>63907529
Is there any plane that could have replaced the F-14 in the role it served? There's the navalized F-22 but from what I've read it would have been the worst of both worlds of the F-14 and 22 thanks to its weight and swing wings affecting stealth.

>>63907088
Thanks for the heads-up on thiis book. I didn't know it existed.

>>63910814

https://www.twz.com/29653/this-is-what-grummans-proposed-f-14-super-tomcat-21-would-have-actually-looked-like

>>63910814
Honestly any swing probably wouldn’t work out long term due to their maintenance costs. There was a naval F-15 that competed against the F-14, but I think that ended up being too heavy, though if it had worked out I wouldn’t be surprised if it would still be flying. There was also a navalized yf-23 design that added canards and thrust vectoring, though it never got any further than the naval F-22. We’ll probably have to wait until the F/A-XX comes out (if it does) to see something nearing the tomcat.

>>63911004
cheers. the author was an A-6 pilot in Vietnam

>>63872211 (OP)
It looks like a flying fish.

I like the way the wings are shaped

>>63907519
What about the FA-18s with the conformal fuel tanks? They could be a bunch of good bomb trucks. Furthermore, I think the F-15s make for a better replacement to the F-14, especially those with the CFTs

>>63913820
There's also this by Boeing, the external stealth weapons pod I think it's called, seems like it would be quite useful for many aircraft, even non stealthy ones thanks to low drag