A-7 Corsair II and the VAL program: how a multiservice aircraft should be developed

Aug 07 2013 - 9 Comments

There are several examples of combat aircraft that were born with the aim to serve in two or three different services of the same nation in aviation history.

Usually, these programs face many problems before they reach their full operational capability and they struggle to satisfy the different customers who put them into service.

This rule is confirmed by the last of these aircraft, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) which generated the three different versions of the F-35, as well as an older program, the Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX), with the USAF F-111A and the US Navy F-111B.

And while the Lightning II is eventually entering the active service in spite of several issues, the F-111 survived only in the A variant while the F-111B, destined to the U.S. Navy, was cancelled.

But among all these programs there has been also a huge success: the so called VAL (with V meaning for heavier than air; A attack; L light) from which the Vought A-7 Corsair was born.

National Naval Aviation Museum FB page

Originally, the VAL was a 1962 joint service program for the development of an advanced light attack aircraft involving USAF, U.S. Army and U.S. Navy.

However the Air Force preferred using its existing fighters for light attack and for close air support and suspended its sustainment to the development of the program.

So the Corsair II became the result of a Navy’s specific requirement to replace the older light attack aircraft such as the AD Skyraider and the A-4 Skyhawk.

Only in 1965 USAF rejoined to the program, developing its all weather version of the Corsair II, the A-7D. This version included advanced flight and navigation displays, one of the first digital computer and also an inertial navigation system. Indeed the A-7D had a truly advanced avionics: it embedded some sophisticated systems, including  the CCIP, the Continuosly Computed Impact Point that gave a real time computation of the weapon release point.

Along with the CCIP there was also the CCRP, the Continuosly Computed Release Point which would automatically deliver the weapon on the target point.

The A-7D  also introduced the BFL, acronym of Bomb Fall Line which showed a “X” on the HUD indicating where the weapon would have hit if the pilot delivered the weapon at that moment.

All these tools were a great help for the development of the Navy A-7E and thanks to the Air Force introduction in the program the Naval Aviation was able to realize its own version of the Corsair II with real all weather attack capabilities.

However the A-7 wasn’t such a revolutionary aircraft like the F-35 is intended to be: in fact the Corsair II was a low risk project since its airframe was similar to the F-8 and was also simpler than the Crusader one.

Still, the last of the Vought naval aircraft achieved some impressive milestones such as accomplishing its first flight on Sept. 27, 1965 ahead of the schedule and the first training example of the aircraft was delivered to the Navy in November 1966.

National Naval Aviation Museum FB page.jpg 2

All images: Naval Aviation Museum FB page

The A-7 didn’t face high cost overruns and the airplane was also able to respect the maintainability requirement with only 17 maintenance man-hours per flight hour.

Nevertheless the A-7D/Es were some of the first combat aircraft to be equipped with the Head Up Display.

Thanks to the help that every service gave each other, the Corsair II was able to satisfy its customers and become an attack platform with capabilities which they didn’t have anywhere else.

Maybe the story of the A-7 should guide the Joint Strike Fighter: a program not only affected by schedule slippage and cost overruns but that also a plane that risks to fail to meet some of its customers’ requirements.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
  • A.Physicist

    I look at the A-7 next to Boeing’s JSF entry and shake my head and wonder why. The merits of that configuration should have been considered more seriously. Too bad everyone wants to fly something that looks more fighter, less attack.

  • justpassingby

    Funny that this successful multi service aircraft has Boeing’s X-32 JSF look, since the JSF competition was decided on looks. “Oh look at that x-35, it LOOKS like a mini F22, cute, winner” …too bad it’s performance is “disappointing”. If they were going to make their decision based on looks (sadly) they could have at least done their research and picked the historically successful “look”. As a bonus they would have gotten a smarter airframe, which is always good when you’re looking for an airplane. ;-)

    I wonder what chances the F117 program would have had if the decision had been based on looks. A flying smoothing-iron must not have seemed very appealing at first.

  • ChrisL

    The best way to design/engineer a mulit service aircraft is to have the USN develop it first for carriers, then have the air force join in after that and modify it for land based use. It’s easier/cheaper to go from a carrier based to land based than the other way around. Going the other way around you have to re-engineer the whole aircraft(which means you may as well start over). The F-4 Phantom is another great example of an aircraft used by multiple services.

  • Chiefy707

    I love the A-7. My dad was assigned to VA-25 when they were still flying these. It’s also why I was rooting for the X-32, it really reminds me of the A-7.

  • marco

    Who knows what would have happened choosing the X-32.
    And anyway yes, X-32 is really ugly.
    Funny story, I remember around year 2000 as a kid i was playing a JSF videogame. The game-modeled X-32 had an overall superiority on the game-modeled X-35… but still the kid (me) was selecting the X-35.
    X-32 just looked wrong.

  • Johannes

    Guest
    Ever heard about the SAAB 37 Viggen? No it´s not a car!
    Base model was an attack a/c. Some cameras added, inboard and in a pod = a Recce was born.
    After some work; built-in gun, new radar, new software and an added fan stage we got an very good interceptor.
    All based on the same platform!
    Home made in Sweden

  • Localboy

    I’ve heard that the Boeing JSF entry was derisively nicknamed the “Monica.” The development was back in the Clinton era.

  • StanSki

    All I know is the day about 20 years ago when two of these A-7′s blew past at tree top level while I was fishing a lake in the Pine Barrens of NJ. They had on the camo of the Vietnam era and were beautiful examples of man’s ingenuity and conquest of flight.

  • Seb

    The A-7 program didn’t face cost overruns? Are we kidding here? Its price per unit almost TRIPLED before it was even put into service, it was even canceled at one point because of cost overruns… not to mention the fact that the Air Force is the one to thank for the actually capable A-7D variant, the A-7A lacked so many things it was almost useless for anything even remotely resembling CAS. All the “advanced” stuff we’re talking about here was either directly requested by or developed following inputs coming from the AIR FORCE… Let’s not confuse myth with history, shall we?

    Seb from Italy