Talk:Grumman A-6 Intruder/Archive 1

Images & stuff
Some pictures of an Intruder.
 * Image:A6Intruder1.JPG
 * Image:A6Intruder2.JPG

I think it should also be noted that this aircraft has NO defense once in the air other then flares and chaff. All of its weapons are used to hit ground targets.

Unless of course you configure it to fly sidewinder which Ive only seen done once.--NavyAO2(AW) 22:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor Incorrectness of Statement
"In addition, the Intruder used AMTI (Airborne Moving Target Indicator) which allowed the plane to track a moving target (such as a tank or truck) and drop ordnance on him even though the target was moving."

The letter preceeding MTI designates the type of target the mode applies to, not the type of platform used. In this case, a plane looking at the ground would be using GMTI (see the JSTARS article). A plane looking at other planes would be using GMTI. I'm switching the letter to note this. 192.160.51.70 12:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

On this radar, the APQ-156 it is called AMTI.

Here is a pic of the cockpit control box. http://www.oocities.con/Pentagon/Bunker/7316/radar.html

There is a pic of the BNCB, look at the knob dead center. That is the knob for AMTI. It is acutally called AUTOMATIC Moving Target Indicator, not airborne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.161.198.115 (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Refueling probe
I think some mention should be given in this article to the refueling probe, as it is a particularly striking and unique feature of this aircraft. However, I'm not sure to which section it should be added according to WikiProject Aircraft. Anyone have a good idea? &mdash;Brim 19:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Bat*21
Maybe it's my struggling memory but were there some Intruders in the film Bat*21?

In other trivia I am pretty sure there is a brief mention of an EW EA-6B in the novel "The Zone 1 Hard Target" by James Rouch. See: http://members.iinet.net.au/~avalon11/WW3THEZONE/THE%20ZONE%2000%20THE%20SERIES.htm#ZONE01 Royzee 18:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there may have been Intruders in Bat*21, but they certainly weren't significant enough to the plot to merit a mention in the "Intruders in Popular Culture" section.

As far as the mention of an EA-6B in anything, Prowlers are not A-6s, they are a completely different aircraft based on the Intruder airframe (and there is an EA-6B Prowler article), so there's no need to add information about the Prowler to the Intruder article. CruiserBob 00:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Range is wrong ??
How can the ferry range be less than the combat range? Does that make sense to anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.143.175 (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Carrier Based Refueling platform
It bothers me that there is no mention of the S-3 Viking as the replacement for carrier based in flight refueling. The Navy did not switch directly from the KA-6 to the F/A-18E. Currently, the S-3B is serving as tanker for CAWs in the US Navy. However, as more of the F/A-18Es are being converted for tanker duty, the S-3B airframes are being retired. Please edit the article to reflect this. In addition, the A-6 article should be edited to reflect this as well.-Txredcoat 22:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to have the information available - please either edit the affected articles yourself or provide references so that others may do so. ericg ✈ 01:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I edited the KA-6D section because I noticed the same problem. The S-3B has been used as a tanker, but it is too low and slow to support strike packages effectively and is pretty much limited to the overhead recovery tanker role. Phaid 20:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. S-3B Vikings were used in Mission and Recovery Tanking especially during Iraqi Freedom. I flew 25 mission tanking missions during OIF.

Removal?
It seems to me that the following section is war stories and not really about the airplane....you could substitite any airplane into these stories, there is nothing Intruder-specific about them.

"On 21 August 1967 four A-6 Intruders from the carrier Constellation (Squadron VA-196) attacked a railway in North Vietnam, one A-6 piloted by CDR Leo Profilet and LCDR William Hardman was hit by a surface to air missile (SAM), their aircraft cartwheeled, and both crewmen ejected, becoming POWs. The three other A-6s continued their mission, then suddenly two of the three Intruders became separated from the third aircraft, and possibly due to the thunderstorms and low clouds, headed directly across into Communist China. They were attacked and shot down by Red Chinese MiG-19s (J-6s). LTs (JG) Dain Scott and Forrest Trembley, and LCDR Jimmy Buckley did not survive. LT Robert Flynn became a POW, and was repatriated on 15 March 1973. One of the most harrowing stories occurred when Lt. TJ Coughlin and his crewman made an emergency landing at sea and following a gun battle with boat forces of the NVA, they moved onto shore where another violent exchange occurred prior to both being rescued and returned to their ship. During this 36 hour engagement, 4 enemy soldiers were killed and two more were wounded."

Comments? I think the article would read better without these bits...if the actions are notable on their own (especially the last one! sounds crazy), they should have their own articles.Burtonpe (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * These events/missions should be shortened or summarized but not totally removed, imo. Update: Ah, that whole thing could be deleted without really losing much.  I don't see anything especially notable about the 21 August mission.  The part about TJ Coughlin seems to be a different event.  That part is not too long compared to rest of that paragraph. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * About a year and a half ago or so, a user added material on aircraft losses in Vietnam from the book by Hobbs, most of it very detailed info on each incident. I've manged to remove most of the details from the other Wietnam-era aircraft airticles, but I missed this one. Concur that it should be removed, possibly keeping the total losses if applicable. - BillCJ (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed that paragraph from the article. Is that the Hobson book used as a reference in the article or another one?  I need to get back reading my Dorr A-6 book.  A book from the 1990s would better to cover the A-6's history though. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the book I'm referring to is  Vietnam Air Losses, USAF/USN/USMC, Fixed-Wing Aircraft Losses in Southeast Asia, 1961-1973. I'm assuming that's where this info came from. - BillCJ (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A-6A Circulation Control Wing (CCW) Experiements
Would it be appropriate to discuss the A-6A CCW STOL experiments? I've got a pretty good AIAA paper about it if it's worth summarizing in a paragraph. - SidewinderX (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would in my opinion. I know there was a version of the A6 that had articulated exhaust nozzles, but I do not have the facts.  Can someone post more details or links that we can use to include this interesting version of the A6?  Thanks! 73.6.96.168 (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Operators
I've heard that the A-6 was the only military aircraft we never sold to any foreign country. If anybody can confirm this, especially if the reason for why can be explained, it would be a nice addition to the article.74.239.2.104 (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure why it didnt sell perhaps it was not offered and other countries had their own solutions in the 1960s. As for only military aircraft not sold abroad how about B-52 and B-58 and I am sure they are more. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Far from being the only one. A-10, B-1, B-2, C-5, F-117 and F-22 are some mil aircraft I can think of that have not been exported by the US.  Generally smaller air forces can not afford specialized aircraft.  Also, the US may not approve some for export.  In the 1970s and '80s the A-6 probably fell more in the latter group due to its all-weather attack capabilities. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Major revamping
Hi guys, prior to a major work on the article, I suggest splitting the "Design and development" into "Design" and "Development" sections. Move all the info under "Variants" under "Design", before expanding the sections themselves.  Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 00:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably not a bad idea, could also do with a "standard" variants section which just a summary of each type. MilborneOne (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added a new "variants" section more like other articles which can be promoted to Header 2 when the other stuff is moved into design. MilborneOne (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the Design section should cover the basic features and a little on variant differences where needed.  Keep most of the variant differences in the Variant entries. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Electronic warfare versions
"The navigational radar was upgraded to AN/APS-133 from the AN/APN-153 on EA-6A."

This is incorrect. The only similarities between the two units are the word radar in the names, and the use of reflected RF pulses in their operation.

The AN/APS-133 is a multi-function radar with a CRT display that shows targets, and their distances and bearings. A - airborne; P - radar; S - search

The AN/APN-153 is a Doppler radar navigation set that displays the aircraft's ground speed and drift angle on a mechanical unit. A - airborne; P - radar; N - navigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NavyVet6989 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

DIANE Explained
Hi all,

I was thinking if it would be a good fit for the article if there were a much more detailed explanation of how DIANE actually worked. It is especially interesting regarding how the cockpit displays worked, and important too, in that the A-6 was a trailblazer in this respect. What do you guys think?

121.217.21.38 (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source per WP:V, go for it. Just be careful of undue weight - the article is about the A-6 overall, so one specific subsystem probably doesn't need more than a paragraph. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Concur. However, if there turns out to be a lot of information, it could make a decent article on its own. - BilCat (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)