Talk:Douglas A-4 Skyhawk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Source

Curio - this page was cited by the New Zealand Herald as a major source in a 24/9/05 article about the Skyhawk.  :-)

Malaysian Skyhawks.

Thank you for the enthusiastic contribution made about Malasyian A4s.

I have taken the liberty of correcting some of your English.

The scentence; "The aircraft was sold for USD34 million dollars in the early 80s", I had had to remove because it was impossible to work out who sold which aircraft to who.

Please by all means add this information back in, but please make it clear Who sold the aircraft? (U.S., Malaysia?) Which aircraft? (PTM, or other, or both?) Who bought the aircraft? (Malaysia? Another nation?)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

another use in fiction?

Was the A4 the aircraft used in the 'Top Gun' spoof 'Hot Shots: Part Deux'?

John Travolta

As I understand it, John Travolta, who is a licensed pilot, attempted to purchase a Skyhawk. I don't believe he actually did. Perhaps this tidbit of info can be added. 66.44.10.213 00:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Thanks, Fred

Requests for citations

I have remove a large number of "{{fact}}" tags from this article - are any of these pieces of information seriously in question? There are a number of references and external links at the bottom of the article, splattering "{{fact}}" tags all over the place is akin to SPAM as far as I am concerned. Nick Thorne 11:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Operational service

Should be that text be under the US section of Operators ? --Jor70 12:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Normally it would, and I debated about that before moving it, in as far as the Operators section is usually limited to only a brief mention and that larger passages are best placed within sub-sections. However, I am not fixated about the placement as I have only just "stumbled" onto this article and there is a lot more editing to go. Bzuk 12:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

The Operational service section is really covering Operational history. The history from the other operators should in there as well, something like with the F-4 article. -Fnlayson 13:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean that currenly is simply covering the US operational service, whilst all other operators service are under Operators, --Jor70 16:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Right. I was commenting on the location of the info. It is likely there won't be history from some of the operators. It simple won't be available. However all the users should be listed in the Operators section. -Fnlayson 16:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you still working on this ? Because Combat Service is now only under US (when in fact the other 3 coutries used them in combat too) and all the related info of those 3 countries is splitted in two parts Jor70 02:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not now. See the TOC. The sections under Operational service are U.S., Israel, Argentina, & Kuwait. -Fnlayson 02:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok about combat, but operational US units are still mentioned on the lead whilst all others are mentioning under operators Jor70 03:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Help out and add a sentence or two there then. -Fnlayson 03:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I will like to, but I not feel quit responsable of this article to do so. but I will move all the "United States" paragraph to the respective US section under operators and rename "Operational Service" to "Combat Use" Jor70 05:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not necessary, combat use is not a recognized standard term for sections. You will note that the lead-in sentence clearly identifies the A-4's combat lineage. Bzuk 16:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

My apologies if I seemed unreasonable but why shouldnt the AR, AU and NZ operational histories go up too like the US ? Jor70 11:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Operational service includes combat service and any other service. Please don't rename that. Information on other nation's service can be added to the Operational service section. It just hasn't been done yet. -Fnlayson 15:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the Argentine section is now more clear, I think we should do the same with the others 'Operators' , as an example, the Kuwaiti operational lines do not have any sense as they are Jor70 21:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Users

What about putting a "9 other users" in the 3rd user spot like the F-16 has? -Fnlayson 14:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

How notable would a reference to the Skyhawk in fiction have to be for inclusion? Agripa 19:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Vicious Cycle

I have reverted the removal of the term vicious cycle.

A vicious cycle or vicious circle is defined by OED thus:

vicious circle

 • noun a sequence of reciprocal cause and effect in which two or more elements intensify and aggravate each other.

It seems to me that this is an exact and appropriate term to use when discussing the effect of increasing the weight of an aircraft component and the consequent effects on the design. To use the A4 as an example, if the main undercarriage was stowed internal to the wing rather than below as it is in fact, then the main wing spar would need to be made thicker and stronger to allow for the cut out required by having the gear internal, which would add weight. To maintain performance a bigger, more powerful (and heavier) engine would then be required which would require more fuel which would require bigger, heavier fuel tanks (including the fuel weight) to maintain range and endurance and thus a stronger airframe which would be heavier and so a more powerful engine would be required etc etc etc. In other words a vicious cycle or circle. Because of the close coupling of these factors in aircraft design it is also entirely appropriate to describe this as a tight vicious cycle. Nick Thorne ^talk 01:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the 'and so on' part was enough, but either seems clear to me. In general decoupled structures will be heavier. You don't get something for free by decoupling. -Fnlayson 02:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't mind if the statement is included or not, but the whole paragraph sounds like an editorial piece. I have fact tagged it. Can you provide a reference for that paragraph's statements in relation to the A-4's design? - Ahunt 11:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the references - that adds a lot to the credibility of the paragraph and also to the whole article! Wikipedia has been under the gun recently regarding credibility and all over the project articles are being challenged to provide in-line citations or have sections removed. - Ahunt 21:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I added what I thought were some reasonably credible online references, being for museum sites. I will be having a look through my library to see if I can find some specific written references as well. Might take a few days due to work commitmemnts. Nick Thorne ^talk 05:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be great if you can find some good refs. Much of the rest of the article could use some citations to add to its credibility and reduce future challenges. I have been doing just that from my library on some other articles, such as UH-1 Iroquois but have very little on the A-4 in my library to help out here. - Ahunt 11:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I had an Encyclopaedia of Aircraft in the 1980s that I am sure referred to the effect on the overall aircraft weight of adding 1kilogram to a component weight as the 'Heinemann Ratio' as if it was an accepted term in aircraft design. Can this be verified, and if so added to this article. Nick 3216 (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the rather extensive Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms, third edition, by Crane, Dale, Aviation Supplies & Academics, 1997. ISBN 1-56027-287-2 and did not find any mention of it there. It must be fairly obscure! - Ahunt (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I see someone has removed this term again. I don't know when but obviously I missed the relevant edit. I have re-inserted it for the reasons given previously.Nick Thorne ^talk 13:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought "tight vicious circle" had a negative tone while "cycle" was neutral. Still do to a degree. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes is does have negative connotations, which is entirely appropriate within the context. The discussion is on the problem of escalating aircraft weight. One of the key features of the A-4 is its small size and weight for an aircraft of its capability and performance. It is indeed an examplar of the 'keep it simple' principle. It is not a value judgement except that weight is always the enemy of the aircraft designer. Why do you think all these light weight materials have been developed for aircraft construction? To talk about the reality of the effects of increasing the weight of one part of an aircraft structure on the whole of a closely coupled system such as an aircraft is not POV, it is simply a reflection on that reality.Nick Thorne ^talk 03:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• You are almost talking down to us there. Like we don't know the value of saving weight on aircraft or other air/space vehicles. I know vicious cycle is not an uncommon phrase. That's why I have only commented about it. I still don't feel the negative tone is needed to get the point across. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to talk down to anyone here at all, sorry if it seemed that way, it was entirely unintentional. I just think the term is the most effective and efficient way to convey the point. Plus, I thought we had resolved this previously.Nick Thorne ^talk 08:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the term very much sounds like a POV value judgment. I would accept it in this context if it is a quote or directly from a reference, but as it is written now I think that the language should be more neutral. - Ahunt (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, it is simply stating the fact that increasing the weight of one part of a system like an aircraft has far reaching compounding effects on the whole design through positive feedback. The point is explained in the article and the term vicious circle is one of common use that succinctly describes the effect in a way that ordinary readers of the Wiki can understand. See the OED definition above. If you know of another term that better describes the effect please let me know about it.Nick Thorne ^talk 03:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In carefully re-reading the whole paragraph, I believe that the entire last sentence is redundant and is logically "beating a dead horse". The point has been clearly made and that last sentence adds nothing to the argument that this aircraft was designed right from the beginning. - Ahunt (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

There are quite a lot of images here, some are causing spacing/layout problems. The commons link would link back to them if they were removed, only about three or four need to go perhaps. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would rather see them put in a gallery rather than removed from the article. Many members of the public using Wikipedia for research (especially school kids) won't go as far as Commons to look for images - if they aren't on this page they probably will miss them. The software supports galleries specifically for situations like this. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I thought about that. Some editors don't seem to like galleries for unknown reasons, looks like the best way to go to me and there are more images in commons that could be added to it. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed - some editors have expressed a dislike for galleries in the past. I would much rather that the photos end up in a gallery as opposed to being deleted from the article. In many cases people have gone to great lengths to provide good quality photos, only to see someone else cut them out of the article. It de-motivates them from adding more photos to Wikipedia and makes the whole encyclopedia poorer as a result. Also I always try to keep a focus on the who the typical reader of these articles is. For the aircraft ones my target reader is a Grade 8 (13 year old) junior high school student who may be doing a school project. What will help them? What will they be looking for? One thing is definitely a wide range of free (especially PD) images that they can freely use to illustrate their essay. In this case I believe making more pictures available in the article itself, where people don't have to go looking for them, is better. - Ahunt (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the gallery question needs bringing up again at project level, as time goes by more images will come available and more are likely to be inserted in articles. Century Series is an example of a short article with a gallery that works. As long as the number of images is limited to a sensible level so that it does not overwhelm the page then I can't see a problem. Wish I had WP when I was 13!! Nimbus227 (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it probably does need discussing at the project level. Please do go ahead and start that conversation if you like. You can quote me above it that would help. I think that if I had had Wikipedia available when I was 13 then I probably wouldn't have this huge collection of aircraft books today. Many of mine date from that period! - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a supporter of lots of images in articles - and I dont like galleries. But this article is probably a good example of the use of images to show different aspects of the aircraft and its use. It does not have loads of images of very similar appearance which sometimes happens when you add a gallery. A-4 landing here, A-4 landing there, A-4 landing somewhere else. As to the original spacing/layout problems not everbody sees the same layout (depends on screen resolution and image settings) so moving stuff about can sometimes not help. So in summary I would say remove just one duplicated TA-4J picture at the beginning and leave the rest alone as a good example of how to use images to illustrate a subject. MilborneOne (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x 2) I notice that the position of any gallery is not mentioned in our page content guide WP:AIR/PC, nor is their use mentioned. Perhaps there is archived discussion on this somewhere. Recent discussions I have started in the project seem to get negative or cold answers, as in this case we would only be enquiring and not 'pushing', you first!! I understand about the page resolution problem, if you have your 'favourites' window open that squashes the article and changes the layout as well, good point. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I admit, I tried to get a lot of Skyhawk-pictures. However, I am totally open about the question: How many are necessary? Of each version of the Skyhawk, of each user? I once annoyed Ahunt, because I replaced his TA-4J-picture - as I thought that one of a plane in use illustrates better than one of a plane in a museum. Put just a few pictures and link to commons? I know, especially for people not that much into airplanes it is just good to know what a plane looks like and not version A, B, C ..., especially, if you have to know the differences. Well, I would opt at least for a good, big picture of the main version (like here A-4C or A-4E) for the infobox. In the text a prototype picture and the obviously differing versions (here A-4B, A-4E, A-4M, TA-4F/J, TA-4S). For the history, (one) pictures out of conflicts (Vietnam, Falklands, Middle East, Kuwait) would be nice. --Cobatfor 00:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Cannon attacks during the 1982 war

According to Argentine and British reports, on June 13, several A-4Bs did a bombing raid on land based targets on the Falkland Islands. During this attack, the A-4Bs also used their 20 mm cannons to attack Sea King helicopters that were either flying in the area or were on land, damaging several of them. I think that this should be included as well, since attacks against helicopters with cannons is a very rare feat to do with a bomber like the Skyhawk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.97.42 (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like interesting information and may well be worth including in the article. It does need a verifiable reference, however. Do you have one? - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My source is a book entitled 'A-4B/C Skyhaw' (ISBN 987-20375-0-7) which basically tells a resumed history of the development of the A-4 Skyhawk in the United States, and its use by the Argentine Air Force and Navy from their purchase to the year 2002 (year in which the book was released). According to the book, June 13 was one of the very few days that the A-4s attacked ground targets (something that was usually done by other airplanes) near Two Sisters. The cannons of one of the planes jammed, but the other one was able to shot many Sea King helicopters, after they had released their bombs on the targets. The second wave of attack also encountered Sea King helicpoters but they were unable to shoot them down with the cannons, but they were able to damage the ones on the ground.

Also, if you look for the Wikipedia article about the battle of Two Sisters during the war, it mentions the A-4 airplanes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.97.42 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

SIOP

I no longer have the book, nor do I remember the title, but I recall something about the A4 being the Navy's primary contribution to the SIOP nuclear war plans prior to the Vietnam era. If I can find a source, would that be important enough to add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.159.159 (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Air to Air Missions

A-4B Skyhawks were sometimes embarked to provide daylight fighter protection for the ASW aircraft on CVS classed ships. http://www.skyhawk.org/3e/va93/va93.htm http://www.uss-bennington.org/airgroups.html http://www.skyhawk.org/3e/va64/va64.htm I would like to include this in the article but I am not sure where it would flow best.

A-4 equipped with sidewinders in the 50's Attack_Squadron_46_(United_States_Navy)#Early_years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.124.230 (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Air-air missiles can be for self-defense against fighters when going on an attack mission as well. If you have a Reliable source to support that, add sentence(s) to the Operational history section in the US subsection with a cite. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have several sources that mention the A-4s being used in the CAP role from the CVSs. I'll see if I can run down a couple of them. - BillCJ (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A-4Gs were definitely used in the CAP role from HMAS Melbourne CVS-21 during the 1970s and early 1980s. I know because I was there. I'll have a look and see if I can find a cite-able reference for it.Nick Thorne ^talk 22:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• ^ And add to other users of course, like Australia. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And they still do it today, with the Brazilian Navy, though how effective they'd be in an all-out war is anyone's guess. I'm sure old Ed knwe he had a great design, but would he have imagined the A-4 would still be in front-line carrier service over 50 years after its first flight? - BillCJ (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry, the sidewinder quote is not the best source for air to air tasking it was more interesting that it was the first aircraft to pack the AIM-9 outside of the US, but if you look to the other links it mentions daytime CAP for US ASW aircraft flying from CVS's in the early to mid 60's. I wish I had a copy of Janes from the 60's. The HMAS Melbourne article has the quotes you need I think. I already added a blurb to the Essex CVS air wing wth the above ref's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.124.230 (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I inserted the refrences and about three lines with the primary and secondary air to air roles as well as first deployed sidewinders, I need a few good references for Aussi air cover role before I can put that in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.124.230 (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The text you added says that there were two ("both") air-to-air kills with Zunis whereas just above it the article says there was only one. Any resolution? - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The other was Israeli over the Bekka valley against a Syrian Mig-17, I dont like the flow of my sentence though, anyone want to make it sound nice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.124.230 (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work 79.182. on adding that. The Navy history site is a good source for info. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay that makes sense that the other kill was not in Vietnam, then. I have reworded the sentence, hopefully to improve clarity. See what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, fixed up the Aussi article on operators-of page to reflect the 4 missile setup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.124.230 (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone verify the statement "From 1956 on, Navy Skyhawks were the first aircraft to be deployed outside of the U.S. armed with the AIM-9 Sidewinder.[11][12]"? If you follow the reference links 11 and 12, they go to VA-46 history, which was indeed the first squadron to deploy outside of the U.S. armed with the AIM-9 Sidewinder, but it was flying F9F-8 Grumman Cougar at that time (56), as it didn't receive Skyhawk until 1958. Tkawahito (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Operators

There is duplicate info with List of A-4 Skyhawk operators. Why not do something like F-16#Operators ? --Jor70 (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I did some of that. There's just 3 current operators, so I kept the former ones and out them into 2 columns, like the F-16 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

looks better, perhaps we could occupy less space doing something like

• Argentina - Air Force
• Brazil - Navy
• Israel - Air Force

? --Jor70 (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It is more usual just to list the countries if a separate operators article exists. MilborneOne (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

will bring confusion on the Argentine case, a quick editor will remove it from the list --Jor70 (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should remove the current sub-section and put all the users in alphabetical order with just the comment (current) after the current ones. MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fine like it is now with the current and former operators listed separately. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

is not the similar thing to US: Argentina is listed on both: current and former operators. The current view do not make any sense --Jor70 (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Dang. I missed the repeated part there, sorry. I'll try to fix.. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

no problem --Jor70 (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Douglas A-4 Skyhawk/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

re-assess as b-class, was under A but still needs a peer review and references Would probably pass A-class review with references and copyediting. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 14:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Civilian operator

The A-4 is also used as of today by a company in Mesa Arizona. Advanced Training Systems International, Inc. They operate out of Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport "used to be a air force base". I am not sure how many they have, but I do know they operate them. Might be worth adding to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.173.32 (talk • contribs)

Must be Advanced Training Systems International. See their training web page. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

I have a couple questions about the Skyhawks Argentina used before the A-4AR. First of all, Argentinian A-4C Skyhawks clearly had five hardpoints; two under each wing and one on the centerline. Most of the sources I've seen however have said that early A-4s all had three hardpoints and that the additional two were introduced with the A-4E (which this wikipedia page itself says). So did Argentina have its own A-4C variant? If so, its not listed in the Variants list on the page. Also, were A-4Bs capable of carrying the AIM-9 Sidewinder? This page (and other sources) say how the US Navy introduced Sidewinders on its A-4B in the mid to late 50's, but Argentina's A-4P (an A-4B variant) couldn't carry the Sidewinder and one of the noted differences between Singapore's A-4S and the original A-4B is that the A-4S could carry the Sidewinder (see A-4SU Super Skyhawk to see what i'm talking about). Any clarification (both for me and the article) would be appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.40.66 (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Joe Baugher's pages, the A-4B added a centerline hardpoint for a fuel tank and the A-4E went to 5 points total. Also, Argentina got A-4Bs/Ps, A-4Cs and later A-4Bs/Qs. The Qs were modified to fire Sidewinders. I'll have to look through my books at home to verify this though. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fighter or bomber?

Is this aircraft more of a fighter or bomber? 204.184.80.26 (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Read the Lead. It is a light attack aircraft, so really a small bomber. -fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

exactly. B is bomber and F is Fighter, except for the F117-A. It has no defenses. Well, except stealth. A is Attack and that is what the A-4 is. -Nicno14

New Zealand

While it is true that New Zealand retired the A4's without replacement, much to the annoyance of the military, a full 17 have been retained in storage as 'trainers'. This is far more than required for training purposes given that New Zealand has no fixed wing airforce. I would imagine that if a coup occured in a nation like Indonesia and a hostile government took control then you would probably see these aircraft returned to airworthy status in short order while an order went out for newer aircraft. An A4 can be refitted in short order to carry a modern anti-shipping missile system. A part of this means they have ongoing NDT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.43.180 (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Article is a mess

All the photo captions are wrong, there are photos instead of flag jpegs under the list of former operators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.147.95 (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Which captions? The article has several images and of of them are spilling over into the Operators section. Images being in there is not really a problem. -Fnlayson (talk)

Improvement proposed - Preserved aircraft list

Hi Wikipedians, Given the length of the "Preserved aircraft" section, would it make sense to remove that detail from this article, and put that content in a specific "list of..." article linked from here? If so I'm happy to do the job. Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking over the article today, this is still a relevant point....my impression is there is enough material here to become its own article, ala F-4 Phantom II and F-4 Phantom IIs on display. Any other thoughts? Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Light attack vs attack

Why does it say how the Navy used the A-4 as a light attack aircraft "early in the Vietnam War while the USAF used the F-105 Thunderchief"? (or something like that). Early in the war, the USAF was using the F-100 Super Sabre for its light attack. That is the closest equivalent to the A-4. The Navy's heavy attack aircraft is the A-6. Neither the A-4 or A-6 is comparable to the F-105, but in terms of weight of ordnance, the A-6 is much closer. The F-105 was never used as a light attack aircraft, and the A-4 was never used as the Navy's primary attack aircraft. So why is the sentence worded like this?.45Colt 22:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)