Better Fighters & Attack Planes

[KJ_Lesnick]

I was thinking about an issue about the aircraft the USAF & USN had, particularly in the post-WWII period (I'm not averse to foreign designs being mentioned so long as they're western for reasons that I'll explain below).

Basically it had to do with something that I read about the F-14 and Rear Admiral Gillchrist when talking about fleet-defense aircraft and he always told his subordinates to not think of carrier interceptors as "fleet-defense" aircraft as it encourages a certain mind-set, and to instead think of it as "air superiority", in this case defensive.  The F-14, while it was far from perfect, was actually a pretty good design when it had a reliable engine.

On some level I'd thought this way for some time as well, though it was based on the fact that early interceptors were often fighter planes with a prime on...

• Climb-rate
  
• Speed/Acceleration
  
• Firepower
  
• Altitude
  

Range often was sacrificed in the process, though they were still generally expected to be functional fighters.  Though there were aircraft such as the YFM-1 (despite being a terrible aircraft) that were designed as "bomber destroyers", most interceptors did not fit this bill except perhaps some night-fighters (many were modified bombers, though I suppose in the dark they could be effective against a fighter in the dead of night).

It seemed that starting in the Cold War, the interceptor changed in many cases to a machine designed for little more than bomber killing (though admittedly for logical reasons).  Most of this had to do with the removal of guns for rockets, and eventually rockets for nuclear tipped and missiles.

The USAF seemed to deviate from this first...

• The F-89 was intended as a night-fighter that was progressively morphed into an all-weather rocket-firing interceptor: It's possible some of the guns and ammo might have had to be removed to make room for the larger radar, but they removed them all, and carried rockets in the wingtip-pods.
  
• The F-94 was designed as an all-weather fighter, sort of to supplement the F-89: It saw use in Korea and even got a kill or two to it's name; when the F-94C came around: The aircraft was configured to carry guns or rockets.
  
• The F-86D was supposed to carry guns or rockets, but later dropped the gun specification and carried only rockets.
  
• The F-102A was to carry 6xAIM-4's and 24x2.75" rockets: The plane was quite agile, but largely useless in fighter-to-fighter combat.
  
• The F-101B carried either 3xAIM-4, or a rotating pallet with either 2xAIM-4 on either side or 2xAIR-2 and 2xAIM-4: While the AIR-2 definitely could be lethally employed against a fighter (as it took out everything in a 300 to 1,000-yard radius), it was useless in any conventional war (despite SAC's attitude that we'd never fight another conventional war, we did a whole bunch of times since).
  
• The F-106 carried either 6xAIM-4's or 4xAIM-4 + 1xAIM-2 Genie: The plane was quite agile, but wasn't equipped with a gun until far into it's service life.  As before, the Genie would basically ensure a kill against a fighter, but would not be useful in conventional war.
  
• The F-108, though it never flew, was fitted with all of 3xAIM-47's; while they toyed with guns; they were never fitted.
  

While the USN would eventually deviate from this to some degree, they didn't seem to be willing to part with guns as quickly...

• The F4D's was intended from the outset to be a fleet air-defense interceptor, though it seems that they considered the guns to be useful at best, and might have seen the anti-fighter capability as useful: It ultimately carried 4x20mm in the wings, and the ability to carry several rocket packs or AIM-9 (in practice 2xAIM-9's were carried along with at least 2 x rocket-pods).
  
• The F3H's were designed as kind of a high-performance fighter, an F4D competitor, and eventually, some form of high-performance night-fighter: It's armament consisted of 4x20mm in the lower fuselage, and a flush rocket-tray under the fuselage: The performance of the aircraft in this stage was actually quite excellent (except the engine which were replaced) until they decided to add a multi-role capability, which jacked its weight up around 12,000 pounds.  It might have carried the 4x20mm and rocket-tray early on, but soon found itself carrying either 4xAIM-7A, or 2xAIM-7A + 2xAIM-9; eventually some variants would carry 4xAIM-7C.  With a weight in the air-to-air configuration going up from 24,000 pounds (originally intended) to 32,000 pounds, the guns were removed to save weight, and it was gun-less in practice (though I'm not sure if this was desired at the time) unless fitted for air-to-ground (in which it carried 2x20mm only).
  

...they would eventually remove guns from their fighters, however...

• The F8U-3, though it never flew was originally designed to carry 3xAIM-7 or 4xAIM-9; it later would carry both together, as well as other combinations (4xAIM-7 + 2xAIM-9, 5xAIM-7, 6xAIM-9).  While there was an RAF proposal that carried a weapons pack that could theoretically fit a gun, the USN wasn't interested (far as I know).
  
• The F4H/F-4 actually entered service without a gun
  

Interestingly, the USN didn't seem to actually use these planes as just interceptors, but planned to use the missiles against fighters and bombers.  It didn't work so good of course because...

• Most missile tests were done against targets that were non-maneuvering.
  
• The missiles were operated under pristine conditions rather than combat ones (though there may have been some evaluation as to the effects of corrosion).
  
• Cases where the missile either did not launch or had a gyro-malfunction may not have always been counted as a miss.
  
• The crews were not always ideally trained in air-to-air combat because the USAF felt air-superiority wasn't important and kept saddling crews with all sorts of safety requirements that compromised their skills, and the USN probably didn't focus as intensely on ACM because they'd figure you'd kill 'em from long range probably before the merge.
  

The results were that missiles malfunctioned at a shocking rate for both services, and in many cases (possibly more USAF than USN), the missiles were fired outside the envelope.  Ultimately the USAF and USN would learn the lesson and ensure their fighters were fitted with guns.

Other issues had to do with dedicated attack-bombers (which could be single or multi-engined tactical aircraft) which the USAAC/USAAF & USN used, the USAF didn't until 1962, and the USN would still be using if the A-12 wasn't cancelled.

[KJ_Lesnick]

And with all this, I was thinking of a WHIF exercise regarding fighter-plane designs: Since the USSR was our enemy at the time, the issue would be predominantly so-called western-aircraft designs.

[rickshaw]

The fUSSR was your nation's intended enemy but in reality, it never fought it, Kendra/Robyn.  Instead, it ended up fighting a series of sattelites and client states which while predominately armed with the weapons of the fUSSR, there were a smattering of Western aircraft as well (primarily French and British, interestingly).   Designed your nation's equipment purely to defeat only one opponent's equipment often left your armed services short of the means to fight other nations.   It also left your clients in such a position.

This was particularly true during the 1960-70s, when the influences of the Vietnam war were being felt.   ECM in particular was tailored to defeat fUSSR SAMs and aircraft radars, without any consideration that often, third world countries shopped more widely and used British/French/Swiss/Italian and occassionally even US radars and missiles.   Something the Israelis quickly realised and worked hard to tailor their systems to.

While aerodynamics are important, never forget that a modern aircraft is a weapons system and relies on the ability to engage and defeat it's enemies, often unseen by ECM and BVR missiles.   I'd suggest that in many cases, the USAF's inventory was made up of marginally controllable aircraft (F-101/F-104/F-89/etc) armed with weapons and systems which invariably failed under combat conditions.   The fSoviets weren't much better, often investing vast sums in SAMs (SA-1, SA-2, SA-3) and aircraft (Su-7/9/11, etc) that looked menacing on the ground but had marginal performance in the air.

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw,

The fUSSR was your nation's intended enemy but in reality, it never fought it, Kendra/Robyn.

Thank god we didn't, we probably wouldn't be here if we did...

there were a smattering of Western aircraft as well (primarily French and British, interestingly).

I didn't know that...

Designed your nation's equipment purely to defeat only one opponent's equipment often left your armed services short of the means to fight other nations.   It also left your clients in such a position.

That's actually a good point, though I'm curious if the RAF fell prey to this on some level?

While aerodynamics are important, never forget that a modern aircraft is a weapons system and relies on the ability to engage and defeat it's enemies, often unseen by ECM and BVR missiles.   I'd suggest that in many cases, the USAF's inventory was made up of marginally controllable aircraft (F-101/F-104/F-89/etc) armed with weapons and systems which invariably failed under combat conditions.   The fSoviets weren't much better, often investing vast sums in SAMs (SA-1, SA-2, SA-3) and aircraft (Su-7/9/11, etc) that looked menacing on the ground but had marginal performance in the air.

How did the electronics and weapon systems used by the British, French, Swiss, do?

[rickshaw]

rickshaw,

The fUSSR was your nation's intended enemy but in reality, it never fought it, Kendra/Robyn.

Thank god we didn't, we probably wouldn't be here if we did...

there were a smattering of Western aircraft as well (primarily French and British, interestingly).

I didn't know that...

Most Soviet clients had been ex-colonial possessions of either the British, French or Spanish empires.  Look at the early histories of Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Iran to see what I'm talking about, Kendra/Robyn.

Designed your nation's equipment purely to defeat only one opponent's equipment often left your armed services short of the means to fight other nations.   It also left your clients in such a position.

That's actually a good point, though I'm curious if the RAF fell prey to this on some level?

Everybody fell prey to it, at one point or another.  The RAF fell prey to it in 1982 when the Argentines invaded the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.   The RAF suddenly found it was facing a foe equipped with a mix of French/British/Israeli aircraft and weapons.   They had to go cap in hand to the French on how best to counter the Exocet which they had adopted themselves.

While aerodynamics are important, never forget that a modern aircraft is a weapons system and relies on the ability to engage and defeat it's enemies, often unseen by ECM and BVR missiles.   I'd suggest that in many cases, the USAF's inventory was made up of marginally controllable aircraft (F-101/F-104/F-89/etc) armed with weapons and systems which invariably failed under combat conditions.   The fSoviets weren't much better, often investing vast sums in SAMs (SA-1, SA-2, SA-3) and aircraft (Su-7/9/11, etc) that looked menacing on the ground but had marginal performance in the air.

How did the electronics and weapon systems used by the British, French, Swiss, do?

Depends on when and how well they were on top of the game.  The French and the British were NATO's leaders, followed closely by the Germans and Italians.  Even so, their systems sometimes worked, sometimes they didn't.  I suspect there was an element of luck and skill involved which their clients didn't always have.

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw,

Most Soviet clients had been ex-colonial possessions of either the British, French or Spanish empires.  Look at the early histories of Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Iran to see what I'm talking about, Kendra/Robyn.

Yeah, I see what you mean.

Everybody fell prey to it, at one point or another.

That's a relief...

The RAF fell prey to it in 1982 when the Argentines invaded the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.   The RAF suddenly found it was facing a foe equipped with a mix of French/British/Israeli aircraft and weapons.   They had to go cap in hand to the French on how best to counter the Exocet which they had adopted themselves.

I'm not sure if understand you here: They had to ask the French how to defeat a weapon that they adopted (the UK) as well as the Argentinians, or a weapon that just the Argentinians adopted?

Depends on when and how well they were on top of the game.  The French and the British were NATO's leaders, followed closely by the Germans and Italians.  Even so, their systems sometimes worked, sometimes they didn't.  I suspect there was an element of luck and skill involved which their clients didn't always have.

I was just curious how frequently they malfunctioned compared to us as a general rule.

[rickshaw]

rickshaw,

Most Soviet clients had been ex-colonial possessions of either the British, French or Spanish empires.  Look at the early histories of Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Iran to see what I'm talking about, Kendra/Robyn.

Yeah, I see what you mean.

Everybody fell prey to it, at one point or another.

That's a relief...

The RAF fell prey to it in 1982 when the Argentines invaded the Falkland/Malvinas Islands.   The RAF suddenly found it was facing a foe equipped with a mix of French/British/Israeli aircraft and weapons.   They had to go cap in hand to the French on how best to counter the Exocet which they had adopted themselves.

I'm not sure if understand you here: They had to ask the French how to defeat a weapon that they adopted (the UK) as well as the Argentinians, or a weapon that just the Argentinians adopted?

Both the British (RN) and the Argentines (Navy) had adopted the surface-to-surface or air-to-surface versions of the Exocet.  Adoption of a weapon does not allow you to understand everything about how it works and why it behaves the way it does.  When the Argentines attacked and the British went to counter-attack, the British found they didn't quite know exactly how the Exocet's seeker worked (they knew it detected its target with radar and the missile homed in on the reflections, they didn't know exactly how it's internal logic or ECCM worked).   The British went to the French, their nominal allies and the suppliers of the Exocet to the Argentines and asked, "OK, how does this work?  What frequencies does it use?  Did you give the Argentines any special tricks when you sold them the Exocet?"   The French were very reluctant to supply that information, for commercial reasons.

Depends on when and how well they were on top of the game.  The French and the British were NATO's leaders, followed closely by the Germans and Italians.  Even so, their systems sometimes worked, sometimes they didn't.  I suspect there was an element of luck and skill involved which their clients didn't always have.

I was just curious how frequently they malfunctioned compared to us as a general rule.

"Malfunction" means they didn't work when required to work.  I see it more as a case of, working but not necessarily quite in the way they were intended to.

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw,

Both the British (RN) and the Argentines (Navy) had adopted the surface-to-surface or air-to-surface versions of the Exocet.  Adoption of a weapon does not allow you to understand everything about how it works and why it behaves the way it does.

I figured every nation that would adopt a weapon would basically through...

1. Training from the manufacturer
2. Training how to maintain the missile
3. Training how to operate the weapon in combat

...would effectively ensure the operator would know pretty much everything about the weapon in practice.

When the Argentines attacked and the British went to counter-attack, the British found they didn't quite know exactly how the Exocet's seeker worked (they knew it detected its target with radar and the missile homed in on the reflections, they didn't know exactly how it's internal logic or ECCM worked).

You're telling me most nations don't disassemble an exported weapons system down to it's individual elements and somehow dump the code in one way or another?

The British went to the French, their nominal allies and the suppliers of the Exocet to the Argentines and asked, "OK, how does this work?  What frequencies does it use?  Did you give the Argentines any special tricks when you sold them the Exocet?"

When you say special tricks?  Do you mean special tactics, modifications to the weapon?

The French were very reluctant to supply that information, for commercial reasons.

"Malfunction" means they didn't work when required to work.  I see it more as a case of, working but not necessarily quite in the way they were intended to.

Okay, here's what I mean: The missile when fired either...

1. Does not launch
2. Does not guide correctly

While this is a fascinating conversation, I'd like to get down to the basic ideas.  After all this forum revolves around either model-building or graphic art.

[rickshaw]

rickshaw,

Both the British (RN) and the Argentines (Navy) had adopted the surface-to-surface or air-to-surface versions of the Exocet.  Adoption of a weapon does not allow you to understand everything about how it works and why it behaves the way it does.

I figured every nation that would adopt a weapon would basically through...

1. Training from the manufacturer
2. Training how to maintain the missile
3. Training how to operate the weapon in combat

...would effectively ensure the operator would know pretty much everything about the weapon in practice.

But would the manufacturer reveal everything they knew about the weapon system to their clients?   Particularly if their national government instructed me not to?   There were points that the French were very reluctant to reveal to the British about the Exocet because they wanted to keep an "ace" up their sleeve in case they were faced by an ex-client.

When the Argentines attacked and the British went to counter-attack, the British found they didn't quite know exactly how the Exocet's seeker worked (they knew it detected its target with radar and the missile homed in on the reflections, they didn't know exactly how it's internal logic or ECCM worked).

You're telling me most nations don't disassemble an exported weapons system down to it's individual elements and somehow dump the code in one way or another?

They can try but they won't know everything about the computer code that drives it, nor about how the seeker operates in real time.

The British went to the French, their nominal allies and the suppliers of the Exocet to the Argentines and asked, "OK, how does this work?  What frequencies does it use?  Did you give the Argentines any special tricks when you sold them the Exocet?"

When you say special tricks?  Do you mean special tactics, modifications to the weapon?

I mean special abilities which the Argentines might have paid extra for in their version of the Exocet.  Something that allowed it to be fired from longer range or for it to fly lower or faster.

The French were very reluctant to supply that information, for commercial reasons.

"Malfunction" means they didn't work when required to work.  I see it more as a case of, working but not necessarily quite in the way they were intended to.

Okay, here's what I mean: The missile when fired either...

1. Does not launch
2. Does not guide correctly

While this is a fascinating conversation, I'd like to get down to the basic ideas.  After all this forum revolves around either model-building or graphic art.

Then I'd recommend you find a better forum.

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

Then I'd recommend you find a better forum.

Well, for the time being, why not just get back onto the original topic?

In regards to the traditional fighter-roles

• What would have been a better option for a fighter/interceptor than the F-102 and F-106, provided that was the best choice
  
• What would have been a better option for a light-weight fighter than the F-104?
  
• Do you see any intrinsic problems with an attack-plane/tactical-bomber having one-engine provided it avoids excessive size and weight?

[PR19_Kit]

What would have been a better option for a fighter/interceptor than the F-102 and F-106, provided that was the best choice

The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow.................. 

[rickshaw]

What would have been a better option for a fighter/interceptor than the F-102 and F-106, provided that was the best choice

The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow.................. 

Fairey Delta III....     

[DogfighterZen]

• The F8U-3, though it never flew was originally designed to carry 3xAIM-7 or 4xAIM-9; it later would carry both together...
  

KJ, that's a bit of a contradiction, isn't it? And the F8U-3 first flew in 1958.

[sandiego89]

In regards to the traditional fighter-roles

• What would have been a better option for a fighter/interceptor than the F-102 and F-106, provided that was the best choice
  
• What would have been a better option for a light-weight fighter than the F-104?
  
• Do you see any intrinsic problems with an attack-plane/tactical-bomber having one-engine provided it avoids excessive size and weight?

The F-106 met the specifications (for an interceptor) and was an exceptional interceptor (let down a bit perhaps by the Falcon missiles).  It was not designed as a fighter (but was no slouch)- the USAF had other programs for fighters.  I say it was an excellent choice for an interceptor, and was much improved over the F-102.

The F-8 may have been a good choice for a land based interceptor performance wise, but came along after the F-102 and did not have the avionics/radar to meet the USAF requirements.   

The F-11 Super Tiger sounds like it would have been a great fit for many that ended up buying the F-104.  More versatile, likely would have had a better safety record and had great performance.  Some customers actually preferred it over the F-104.  Grumman did not resort to bribes among perhaps other factors.  The F-5 may have been a better option for some customers (but came along later).   

- The single vs multiple engine debate could go on forever.  The cost/benefit analysis, specific requirements and general preferences must be considered by the customer and the bidders.  If we get into the "medium bomber"/tactical bomber size range, thrust requirements earlier in the jet period usually dictated multiple engines.  (A-3/B-66, F-111, TSR2, A-6, Buccaneer, Canberra, etc).  The added safety of multiple engines was also a consideration for some customers, some more than others.  Perhaps surprisingly the US Navy seemed happy with both single and twin engine aircraft in a very unforgiving environment 
- The F-105 blurred the distinction perhaps more than others.  It really was a nuclear penetrator, but that was not a term in use.   
- "Attack" varies widely, and obviously many "attack" aircraft served admirably with one engine: A-1, A-4, A-7, (Super)Entendard, MiG-27, etc.  Others went with two engines.   The A-10 required maximum redundancy and twin engines was specified in the requirement.         

[KJ_Lesnick]

sandiego89

The F-106 met the specifications (for an interceptor) and was an exceptional interceptor (let down a bit perhaps by the Falcon missiles).

I agree that it performed very well, had very good avionics, and that the AIM-4's left a bit to be desired (mostly the lack of a proximity fuse).

It was not designed as a fighter (but was no slouch)- the USAF had other programs for fighters.

Which is kind of the problem that I listed in the OP.  I'm not objecting to a plane that's designed with a fast climb-rate, high altitude performance and so on; my objection was that it was only able to be used for that role due to it's weapons.

The fighters the USAF had were the following

• F-100: Though cannon-equipped, and possessed a tighter turning arc than probably all the other planes mentioned below; it was out-turned by older fighters such as the F-86 and MiG-15, and out-turned (and probably out-climbed) by more dedicated fighters such as the MiG-21 and F8U/F-8.  It's pitch-up traits were bad, though I'm not sure how the F-8 compared in stall characteristics (I know the F-8's spin was unrecoverable).
  
• F-101: It was cannon equipped, climbed and accelerated quite well, and had good overall range (this was good as it was developed as a bomber-escort); it however had bad pitch-up and post-stall gyration problems (owing at least partially to it's T-tail), and was structurally flimsy as initially designed (though rectified); it's remarkably heavy wing-loading (only partially offset by it's aspect-ratio and T-tail) ensured that most of its subsonic agility could be used below 20,000 feet (undesirable for a bomber-escort), though it did have good sustained turn-rates at these altitudes (slightly inferior to the F-4, and about the same as the F-104 with its maneuvering-flaps out).  Though it was probably far more useful than one would expect even in the air-superiority role, it was largely used as an interceptor (where speed and climb came in useful), and as a fighter-bomber (where it's heavy wing-loading found itself good for low-gust response), and a reconnaissance aircraft (same).
  
• F-104: It had an excellent rate of acceleration, climb-rate, roll-rate, and was able to fly faster than most other aircraft of the time (high and low); it had good overall cockpit-visibility, a cannon with an excellent rate of fire, and an accurate gunsight; it unfortunately also had a tendency for deep-stalls (owing to it's T-tail) and nearly unrecoverable spins.  It's corner-velocity was relatively high, limiting the bulk of it's turning-performance to that below 20,000 feet, though it's sustained-turn rates were good under those conditions (at least once maneuvering-flaps were fitted).
  
• F-105: Though technically classified as a fighter, and gave a surprisingly good account of itself in total number of airplanes shot-down; it's kill ratio was only around 1:1 and the USAF and NATO needs dictated a need for a kill-ratio of around 3-4 to allow our more expensive designs to prevail over the superior numbers the USSR; it's performance characteristics were essentially dominated by the need to deliver a nuclear bomb at low altitude, and that lead to a heavy wing-loading which affected it's agility.
  

The F-8 may have been a good choice for a land based interceptor performance wise, but came along after the F-102 and did not have the avionics/radar to meet the USAF requirements.

The F-8's top speed might have been higher at low/mid altitudes (airspeed limits), but lower at high altitude (mach limits).  I could be wrong, however.

I base this data on the following

• The F-100 was said by two people (one guy who operated the KC-135 boom, another person who flew E-2's in the US Navy) to be capable of Mach 2: I'm not sure of the aircraft's maximum indicated airspeed, but provided it's 600 or greater that would allow Mach 2 starting around 43000 feet.
  
• The F8U-1 (F-8A, RF-8A, TF-8A, F-8B) were supposedly limited to Mach 1.7 due to the shape of the nose: They also did not appear to have a door on one side to relieve air pressure in the duct, and the intake swallowing the shock had explosive results (it sounded like a 40mm shell went off below them).
  
• The F8U-2NE/F-8E was said to be able to do Mach 1.85 due to the (ironically) fatter nose that kept the shock-wave off the lip.
  

I would also like to point out that this could indeed be wrong, governments do keep secrets, and produce misinformation (an arguably necessary fact) for various reasons, however considering the F-8 has long been retired...

• During the development of the F8U, it was realized the aircraft would be unable to meet it's performance targets due to a lack of area-ruling: Area ruling was implemented as a result
  
• During flight-testing there were plans to implement additional aerodynamic changes to make the aircraft able to achieve the Mach 2.0 target: These were never implemented indicating that Mach 1.7 was either enough, the F8U-1 managed to achieve Mach 2.0 (for one reason or another the calculation I received might have been wrong), or that the F8U-2 would be able to do it soon enough.
  
• The F8U-2 series did have a door on the side of the fuselage to dump excessive air-pressure overboard (which would possibly squeeze some extra performance out of it).
  

You're right about the radar, far as I know, the F-4 lacked things the F-106 had.

The F-11 Super Tiger sounds like it would have been a great fit for many that ended up buying the F-104.

It definitely handled better, in fact it's major flaw was predominantly that it was power-limited.  The J79 would have likely rectified this and given it performance in excess of Mach 2.  I'm not sure if it could fly supersonic as far as the F-104, fly as fast down low, but it was definitely slick.

The single vs multiple engine debate could go on forever.  The cost/benefit analysis, specific requirements and general preferences must be considered by the customer and the bidders.

My issue isn't entirely an objection to two engines: My objections are

• That the USAF opposed any single-engined attack-plane/tactical bomber
  
• The USAF generally had rather hefty payload requirements even for light bombers: Since they deleted attack category, the necessity is for something to take that place and fighters aren't always good for it
  

Perhaps surprisingly the US Navy seemed happy with both single and twin engine aircraft in a very unforgiving environment

They wanted a small design

The F-105 blurred the distinction perhaps more than others.  It really was a nuclear penetrator, but that was not a term in use.

Well, it's a tactical bomber

"Attack" varies widely

Other than gunships I prefer tactical-bomber as a designation: I consider the A-1, A-4, A-7 as such examples, as do I consider the A-10.