/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/WJSH3JZN35FEPNSJ3UY4ANLIIA.jpg)
A Beechcraft AT-6 experimental aircraft flies over White Sands Missile
Range. The AT-6 is participating in the U.S. Air Force Light Attack
Experiment (OA-X), a series of trials to determine the feasibility of
using light aircraft in attack roles.
Dated“Their A-1 Skyraider — the last tail-wheeled airplane in the Navy inventory — was the world’s biggest, most powerful prop-driven, single-seat combat aircraft, able to lift truly freakish weapons loads, greater than that of a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress,” wrote historian Don Hollway for the magazine.
The Air Force’s ongoing interest in adding a fleet of light-attack
aircraft to its arsenal is a reminder that, sometimes, slower and
cheaper can be better.
Half a century ago, the Air Force’s legendary A-1E Skyraiders —
affectionately known as Spads, after a wood-and-wire World War I fighter
— proved their mettle in the skies over Vietnam, providing close-air
support for American and Vietnamese troops on the ground.
“We were flying anachronisms, piloting Spads through a supersonic
world, tasting the thunderstorms at 8,000 feet when an SR-71 [supersonic
spy plane] was hitting three times the speed of sound above 70,000
feet,” former B-52 and A-1E pilot Capt. Richard Drury told Vietnam Magazine, a sister publication of Air Force Times.
More @ Air Force Times
I kind of get it. They are not flashy and don’t have all the high-tech goodies. But as a civilian, I never understood how a jet at 400 MPH+ is worth shit at air to ground combat. They are just too damn fast to be effective. Yes, we have combat helicopters that somewhat fill the needs. But they have limited range and flight times. Plus they carry a heavy maintenance requirement. Unlike prop-airplanes that have a longer range, higher capacity, and much lower maintenance cost.
ReplyDeleteIt just seems to me the top-brass is more into flashy new toys, than focusing on what really works. We have a tested and proven airframe the A-10 Warthog. Which by every measure is one of the most effective planes in the arsenal. And it is being phased out, without any replacement. We have designed how many replacements for the heavy bomber, the B-52. How many hundreds of billions of dollars spent? The only ones designed are too expensive to build in quantity. Not much use.
If my information is correct the 2019 Air Force budget plans to retire the service’s B-1Bs and B-2s. Once sufficient B-21 Raiders are operational. And also to upgrade the B-52 fleet. The estimates for the B-21 bomber cost have ranged between a low of $33 billion to a high of $58 billion. Just a thought how many new B-52 would $33 billion buy? Looking at the high side what could cancelling just two of the B-21s get? Perhaps, 70-100 new B-52s. The cost of a new Boeing 777 is about $320 million. Now I know military version B-52 will cost more but.
I believe we need to give our service people the best we can. However, I also believe those in command would rather spend $145 billion on a new toy, than $5 billion for infantry troops body armor. They can’t put their name on the body armor. Or retire into a cushy multimillion dollar job at a military supplier.
Badger