Replace the hotshot fighter jocks with NCO pilots, saturate the skies with cheap COIN aircraft and kill the jihadis where ever we find them.
Posted on 12/17/2014 7:19:08 AM PST by ImJustAnotherOkie
That’s a big propeller !
Replace the hotshot fighter jocks with NCO pilots, saturate the skies with cheap COIN aircraft and kill the jihadis where ever we find them.
.....and, yes, I know the flip answer is "Sure! Why not?" ..... but really? Would it be better to have less firepower more readily available, or more firepower that's less readily available?
I dunno - that's why I'm asking. There's got to be a FAC on FR, somewhere.
P-51s (by then designated F-51) got torn up pretty badly flying ground attack missions in Korea. The Packard/Merlin just couldn’t take the damage from groundfire.
There’s been considerable speculation over the years about why the USAF sent F-51s, as opposed to F-47 Thunderbolts (which like the Mustang were still in service with ANG units) to Korea. Big air cooled radials can take a heck of a lot more damage than liquid cooled plants like the Packard Merlin can. The speculation breaks down into two camps. One, that the USAF brass wanted to ditch the old WWII prop aircraft for jets and losing a lot in comabt would make their case and two, the F-51 units were mostly on the West Coast while the F-47s were on the East, so the ‘stangs went as a matter of logistical convienience.
Speaking of propeller driven flying tanks, I’m surprised some nit-wit in congress hasn’t suggested an “updated version” of the Brewster Buffalo.
“Even the most spectacular equipment will not sell just on its merits. You need some cronyism in your corner or it’s no sale.”
When I worked operational test, it was also apparent that even if your product stunk, you could get Congress to fund it - if you had the right people in your pocket.
Awesome. Me likey. Must be I’m a dinosaur huh?
I do know that P-47s were considered flying tanks, in their day.
Face it the A-10 is practically irreplaceable.
Face it the A-10 is practically irreplaceable.
Who, Me or the Airplane??? Hahah!
“..The Douglas A-1 Skyraider (formerly AD) was an American single-seat attack aircraft that saw service between the late 1940s and early 1980s. The Skyraider had a remarkably long and successful career; it became a piston-powered, propeller-driven anachronism in the jet age, and was nicknamed “Spad”, after the French World War I fighter...”
One of my favorite aircraft...
There was an article years back, in USNI Proceedings, making the case that the optimal armed escort for V-22 Ospreys would be an updated F7F Tigercat.
The Tigercat would be a better starting point than the P-38, being larger and capable of carrying much larger loads (and a big gun in the nose), but also having big damage-resistant radial engines.
Except the push would be to upgrade to turboprops. But still, the F7F would be a better option than the Lightning.
The A10 can only be replaced by another A10.
As I recall Chuck Spinney and other reformists were behind this. The later Moody Sutter spent many a Wednesday evening at the Ft Myer lounge discussing their misguided beliefs about warfare.
I never understood why the p-38 wasn’t fitted with merlin’s, up armored and 4 20mm cannons. That would have been quite a ground support package in WWII.
Burt Rutan had a really neat concept ban in the 90s for a light ground attack jet. Called ARES, it had a 20mm Vulcan and a very well thought out design. Slightly forward swept wings for maneuverability, the jet intake on the side if the fuselage opposite the gun to avoid gas ingestion problems.
The P-47, with its big P&W radial and 8 50 cal machine guns, was the better beast for that job.
Big gun + Titanium bathtub + wings
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.