Posted on 12/17/2014 7:19:08 AM PST by ImJustAnotherOkie
For the rest of the story - the Boeing VP who managed FCS and "managed" to piss away $2B of the company's dollars was subsequently promoted to President of the Defense division, where he oversaw gutting the tactical aircraft part of the business and basically just spun the BDS wheels in the mud for half a decade. Now he's at the corporate HQ being groomed for the top spot of CEO of the whole company when the current CEO retires.
But it's all good because he's a "rock star" doncha' know. That ought to keep those tax payer dollars flowing into Boeing's coffers, because what Congress Critter doesn't want to be seen with a "rock star"??
It’s Navy, silly.
All this talk about replacing the A-10 with a light attack aircraft to “saturate” the battlefield is fine and well as a theoretical discussion. Ask pilots if they’d rather go up in an A-10 or a modernized P-51 or P-38, or an armored crop-duster, and I suspect that you’ll get a different answer.
The A-10 is simply the best ground support aircraft ever designed and fielded. It is, by today’s standards, an incredibly cheap aircraft, and it is feared by our enemies. It can and has taken huge hits, or in some cases literally hundreds of hits, and brought its crew home safely to fly, bomb and strafe another day. From my perspective, we should be building MORE of them, with suitable replacement ceramic and/or Kevlar-type armor where it would increase survivablility, range, payload, etc. New engines might increase both range and payload - it has been nearly 40 years since it was designed, after all.
Those other planes were legendary - in their time. We no longer live in the 1940s, and we owe our aircrews better technology and a better chance of dying as old men in bed than a 1940s-designed plane, however much we like the way it looks or however much nostalgia we have for it. Armored crop-dusters are a great design exercise for college or grad students, but they have no place on a battlefield in which even cave-dwelling savages have Stingers or multi-barrelled AA guns.
The P-47 would have been a blast to fly. My personal favorite. 2000+hp, 8 .50cal’s, and a stout airframe, what else can you want?
Where is the 30mm gun?
I had a great book on this impressive plane but my brother lent it to a friend against my advice and we will never see again.
There was an upgraded, upgunned version of the P-38 called the “Chain Lightning”, but iirc it didn’t work very well. The P-38 was, at the time itvwas designed, bleeding edge techology with very tight tolerances. Didn’t lend itself to upgrades very well.
Although the upgraded/optimized P-38 you hypothecize did exist, somewhat, in the P-61 Black Widow.
I was just discussing this plane last night. A knowledgeable source tells me the F35 is a dog.
beautiful photo
What was that oddball twin boom crop duster that was in a Mad Max movie? I saw one of those at an air show once with military markings and hard points.
I hear the same. It’s ugly too. I have a thing about ugly planes.
>>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.
The F-51 was cheaper to operate as a CAS plane, and the USAF Brass sold the remaining F-47N’s to the Nationalist Chinese.
Catch the sheet of plywood sticking out from under the rear fuse. The thing had dive brakes like barn doors.
I figured someone would post that...
What I don’t understand is why they stopped at 2. Add 6 or 8 more and you’d really have something.
Air Force literally flew the wings off the AD Skyraiders in Vietnam. They inquired about restarting the production line, but the retooling costs and startup were prohibitive.
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.