Posted on 08/05/2016 1:57:45 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Roll the clock back six years to 2010. The US Air Force had just shelved a proposal to stand up a new wing of fighters based on the OA-X, a concept for a propeller-driven, light-attack fighter – reviving the role played by the Vietnam-era Douglas A-1 Skyraider.
Instead, the USAF would acquire OA-X aircraft on behalf of cash-poor partners, and let them operate the type. If the concept proved useful to those nations, service officials said they would reconsider the merits of standing up a light-attack wing.
Six years later, the Sierra Nevada/Embraer A-29 Super Tucano has made its combat debut with the Afghan air force (below). As expected, the OA-X concept was dusted off and re-studied. In late July, interest grew after a private USAF briefing to leading defence analysts suggested a light-attack fighter acquisition was back on the table.
US Air Force
In fact, it was only a mirage. In remarks to reporters on 2 August, Air Combat Command chief Gen Herbert Carlisle made it clear that he has no more intention of acquiring a light-attack fleet than any of his modern predecessors. In Carlisle’s view, one dollar spent on light attack is one less the USAF can apply to higher priorities, such as the Lockheed Martin F-35A and Northrop Grumman B-21.
Of course, the Department of Defense launched the F-35A in 2001 expecting the fighter to be available for combat in 2011 and cost an average of $40 million, or $54 million if adjusted for inflation. Upon the declaration of initial operational capability on 2 August, the F-35A is projected to cost an average of $106 million, and that assumes Lockheed can drive that figure down to $85 million on a unit basis as production ramps up.
So it is no wonder that Carlisle is hoarding every dollar to replace a combination of nearly 2,000 Lockheed F-16s, Boeing F-15Es and Fairchild Republic A-10s with 1,763 F-35As over the next 20 years.
That does not mean, however, that there is no place for light-attack capability in a modern air force. Even in its current limited state, the stealth and speed of an F-35A is wildly out of place in combat against Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Islamic State targets.
A light-attack platform would be more vulnerable to ground fire than the Joint Strike Fighter, but still far more survivable than the utility and cargo helicopters that regularly fly in such airspace.
A Super Tucano costs one-tenth of an F-35A and a whole OA-X squadron costs the equivalent of two of the fifth-generation type; good value, in other words.
Read up on the OV-10 Combat Dragon II..
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/ov-10-broncos-were-sent-to-fight-isis-and-they-kicked-a-1764407068
....just hope the A-10’s hold out the longest....
so effective
It seems to me that the A-10 is all around a better weapon than the Tucano. Why discard a great weapon for a lesser?
I loved the Skyraider. Long hang time, heavy weapons load and could take a beating.
The Super Tucano is significantly smaller than the A-10 and has visibly lower operating costs per hour and is designed for more austere operating environments. So you save up a lot in life-cycle costs and (in theory) would be able to fly more missions.
Understood. It does have a lower profile as does the Cessna. How rugged is it I wonder.
It seems to me that the A-10 is all around a better weapon than the Tucano. Why discard a great weapon for a lesser?
...
It’s difficult to rip off the taxpayer with either one.
It’s not meant for the same role as the A-10; it’s a misfit outside of the “low threat” environment.
Why not have both?
No more military weapons till after the election. We keep arming the Dhimmicrats
http://www.heavy-fuel-engines.com/heavy-fuel-engine/
This one would need a "bespoke" multi-rotor version:
Odungo with muzzie pressure... it’s very effective and deadly....it’s too good
They also don’t make A-10s and more and all the tooling was destroyed by order of Congress. We can make new wings for it thanks to Boeing recently painstakingly (read: expensively) creating new wings and the related tooling.
Er, they don’t make A-10s any more, even.
Campaign contributions and other kickbacks.
Stalin is quoted as saying that “quantity has a quality all its own.” Another route to fill the need we have is mass production of a capable model of drone.
I have a pretty good feeling Trump will put a lot of attention upon the A10 and its survival.
Change article title from US Air Force to US Army...
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.