Posted on 10/25/2018 9:05:55 AM PDT by C19fan
The F-35 can fit just 4 weapons in it's internal bays.
Put them anywhere else and its just another tubby non-stealthy vehicle.
A near-peer war would end in a nuclear exchange after a week or so which is why we haven’t had one of those since WWII. Sure we will need equipment capable of defeating Russian SAMs but we need workhorses for
low-intensity conflicts. Probably makes sense to develop a light attack craft fleet.
...it’s always been the air force that despised the a-10 because it wasn’t sexy...
Evidence?
The problem with the P-51 doing ground support was its liquid cooled engine. One hit on the radiator/cooling system and the engine overheats and seizes up.
The P-47 Thunderbolt, F4U Corsair, and the A-1 Skyraider had radial (i.e. air cooled) engines, which could absorb damage and keep running. The Thunderbolt and Corsair used the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engine, while the Skyraider used the Wright R-3350 Duplex Cyclone.
The problem with the P-51 doing ground support was its liquid cooled engine. One hit on the radiator/cooling system and the engine overheats and seizes up.
The P-47 Thunderbolt, F4U Corsair, and the A-1 Skyraider had radial (i.e. air cooled) engines, which could absorb damage and keep running. The Thunderbolt and Corsair used the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engine, while the Skyraider used the Wright R-3350 Duplex Cyclone.
but, just for you . . . .
I doubt they’re gonna dropo $100 million F-35Bs at some FOB. They’ve got enough speed, loiter time and refueling to get them where they’re needed. The support trains for the F-35 make forward positioning very problematic.
...people who start demanding evidence know that they have lost the debate...
That's a ludicrous statement.
Are you really that stupid?
You are correct. See? Ideas are already flowing. An A-1 Skyraider, armed with updated, armor, weapons and avionics would be a great weapon against small groups of jihadis in the field. The military establishment has accepted the AC-130 in a somewhat similar, updated role for the traditional C-130. Why not the Skyraider?
I'd even let Boeing or Lockheed pad their budget - and it would still be super-cheap, and probably more effective.
We’re already there.
The USAF has procured the A29 Super Tucano for the Afghani’s and it’s a good alternative to the A-10 and the F-35.
The A-10 is officially designated the Thunderbolt II. Warthog is an unofficial name.
In all fairness the AF did try to retire the A-10 after they rewinged the fleet a few years ago. They then tried to give it to the Army without the associated maintenance funds. They have not exactly expressed strong desires to keep it?
That is beautiful!
No, they don’t!
Afghans are dropping laser guided munitions off the A-29s.
The USAF has already procured the A29 Super Tucano for the Afghan Air Force. Many are pushing the USAF to adopt it as a smaller, lighter and significantly cheaper alternative to the A-10.
I’ve always thought that this class of aircraft (A29 and competitors) was an ideal solution for LICs. I think the USAF is hoping to use Afghanistan as a proof of concept.
As long as the Key West accords are in place, the A-10 nor any other fixed wing attack aircraft will fly with The Army.
The C-130 is still in production, where as the other three have not been manufactured since:
Douglas Skyraider: 1957
Chance Vought F4U Corsair: 1953
Republic P-47: 1945
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.