It is about hunting and shooting! Just not animals.
Some of you know that my Nephew is head of engineering at Air Tractor. I believe it is the go to crop duster. He is heading up the Military version for SOCOM. It does close air support and a 6 hour loitering time over the battle field. It can carry bombs, rockets, or a Gatling gun. A little about the Sky Warden.
Butch -
Howdy !
Last I read…the DoD had once again cancelled the new low cost “ Close Air Support“ aircraft program… and it was not the first time they have done so. While an A-10 replacement is supposedly intended to take on such missions, the DoD wants one thing, and it seems Congress wants another. And for a long time, keeping the A-10 on strength is what Congress wanted. As for an A-10 “ replacement “….
Gottta watch “ specialization “….
During WWII, Korean War, and War in Vietnam ….“ Close Air Support “ -
“ Battlefield Air Interdiction “ ( CAS/BAI ) missions were often assigned to U.S. fighter aircraft; once they had established Air Superiority in the battle space. It made/makes little sense for the U.S. to buy highly-specialized aircraft, which then can only be utilized for a subset of select missions. Example: some early -70’s F-15 pilots wanted the plane to be flown as a pure “interceptor“ ( “ Air-to-Air “ ). They rather loudly proclaimed repeatedly, ” Not a pound, for air-to-ground “. Of course, this was basic silliness. What were the F-15 pilots and planes to so; once there were no more enemy aircraft to intercept & shoot down ? Having them sit idle was a non-starter. The U.S. has fought no major ground wars in recent decades, without our ground troops enjoying air cover.
Again…once air superiority is established, the victorious fighters will be used in air-to-ground roles’. Even final iterations of F-14 were re-configured to be able to carry and drop bombs.
Since the advent of the F-15, F-16, and F-18, aircraft given a “ fighter “ ( F ) mission designator have continued to be designed and manufactured to also be able to perform “ air-to-ground “ missions. Moreover, fighter pilots train for all such missions.
The A-10 basically set the bar, for ( back then ) what the U.S. considered an attack aircraft should be. But…killing Russian tanks crossing the “ Fulda Gap “ has not been demonstrated as the likely mission of a dedicated US Air Force “ attack plane “ in today’s world. Moreover, it has been argued that the A-10 was/is not maximized to operate successfully in a battle space protected by the latest generation of high-tech counter-air missiles…during high tempo/high-intensity warfare scenarios.
The larger reality is that a long loiter time offered by slower moving / thick straight winged aircraft so that they can await or be assigned targets; also means that can be/would be exposed to counter-air missiles and anti-aircraft fire longer themselves.
A single engine turboprop-based A-10 replacement will doubtless be slower than the
aircraft it was designed to replace, and likely feature not as thick armor around the cockpit as the A-10 has. In a low-intensity conflict / insurgency…anti-aircraft fire would come from small arms and perhaps smaller calibre machine guns & auto-canons. But, all manner of refined anti-aircraft munitions might be lobbed at the same slow mover in a near-peer war. In addition, the turbo prop’s ability to self-deploy would be undertaken at speeds slower than those the A-10 can deploy with, the turboprops attainable ferry range not withstanding.
With the passing of the A1 Skyraider, A5 Vigilante, A-4 Skyhawk, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair and such; the A-10 has soldiered on as the final U.S. aircraft to carry on in a truely
Attack plane role’… as it fer sher ain’t no “ fighter “.
To simplify aircraft complexity and cost, the turbo prop would likely need to be cue’d to time-critical targets by off aircraft sensors, while itself carry a sensor suite of controlled size and capabilities. This Implies cuing by drones in many scenarios…when there are already drones that can loiter, perform target ID, discrimination, designation, attack, post-attack assessment; re-attack as necessary. And, the subject of the attack plane’s potential use for “ Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses “ ( SEAD ) has itself not even been discussed here; yet.
Any new, dedicated “ attack “ plane design would be competing for relevance in the presence of both current manned fighters, and planned un-crewed “ loyal wingman “ craft; other uncrewed air vehicles and drones.
For the Armed Services, especially the Air Force:
What do you need ?
What can you afford ?
What aircraft configuration is possible ?
With regards,
357Mag
