quote:

Originally posted by FlyingScot:
Returned to flight status? Wonder if they are considering on submitting this back into contention with AF?

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:

quote:

They would rather send a $100 million F-35 against a goat-herder in a mud shack than send something costing a tenth that much

...which may see the Army with armed fixed-wing aircraft again in the foreseeable future.

I am all for this, but I don't ever see it happening.

IMO, the USAF would fight tooth and nail against the Army having a significant fixed-wing capability, even if it's for a mission the USAF doesn't really seem to care much about.

They don't want to do CAS/close support, and they don't want anybody else to do it, either. That may be an overly-pessimistic assessment of the current situation, but it's the way I see it.

That isn't overly-pessimistic, it's the sad truth. I think the USMC only got away with insisting on having their own CAS (and everything else) because they are so small (plus the nature of expeditionary ops).

Turning fixed-wing CAS over to the Army would make the most operational sense. AF would stick to strategic air missions and air superiority.

quote:

Originally posted by FlyingScot:
Arabian Cowboy - from someone who tasks the various assets and is in the "know"...what are your thoughts on a super simple, maneuverable gun based airframe like this? Useful?

What doesn't it offer that would need to be added if as these move up? This is a very different platform than Scorpion (more a middleweight than "light" CAS) and even the Texan or Tucano. The practical view is always enlightening, even it steps on our internet dreamers

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
The Air Force simply doesn't WANT a low cost 'affordable' ground attack aircraft. If we did, we would still be flying something like the Douglas A-1 Skyraider (VERY rugged piston-engine attack plane designed in WWII, seeing service in Korea and Vietnam). There is no prestige involved in this kind of fighting, and the USAF just loves high speed pointy invisible overcomplicated jets that cost obscene amounts of money.

Back in the 70s, Piper built the Piper PA-48 Enforcer. It was basically this same kind of low cost COIN (counter-insurgency) aircraft, based on the P-51 design. It was apparently a decent design that tested well, but the USAF wasn't interested then, just as they aren't interested now in any such aircraft.

They would rather send a $100 million F-35 against a goat-herder in a mud shack than send something costing a tenth that much. It's an institutional hang-up; one of many I have seen in the past 30 years.

quote:

The gun just is not super useful in CT/COIN type combat. I've seen every platform with a gun shoot, at some point, ground targets during the past 14 years with the exception of F-22s. Great for area suppression on the rare occasions that's needed. Great for containment fires. But for strike, I almost always want an AGM, PGM or LGB in the current environment.