The US Air Force wants to roll out a cheaper attack aircraft to fly alongside the A-1

I shake my head often about decisions made in the Five-Sided Puzzle Palace – and by politicos who should keep their noses out of those decisions. They've been talking for years about scrapping the Wart Hog, claiming the F-22 and F-35 can do the job just as well. Now, military planners claim the want to buy Observation, Attack, Experimental aircraft that are effective – and cheaper.


Hell! We already had them years ago.






But no, they'll go through another lengthy – and expensive – acquisitions program to let out bids and have a bunch of companies come up with designs.


Story @ http://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-a-10-oa-x-2016-9

 

Stealth cost $$$ these days (as also needing to conceal weaponry being carried) and the replacement to the F-14 & F/A-18 a/c's and predecessor to the F-22 was the stealth A-12 Avenger Navy carrier-launched delta wing, but cancelled at the end of the Cold War by SOD Cheney under Bush the senior.

The Navy & Air Force NEVER agree on a universal a/c, as the Navy is concerned with carrier-launch & onboard storage profile, whereas the Air Force seems more interested in a dog-fighting a/c.

Isnt the A-1 a Navy a/c and the warthog is the USAF A-10 Thunderbolt?

A universal a/c that satisfies both services has never happened!

 

Something with a warp drive that only BB-8 could pilot might satisfy both services.

 

I think we should add 100 more BRRRRRRRRRTTTTTS

 

The A-1 is a Prop Job first flown at ge very end of WWIINand used in Vuetnam and Korea. Known as the AD-1 made by Douglas . Excellent attack airplane had long loiter time but would be sauce table to weapons in thus modern era.

Is that an observation utility aircraft you are showing there?



http://www.walltor.com/images/wallpaper/douglas-a1-skyraider-130335.jpg

 

That us a OV-10 Bronco not an A-1. .... See my other post for a pic if a A-1

 

OP meant A10 I'd guess.... yea cheap platforms for low intensity conflicts are fun and reliable until cheap portable systems which take them down filter into the hands of the OPFOR. Think USSR in Afghanistan re stingers. They don't even need MANPADS or some future directed energy job, just a high powered laser at the aircrew will suffice. Grounds troops are going to have to get used to indirect fires from attached units, or medium to high altitude air support because its going to simply become too dangerous to fly down low and wave your wings and make loud noises with your gatling. Despite the old romantics around the place...

 

The USN and USAF both used the F4, A7, C130.
In fact, the USN and the USAF have together used several types of aircraft since at least WW2.

 

Mostly the U.S. Air Force adopting Navy/Marine Corps aircraft.

The F-4 Phantom was originally a carrier base interceptor designed to intercept Soviet bombers that would be attacking CBG's. No guns just missiles to shoot down Soviet Bear bombers. The USAF would adopt the Navy's F-4 and put a gun on it.

The Navy's attack A-7 would be adopted by the USAF and see service from the Vietnam War through the first Gulf war (Desert Storm)

The Navy's Douglas A-1 Skyraider would be adopted by the USAF during the Vietnam War.

The Navy's largest carrier base bomber, the Douglas A-3 would be adopted by the USAF and would become the B-66.

The Navy's ASW SH-3 helicopter would be adopted and modified by the USAF to become the HH-3 Jolly Green Giant.

Right of hand I can't think of any post WW ll USAF aircraft that has been adopted by the Navy or Marine Corps except for the C-130.

 

WW2 has many examples.
Post WW2 - F86 became the F2J.
All I can think of right now.

 

Correction, that would be the FJ-2'

F = Fighter
J= North American Aviation
2= Seconf fighter built by North American Aviation for the Navy and Marine Corps.

But you are correct, the USN took the USAF F-86 Sabre and modified it with landing gear that could take an impact of landing on a carrier. Added a tail hook, folding wings and replaced the six .50 HMG's with four 20 mm cannons.

But the F-86 was developed for the U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF). There was no USAF before the National Security Act of 1947.

 

My mistake.
Embarrassing, given there is only a small handful of people who understand how the Navy designated their aircraft at the time and I am among them.

 

Not really, using the old pre 1962 navy's designation for aircraft it should have been the F2J.

But someone went with FJ-2.

 

Here's a good one TOG 6, the Navy's and Marine Corps FA-18 Hornet is just a carrier base Northrop F-17 that competed against the F-16 for the Air Force low end fighter competition. The F-16 won the contract.

The Navy was looking for a replacement for the F-4 Phantom and looked at Northrop's F-17, Northrop not having any experience building carrier capable aircraft brought McDonnell Douglas on board who had more than enough experience building aircraft for the Navy and they strengthen the air frame to handle a tail hook, replaced the landing gear with landing gear that can take a beating, wing tips that folded up and added some hard points to carry bombs and you ended up with the FA-18.

 

Yes, I recall that.

 

The A-10 is massive overkill for counter-insurgency work. We should have something like the Super Tucano (I personally am a fan of the OV-10X Super Bronco concept of the AT-802 Airtractor with its dual .50 Gatling guns).

I also think the Air Force could do with a light strike/LIFT aircraft to fill the role of the old Super Tweet/Dragonfly. The Textron Scorpion looks like a good option.