Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #1
I read an article that brought this up a bit. Does the US need cheap attack planes?
I say they do. In vietnam, the old Korean a-1 was taken out of mothballs and pressed into service. Think of the A-1 as a WWII Thunderbolt on steroids. Except, it's so large for the engine that it was slow. But the range was over 1000 miles. It had a phenomenal loiter time. The Navy got rid of theirs when they got their new and shiny A-7s. The AF grabbed every one of the Navies A-1s and used them for Sandy Missions. It was the first Titanium Bathtub attack bird of any kind. The A-7 continued that. So has the A-10. The AF grabbed as many A-7s as they could get from the navy as well.
Going into the war, USAF was really geared up to fight a Nuclear Fight. The AC just wasn't designed for ground attack at all. From 1965 and up, the AF started to change their birds out getting rid of the century series fighters and replacing them with Attack Birds, both old and new. The F-4 also saw some dramatic changes from the early models that USAF went into the war with and ended up with the F-4E that was the supreme fighter.
Which Vietnam Era Attack bird was the best? Depends on the job. For Sandy, it was the A-1E. For ground attack, it was a tossup between the A-7 and A-6. The A-4 gets an honorable mention. The A-37 barely makes the list but it's what they are looking at for specs.
The OV-10 made the list but it made it in CAS and Recon.
WE only have one dedicated Attack Bird right now and that is the A-10. The A-10 is rushing to being taken out of service due to age and condition. This is why the two different light attack fighters are being seriously. They are new and can operate a lot further out than the A-10. The rumors of USAF redesigning the A-10 into a new Air Frame is just that. WE need those two light fighters to fill in gaps that we have even today. Why fly a 50mil to a 100 mil aircraft into harms way when you can fly a 10 mil bird in and do the same job. Sorry, but if they fired up some kind of A-10 line right now, the A-10 would be in the 40mil range for cost.
I say they do. In vietnam, the old Korean a-1 was taken out of mothballs and pressed into service. Think of the A-1 as a WWII Thunderbolt on steroids. Except, it's so large for the engine that it was slow. But the range was over 1000 miles. It had a phenomenal loiter time. The Navy got rid of theirs when they got their new and shiny A-7s. The AF grabbed every one of the Navies A-1s and used them for Sandy Missions. It was the first Titanium Bathtub attack bird of any kind. The A-7 continued that. So has the A-10. The AF grabbed as many A-7s as they could get from the navy as well.
Going into the war, USAF was really geared up to fight a Nuclear Fight. The AC just wasn't designed for ground attack at all. From 1965 and up, the AF started to change their birds out getting rid of the century series fighters and replacing them with Attack Birds, both old and new. The F-4 also saw some dramatic changes from the early models that USAF went into the war with and ended up with the F-4E that was the supreme fighter.
Which Vietnam Era Attack bird was the best? Depends on the job. For Sandy, it was the A-1E. For ground attack, it was a tossup between the A-7 and A-6. The A-4 gets an honorable mention. The A-37 barely makes the list but it's what they are looking at for specs.
The OV-10 made the list but it made it in CAS and Recon.
WE only have one dedicated Attack Bird right now and that is the A-10. The A-10 is rushing to being taken out of service due to age and condition. This is why the two different light attack fighters are being seriously. They are new and can operate a lot further out than the A-10. The rumors of USAF redesigning the A-10 into a new Air Frame is just that. WE need those two light fighters to fill in gaps that we have even today. Why fly a 50mil to a 100 mil aircraft into harms way when you can fly a 10 mil bird in and do the same job. Sorry, but if they fired up some kind of A-10 line right now, the A-10 would be in the 40mil range for cost.
